Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Sassoon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I do not belong to that small group of people who think that any old memorial will do, as long as we get one. Let me remind your Lordships that we already have at least half a dozen Holocaust memorials in this country and at least 21 learning centres, including the much-praised one set up by the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein. I cannot see anything going up in VTG that will better that.

I want to add a few comments on the three topics that are in this group: the kiosk, flooding and the memorials. I feel very strongly about the kiosk, and I am grateful to the Select Committee. Indeed, I am grateful to members of the Select Committee for turning up today and at other hearings, given that they sat through the objections for about six weeks, with great patience, and were very constrained in what they could say. Their presence here, I think, speaks for itself. We are grateful.

On the kiosk, the Select Committee said that its principal concern was

“the congregation of very large numbers of visitors at the proposed new kiosk immediately adjacent to the playground. This raises child safety issues. Unless there is some overriding necessity for the proposed new kiosk, we recommend”

that it should be removed “from the present plans”. This was in response to my submission to the committee that there should be no food and drink sales, let alone souvenirs and hamburger vans, in the gardens or nearby if the memorial is sited there.

It seems to me that to allow a kiosk shows a profound misunderstanding of what a memorial should be reminding us of. A café of a coke-and-crisps nature, which is what this would be, because it would be for park-goers, visitors and all sorts, is deeply disrespectful as a memorial to people who starved to death. Having a café there will simply cause more congestion, litter and crowding. Those are the reasons for the amendment.

This café would not be like one you might find in Yad Vashem or in Washington, because it would be open to the whole neighbourhood and everyone who turns up. A new café would bring all the detritus that such cafés inevitably bring to a public park, with thousands of people queuing and using it—both those coming out to do so and passers-by. It is not a good idea. Indeed, if it were removed, there would be more room for the playground, which is being reduced in size.

In response, the promoter said no more than that they will look at the design and location carefully. Driven as it is by commercial attitudes and wanting to maximise the day-trip atmosphere, I have grave doubts about this. It may also be thinking of the many builders who will be in the gardens for decades doing restoration and renewal, who will want their mugs of builder’s tea, just adding to the inappropriate atmosphere. The presence of not only the kiosk but crowds in the gardens will no doubt bring vans selling burgers and ice cream, and souvenir sellers. I have no confidence that by-laws will prevent this. It is imperative that if a memorial atmosphere is to be created, such smelly and noisy intrusions should be prevented—making more room for the playground, as I said.

On flooding, I defer, of course, to the masterly presentation by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. The trouble with all the pictures we have seen of the proposed memorial is that it is always in the sunshine, and it is always sketches. Rain and inclement weather seem never to be considered in the plans. For example, the promoters have mentioned gatherings of hundreds of people on the sloping entrance to the learning centre, but in reality, would they stand there for hours in the rain, especially if they are elderly?

We do not know what escape routes there would be if water entered the basement. As has been explained, there is no above-ground refuge space. Even a mild incursion of water into the gardens over the little wall would seep in and certainly make a visit unpleasantly soggy. There is a picture on Twitter of the river water going over the little wall last summer. If the local drainage system is overwhelmed by heavy rain, the water will find its way into basements. Indeed, a basement dwelling in this area would not be permitted at all. The only solution is a redesign, with the entrance far above any possible flood level—or, of course, to move to a better site. Central sites of as much importance as this are available.

Visitors’ lives are being put at risk to make a political point about the Westminster location, which is the source of all the trouble. Will the Minister explain why the detailed objections to the location because of flooding, expressed in letters from the Environment Agency to Westminster City Council in 2019, are not being dealt with? We need a full report on the risks and how they can be dealt with, given by structural engineers in conjunction with the Environment Agency.

Finally, I will say a word or two about the Buxton memorial. The Buxton family is very much with us. Indeed, it has been a very good coincidence that Mr Richard Buxton, a direct descendant of Thomas Buxton, happens to be a planning solicitor and has worked with our group of objectors all along. We know that the planning inspector accepted that the development would cause harm to the Buxton memorial.

It is worse than that, because the problem with the inspector’s inquiry was that he did not have in mind, and was ignorant of, the 1900 Act prohibiting building in Victoria Tower Gardens. Had he been able to take that on board and balance the benefits of the 1900 prohibition against the damage to the memorial, I think his words would have been even more strident. With the proposed developments in place, the prominence of the Buxton memorial will be largely removed, because the view will change from open parkland to one focused on the nature of the memorial.

The very few who were consulted beforehand were told that any design for the gardens had to harmonise with the Buxton memorial. They were told in Manchester that planning permission was a mere formality anyway. Not only that: the Windrush demand for a monument to slavery in Victoria Tower Gardens was turned down for lack of space. It seems wrong to diminish the visibility of the Buxton memorial, which provides a focus and an educational asset that could perhaps be developed to cater for the views of other groups that are rightly concerned with this long and shameful practice. I would deplore anything that devalued its importance.

Obviously, then, I support the amendments in this group. The Holocaust memorial should be no bigger than the Buxton memorial. There should be room to walk around it to enable it to be seen properly. I can safely surmise that future generations will think of us, quite rightly, as Philistines and wreckers if we allow the destruction, in visual terms, of these memorials.

[Lord Sassoon (Con)]

My Lords, I start by referring to my interests, which I set out at earlier stages of the Bill. I speak now in support of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 11, in particular, because it really is the key to reconciling the positions of my two noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Finkelstein. It goes to the heart of the Bill because, whatever the Minister may say, this seems to be a Bill about planning. These amendments go to the heart of the planning issues in the Bill: the Minister is shaking his head but, by the very fact that this is a hybrid Bill, it brings into it private interests that, by definition in this case, cover planning matters. The Minister is nodding at that. Whether we like it or not, planning matters are brought in.

More fundamentally than that, there are two substantive clauses in the Bill. I remind noble Lords that Clause 2 fundamentally changes the planning regime applying to Victoria Tower Gardens. I do not know how we can get away without either discussing planning matters or having the Minister respond to them, rather than saying, “These are all for later”.

I was sorry not to have been here for the first day in Committee, but I read the Official Report carefully. The Minister said:

“Planning permission is still to be granted”—


we know that—

“and noble Lords will have plenty of opportunity to raise these important and pertinent points on the planning side”.—[Official Report, 4/3/25; col. GC 92.]

If I understood him correctly, he rowed back on that a little last week, but, if I heard him correctly earlier this afternoon, he said that these questions about the planning process will be for the designated Minister. It would be very helpful to the Committee if, when he responds, the Minister could either explain whether noble Lords will have plenty of opportunity—that would be fine because the Minister speaks for the Government and the Bill can enshrine that; it would be welcomed by many of us if the Bill did enshrine our having plenty of opportunity, which could be via restarting the planning process or somewhere else—or correct himself by saying that there is nothing in the Bill to give us any comfort about the future planning, because it is all in the hands of the designated Minister. It has to be one or the other.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, I and a number of noble Lords have referred repeatedly to the planning process as the proper forum for consideration of detailed matters relating to the proposed development. We were pleased to give an assurance to the Select Committee that we will notify parliamentarians and interested parties of the availability of updated information provided as part of the reconsideration of the planning application when it has been published. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the planning process is the right mechanism for dealing with the matters we have addressed in this group. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Sassoon (Con)]

The noble Lord did not address my point about UNESCO. This has nothing to do with planning processes. Under the World Heritage Convention, state parties—in this case, the UK Government—

“are also expected to protect the World Heritage values of the properties inscribed”.

Will the Minister confirm that the undertakings to UNESCO are not part of any planning process and answer my question about how the Government regard their obligations in this case to UNESCO? Do they know better what is not appropriate in a world heritage site?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

We will discuss UNESCO on a later amendment. It will need a bit of explanation, and I would like to discuss it in depth. If he could wait for that group, I will discuss that point.