Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I know it was discussed last week. But what do you do with all the people visiting if, for instance, the King were to die, God forbid? Did we discuss what would have happened with all those people visiting the late Queen Elizabeth? Thousands of people were in that park. Where would they go now? That is a very reasonable point. Also, I know it has been discussed at length but if we have renovation and renewal, or whatever it is called, there will have to be a slight discussion.

What I particularly want to talk about on my noble friend Lady Fookes’s amendment is the council and planning permission. I should declare as an interest that I am a resident of Westminster and, indeed, that my wife is on Westminster City Council. When it came before the council in, I think, 2019, it was turned down completely—I think, although the Minister might be able to tell me, not just by the Conservatives who were then in power but by the Labour Party as well. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think I am. It is very important that people understand that those are the views of local people. Again, I thought that not just Conservatives but the Labour Party wanted the views of local people taken into account, but they are not going to be on this.

I do not want to repeat everything that has been said. I will say just two things, to be answered by the Minister. Does the Minister believe that the views of the local people of Westminster count, or are we not going to have another planning application? Does the Minister believe in the importance of environmental and open spaces beside the river and elsewhere in London, or is everything just to be bulldozed and trampled over? If that is the case, we might as well all just give up anyway.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the two amendments on planning. It also falls to me to cope with the heritage amendment because, unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, cannot be here this afternoon, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, on the impact assessment.

To start with planning, throughout the whole sorry saga of this misbegotten project the Government have tried to avoid proper planning processes. Knowing that Westminster City Council was going to turn it down, the promoter rushed to get the Minister to call it in. The consultancy, Big Ideas, was paid more than £100,000 by the Government to collect and bulk-display comments in favour of the memorial to counteract the genuine objections on the website.

The Government are digging themselves into a deep legal hole here in relation to conflicts and proper planning applications. On conflicts, the department has set up a separate framework for a Minister to take the decision. But who can imagine a junior Minister deciding to defy his Secretary of State and his Government’s wishes in order to take an independent stand against this project?

The whole public inquiry that we had in the past is now utterly vitiated because the inspector was unaware of the 1900 Act, which stood in the way of building on Victoria Tower Gardens. Therefore, the balance of pros and cons that he said he was carrying out was not a proper balance, because one enormous weight was missing on one side: he ignored the 1900 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I can only refer back to the word “collocated” which was used about the Holocaust memorial alongside the learning centre.

I would like to make some progress and I know that I have a number of questions to answer. Please can I get through some of the background of where we are? I hope we can address the amendments, and I will take interventions, as required.

As I have said, as the law requires, further consultation took place around the planning application. More than 4,000 written representations were submitted. A six-week planning inquiry was held, in public, at which more than 50 interested parties spoke; I believe some noble Lords were there. All the details of the planning application—over 6,000 pages of information, all of which remains publicly accessible online—were closely scrutinised. The design team, and indeed the co-chairs of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, were cross-examined by learned counsel.

Following the planning inquiry, the independent inspector then submitted his detailed and lengthy report to the Minister with a recommendation that consent should be granted. The Minister agreed with that recommendation. The planning decision was, of course, subsequently quashed by the High Court, on the basis that certain parts of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 prevented development in Victoria Tower Gardens. That is why we are promoting this Bill: to seek Parliament’s agreement that the statutory impediment should be lifted for the purposes of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. However, the planning decision still needs to be retaken by the designated Minister—for the sake of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and other noble Lords in the Committee, that would be Jim McMahon—in accordance with proper procedures and in line with all relevant statutory requirements.

I turn now to Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. This would require a new planning application, which would take us back to 2018. I see no possible justification for such a step. The planning application submitted in 2018 remains current. The planning process which is under way has provided, and will provide, all the proper opportunities for consultation and scrutiny. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 21.

Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, calls for a new impact assessment. I have pointed out already that the impacts of the proposal have been studied in depth and a great deal of material has been published on the Westminster City Council planning portal. Noble Lords who wish to consider further the educational impact of the proposal could review the evidence provided by Professor Stuart Foster of the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education, who told the inquiry that the learning centre

“will offer visitors an engaging, interactive and dynamic experience … underpinned by rigorous scholarship and the advice and expertise of some of the leading academics and specialists in the field”.

It will

“offer different insights and critical interpretations of what Britain did and did not do in response to events”,

and

“will serve as a catalyst for deeper engagement and interest in Holocaust education across the country”.

For an assessment of the impacts on air quality, archaeology, soils, flood risk, traffic and water quality—and a great deal more—noble Lords could review the environmental assessment which remains available online. The expected costs of the proposal have been presented to Parliament and will be updated in line with the normal arrangements for major projects. This clause simply requires work to be duplicated, causing further unnecessary delay, so I ask the noble Lord not to move Amendment 34.

Amendment 38 from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seeks to insert an additional step into the process for obtaining all the required permissions and consents for construction of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre at Victoria Tower Gardens. Such a clause can hardly be justified. Both Houses of Parliament have had the opportunity to consider very carefully the case for a Holocaust memorial and learning centre at VTG; I need hardly remind noble Lords that this Bill has already received its Second Reading in this House, having been agreed by the other House last summer. It has certainly been no secret that the Government are promoting this Bill with the express purpose of enabling construction of the scheme for which planning permission was sought in December 2018.

Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords have the same opportunities as all other citizens and residents to express their opinions about any proposed development. In the case of this particular planning application, Members of this House made their views clear and spoke very forcefully at the planning inquiry. The Palace of Westminster of course has an interest as a neighbour to the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Like any other neighbour, Parliament can make its views known through the planning system and be confident that those views will be given due weight.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Does the Minister see any internal contradiction in what he says? He says repeatedly that these issues can be considered in a planning application, but at the same time he also says that the Minister can decide what to do about a planning application. As we have said repeatedly, there is absolutely no guarantee that there will be any space of any sort for these issues to be considered. Is it not important to the Minister that the original planning application was made six or seven years ago? Any politician will tell you that the world has changed—Westminster has changed, the atmosphere has changed and the climate has changed in the last seven years. How can it be right to ignore all of that, not answering the questions that have been put this afternoon, and ignoring the elephant in the room—that the project now proposed is a very far cry from that which was recommended in 2015 and accepted by David Cameron, then the Prime Minister? This is a million miles away from what was proposed and accepted then.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I politely disagree with the noble Baroness—there is no inconsistency. My job in promoting the Bill is to look at the two main clauses along with the third one, which says that the Bill applies to England and Wales. Planning permission is absolutely for the designated Minister. As a proposal of national significance, it is perfectly proper for a planning decision to be taken by a Minister rather than by a local planning authority. When these arrangements were challenged in a judicial review in 2020, that challenge did not succeed.

Perhaps I can just make some more progress. Like any other neighbour, Parliament can make its views known through the planning system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am not anywhere near sitting down for a while yet, because I have a number of points to make—but I will take the noble Lord’s intervention then.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, raised this point in his amendment. The Government were pleased to give an assurance that they would notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable, following the reactivation of the planning process in respect of the current application. The planning process, put in place by Parliament and regulated through the courts, is the proper place for considering developments such as the proposed national Holocaust memorial and learning centre. There is no justification for seeking to add further steps into the approval process, which can only cause unnecessary delay and uncertainty. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 38.

Finally in this group, Amendment 42 from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, proposes that an additional approval should be required before the Bill could come into effect. This is a convenient place for me to respond to the questions put to me earlier by my noble friend Lady Blackstone, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, who I regret to say is not in his place today but who talked passionately about UNESCO—so it is ideal that I now talk to the points made by the noble Lord previously.

The Government’s obligations with regard to UNESCO were asked about. In brief, those obligations rest on Articles 4 and 5 of the world heritage convention. That convention initiated the world heritage list, which identifies the cultural and natural heritage across the globe considered to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. I need hardly say that the Government take those obligations extremely seriously.

The Government’s statutory adviser on the historic environment, including on world heritage sites, is Historic England, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said. There is a great deal of helpful information on Historic England’s website relating to the world heritage convention and its significance for the 35 UK sites currently on the world heritage list. In practical terms, as Historic England explains on its website:

“Protection for World Heritage in England is provided by a combination of the spatial planning system and national designations (for example, listed buildings, scheduled monuments, sites of special scientific interest … that cover elements, if not the whole, of the site. The heritage significance of a World Heritage Site (its ‘outstanding universal value’)”—


which the noble Baroness referred to—

“may be reflected, at least in part, in the significance of any listed building, scheduled monument … or other heritage asset that forms part of it where this relates to its”

outstanding universal value. It continues:

“The provisions and protections under the planning system that apply to any such elements within a World Heritage Site are an important element, ensuring that the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site is recognised and taken into account”.


Having addressed the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on the general context, I turn to the specific example of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and its potential impact on the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey, including St Margaret’s Church, a world heritage site. In line with the provisions and protections of the planning system that I referred to a moment ago, the potential impact of the memorial and learning centre on the world heritage site and its settings has been properly considered and fully taken into account.

Historic England, in its role as statutory adviser, provided pre-application advice on the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Its written advice was in front of the independent planning inspector, who considered the planning application—as indeed a further statement from a highly qualified representative of Historic England was considered. That statement reminded the inspector of Historic England’s role

“in advising Government in relation to World Heritage Sites and compliance with the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage. It is the lead body for the heritage sector and the Government’s principal adviser on the historic environment”.

On the specific question on the impact of the proposal, the statement confirmed the view that Historic England has set out in its pre-planning advice, following a detailed consideration of the proposal. The view was that

“the proposals would not significantly harm the Outstanding Universal Value of the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret’s Church World Heritage Site”.

The planning inspector did, of course, have the benefit of hearing other opinions on this matter, including opponents of the scheme who took a different view from Historic England. The inspector, having heard all the evidence, was able to come to a fully informed view about the potential impact of the application on the World Heritage site. His assessment was that the proposed UK Holocaust memorial and learning centre

“would not result in compromise to the”—

outstanding universal value of the world heritage site—

“because it does not harm it or its setting, thus conserving it”.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Why, therefore, has UNESCO continued to reiterate its

“serious concerns that the proposed location of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre … would have a significant adverse impact on the OUV of the property, and therefore requests the State Party to refrain from any action which would allow the current proposal to proceed, and to seek alternative locations and/or designs”?

UNESCO has said that, I think, four times now.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I can talk only about how the inspector, in his decision, has taken different views—opposing and supporting views—and has taken evidence from Historic England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is perfectly reasonable of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to ask that question, but information is available on the website of the planning casework unit; the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has previously referred to it in this Committee. If it would help, we could send some more detail, in terms of where the website is and the address—as well as more details about the options that the designated Minister could pursue—to give the noble Lord more assurance around and confidence in the procedure. That would be no problem.

There is nothing to be gained by turning the clock back to 2015. All that this would achieve is to delay the creation of a memorial by many years. Few Holocaust survivors, perhaps none at all, would live to see the project completed—

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I must remind the Minister again that we are building not for the survivors, who already have something like six memorials and 21 learning centres in this country, but for the future. The survivors themselves would say that it is a mistake to hurry just because there is a possibility that it will be built in their lifetimes. That is not the issue.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I can give noble Lords absolute confidence that the many Holocaust survivors I have spoken to are looking forward to seeing this Holocaust memorial built. It might not be so for everybody, but I speak in the context of my numerous heartfelt conversations with Holocaust survivors.

My point stands: few Holocaust survivors, perhaps none at all, would live to see the project completed. In those lost years, how many more opportunities to spread and deepen understanding of the Holocaust will be missed? How many millions of visitors will pass through Westminster who might otherwise have been prompted to reflect on the murder of 6 million Jews? How many visitors, young and old, will be denied the opportunity to learn objective facts on a topic of such profound importance? We should not be creating new hurdles, setting new tests or extending legitimate processes. Our aim should be to build a Holocaust memorial and learning centre of which the nation can be proud, and to do it soon. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

24: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Restoration and RenewalThe activities described in section 1(1) may not be commenced on the land referred to in section 2 unless the authorities of both Houses of Parliament have certified that they are satisfied that those activities will not impede any restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I was going to say to the Minister that people are not being deprived of any opportunities to learn about the Holocaust because there are six other memorials and 21 other learning centres.

We come now to the very important topic of restoration and renewal. The motive behind the amendments is to explain that one simply cannot do both at the same time, or even sequentially, and that the building of this so-called memorial, which it is not, and learning centre, which hardly justifies the name, should not be allowed to get in the way of the great project of restoration and renewal.

If one builds a Holocaust memorial and underground learning centre in VTG, it will either render impossible restoration and renewal or make it more difficult and expensive. If the memorial and learning centre is built—which, of course, I hope it never will be—before restoration and renewal, it will get in the way. It is impossible to imagine a memorial to 6 million deaths taking shape and being visited when it will be surrounded by—it will have right up to its boundaries—all the paraphernalia that will accompany restoration and renewal. I do not think that the movers behind the memorial have ever stopped to think what is meant by a memorial. Instead of reverence and contemplation, peace and quiet, there will be masonry, concrete mixers, builders, scaffolding, material and a jetty, with trucks roaring by and unloading.

There are three projects ongoing, including the memorial, that conflict with each other, and all of them centre on Victoria Tower Gardens. One is the repair of Victoria Tower, delayed by some error in the procurement process, but now expected to start imminently and run for at least five years. It is not strictly a restoration and renewal project, but I raise it because its repair, too, will need some occupation of Victoria Tower Gardens. All the proposals for restoration and renewal will involve the use of a chunk of Victoria Tower Gardens as the main area for keeping all the equipment, access to the Palace and so on. In the talk by the promoters of keeping greenery open and available, I do not see how they can justify this when we will have building at one end and building at the other.

Two of the proposals for R&R and the memorial involve going underground, under the Palace and into VTG, with great upheaval, remembering that the so-called learning centre attached to the memorial will also be underground. It brings to mind the Channel Tunnel excitement, when the team starting in France and the team starting here eventually met exactly in the middle. Restoration and renewal works will reach nearly as far as the Buxton Memorial, and the memorial will reach up to it from the other end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am sure I did not say, “Rely on us on the night”, but I did say that the Select Committee itself acknowledged that the work on the restoration and renewal programme will not start until 2029 at the earliest—that is my point. However, I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that, because of the specific interest, I am happy to sit down and understand more of their concerns.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I had hoped for an answer from the Minister about the atmosphere to surround a memorial. Can one imagine, for example, the Cenotaph or any other dignified war memorial in this country being right in the middle of a building site with, as I said, concrete mixers, builders drinking their cups of tea, and the dirt, dust and noise? Why is that okay for a Holocaust memorial when, I submit, it would not be contemplated for a moment in relation to any other holy commemorative or significant religious site anywhere else in the world, let alone in this country?

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will add to what the noble Baroness has just said. The Minister made clear that he wants the experience of visiting this Holocaust memorial and learning centre to be valuable from an educational point of view. I do not think that any teacher would be particularly happy about bringing their older primary school pupils or younger secondary school pupils to an environment like this. It is not a good learning environment. There are obviously so many other much better places for this to happen than a small park that will be used—not for ever but for quite a long period—as a base for building a renewed Palace of Westminster. It just does not make any sense. Will the Minister take this issue back and discuss it again with his colleagues to see whether some change of mind can result from it?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have finished my contribution and just want to ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I have no option.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

In the current climate, it is more important than ever that the memorial’s learning centre recounts the history of the 2,000 years of antisemitism that led to the Holocaust. It is essential that, as Amendment 32 proposes, the learning centre is solely focused on the Holocaust and antisemitism—otherwise, it will fail in its purpose.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, what a relief it was to hear the brilliant speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, for which I will always be grateful. I had hoped to avoid too much controversial material about antisemitism today, but it is impossible. I agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, about what happened during the war, but I think it amounts only to the possible removal of the word “Nazi” from Amendment 32, which I otherwise support. I also support Amendment 38A in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.

The question we have not asked is: what are we supposed to be learning from the learning centre? No one has ever told me. We know that it is to be about the British involvement in or reaction to the Holocaust, which is a far cry from the broad panorama of history outlined so well by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. So I do not see why that has any bearing on the apparent plans for the so-called learning centre, which is just a small exhibition.

I wonder what is meant when Britain’s politicians and the promoters of this project support Holocaust remembrance, memorials and “never again”, because what I see is ignorance of the history of antisemitism, as so eloquently set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, and the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. Unfortunately, as we all know, antisemitism is on the rise again, despite more than 300 memorials around the world. Sometimes, it seems as though the faster they go up, the more antisemitism grows. Antisemitism is to be found everywhere, sadly, even inside the Palace of Westminster.

I am sorry to see that it has been hinted sometimes that it is antisemitic to oppose the memorial and learning centre. Far from it: the Jewish community is divided. Indeed, in some ways the memorial and learning provide a sort of fig leaf. It is all too easy to imagine an antisemite sitting in the front row of national Holocaust remembrance events, posing to have a photograph taken in Parliament, signing the book of remembrance and then going on to have tea with Hamas and say, “My friends, Hamas”, because, as the American author put it, everyone loves dead Jews; the living, not so much.

Unfortunately, the words “Holocaust” and “genocide” have been globalised and are now tossed around as rather trivial concepts. It is a continuing threat, and four little rooms in Victoria Tower Gardens are hardly likely to cover a history of at least 2,000 years. What is the learning centre about? It is not about learning; it is an exhibition. The Holocaust was about the culmination of at least 2,000 years of antisemitism, largely fuelled by the Church, and its modern continuation in which Islamism plays a large part.

I submit that the lessons of the Holocaust—if anything is to be learned from the learning centre—should be about the destruction of antisemitism. This means modifying any religious teaching that depicts the Jews as Christ killers—a teaching that I was subjected to at school—or as inferior or evil in any way. It also means, and this is difficult, treating Israel like any other country, many of which were established after the war to meet the independence demands of certain populations and which nearly all involved major displacements of existing populations and their subsequent picking up of their lives again—as did the parents of many in this Room. Only the Palestinians refuse to accept the international reality.

One can combine the history of antisemitism and the situation of Israel today by pointing out that it is the only Jewish state in the world, and the only one guaranteed to protect Jews to the best of its ability and to grant them a safe haven. Note that all the genocides that have occurred recently are of people who were in a minority and lacked their own state and self-defence.

I come to the importance of defining what is to be included in the learning centre and what one is supposed to learn from it. The Government do not seem to know. The 2015 report pointed out the uniqueness of the Holocaust and said that the learning centre would also help people understand the wider lessons of including it in other genocides. Then Mr Greenberg, who was involved in planning the layout of the learning centre, gave evidence to the public inquiry and said that it would include the murder of millions of Cambodians, Rwandans and Bosnians. But the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, in reply to my Written Question of 12 February 2021 said that it would include all victims of Nazi persecution and subsequent genocides. Then the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said on 10 May 2023, in answer to another Question of mine, that it would include Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur.

Other replies have said that inclusions remain to be considered and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said on 20 March that:

“The learning centre will look at subsequent genocides through the lens of the Holocaust”,—[Official Report, 20/3/25; col. GC 437.]


whatever that means. We have no firm statement from any Government that it will be confined to the Jewish genocide and the politics of this have always been about including other genocides in government-funded Holocaust ventures, lest the Jewish genocide is treated as superior or exclusive. This matters because of the cheapening of the word “genocide” and its application to any loss of life that is widely deplored.

Worse still, the new term negates the Jews. There are those who regard the 1948 exodus of Palestinians from Israel as a genocide and those who regard the deaths in Gaza as a genocide, disregarding the legal definition and the lack of intent. Germany has been accused of focusing too much on the Holocaust and of ignoring so-called colonial crimes and not allowing comparisons with the Holocaust. Almost unbelievably, the first version of this year’s invitation to Holocaust Memorial Day included the Gazans in the objects for commemoration. This aroused shock and dismay among many in the Jewish community and had to be withdrawn and the chair of the HMDT apologised.

Apology is insufficient, because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the politics of genocide and its inversion. One cannot separate out HMDT and the other Holocaust establishment organisations from what is going on and Holocaust remembrance. Whatever happens in Gaza cannot be compared with the Holocaust. To place Israel’s self-defence on a continuum with, for example, the Einsatzgruppen during the war is to show the damage being done by the lack of scholarly input into the so-called learning centre: input from learned Jewish scholars who are not taking orders from politicians. The Holocaust is being used now to tell a nationalist or politically convenient story, and that is what the learning centre appears to be about, because it packages what happened in a box labelled 1939 to 1945 and the British reaction.

It is time for the Jewish community to reclaim the memory of our unique tragedy and explain its antisemitic roots our way. These national Holocaust ceremonies are being used to defame Israel and divert attention away from the roots of antisemitic murder. The learning centre cannot compare with the scholarly output of, for example, the Weiner library, UCL, the National Holocaust Centre and the educational programmes of the 21 learning centres already in existence. If it goes on down this multi-genocide path, the allegations against Israel will get worse. One can only hope that those who are, as it were, the establishment and are responsible now for the national remembrance events will not be leading the contents and administration of the centre, if it is built.

It has been assumed too readily, without evidence, that being exposed to the facts of the Holocaust prevents lapses into antisemitism, but it has not—it has failed. The late Lord Sacks explained how antisemitism now focuses on the one and only Jewish state. It is only a state of one’s own and the means of self-defence that stop genocide. If Israel had existed in 1938, which it did not because there was a British mandate, rather than in 1948, and if it had been able to take in refugees, rather than being blocked by the British, how many thousands or millions of lives might have been saved? Now we see the inversion of the words “Holocaust” and “genocide” against the Jews. I ask the Minister to explain exactly what we are supposed to learn from the learning centre and what genocides or Holocausts it will include?

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I have been listening carefully to this debate and asking myself the question: for whose benefit is this memorial to be created? For whose benefit did the noble Lord, Lord Pickles—and I praise much of the work he has done on this—and does the Minister believe that this memorial and learning centre ought to be created? Who are the intended direct beneficiaries and who are the intended indirect beneficiaries—for there are those two categories?

One thing that this proposal is not intended to provide is justification for entrenched views held by former and current Ministers or other politicians. The two groups for whom this proposal provides benefit and should be the intended beneficiaries, I suggest, are as follows. I start with the first group by referring to the Haggadah. The Haggadah, as many in this Room will know, is the liturgy that is read at seder dinners at the beginning of Passover, and it tells the story of the Exodus. That is a very important concept in what we are discussing here. The whole concept of the wandering Jew is linked with the Exodus, and the Exodus has now gone on for thousands of years. Jews have left various countries for safety, come to other countries where they have found a good life and then, from time to time, it has been disrupted by yet another bout of terrible antisemitism, with huge quantities of murder.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this final group take us to topics at the heart of the Government’s reasons for seeking to establish a new national memorial and learning centre.

Amendment 32 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would restrict the learning centre to providing solely

“education about the Nazi genocide of the Jews and antisemitism”.

The proposed new clause is well intentioned but overly restrictive and may have unintended consequences. First, it is unnecessary. The Bill—the clue is in its name—clearly refers to a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust and a centre for learning related to the memorial. This Bill is about a memorial to the Holocaust, not to all genocides or crimes against humanity. The learning centre will focus on the unique crime of the Holocaust and aim to set the historical facts in the context of antisemitism. No Holocaust memorial and learning centre could exist without a clear understanding of the roots of antisemitism.

The clause may also have unintended consequences. It may discourage the learning centre from exploring the context and complexity of the Holocaust, missing an opportunity to create an educational offer that would benefit visitors. From the start, we have been clear that, to understand the devastation of the Holocaust on European Jewry, it is crucial to also understand the vibrancy and breadth of Jewish life before the Holocaust.

The centre is also intended to address subsequent genocides within the context of the Holocaust, showing how the Holocaust led to the development of international law. It is doubtful whether either of these topics could be included in the learning centre under this proposed new clause. The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar—formerly of Yad Vashem—with the support of an academic advisory group. They will ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into, and interpretation of, the Holocaust.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I really do not understand; there are too many contradictions here. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott—presumably speaking for the Tories when they were in government—said quite plainly that it will include Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. I just do not understand what is meant by projecting the Holocaust on to other catastrophes. There are legal aspects but, as far as I know, this will not be an exhibition devoted to the legal meaning and development of the concept of genocide—although one could have a huge exhibition on that. I simply do not understand.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to repeat the arguments; I have laid them out very clearly.

Yad Vashem has been mentioned numerous times across the Committee for its excellent content. Having Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem—to be supported by an academic advisory group—will ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into, and interpretation of, the Holocaust. I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to withdraw Amendment 32.

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for his Amendment 38A. I welcome the opportunity that it presents to draw attention to the report he mentioned, Britain’s Promise to Remember, which was published in January 2015 by the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission. The commission, set up with the active participation of all the main political parties, conducted an extensive investigation into the state of Holocaust commemoration and education.

Rereading the report and its conclusion is a valuable exercise that can help remind us all of the context of our debates on this Bill. In his foreword, the chair of the commission, Mick Davis, recorded the statement of his fellow commissioner, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, who saw the commission’s work as

“a sacred duty to the memory of both victims and survivors of the Holocaust”.

The report reminded us that:

“The Holocaust was … a catastrophe for human civilisation”.


It is very clear that the commission conducted its work with a full and clear knowledge of the depth of its responsibility.

At the heart of the commission’s report was the recommendation that

“there should be a striking new memorial to serve as the focal point of national commemoration of the Holocaust. It should be prominently located in Central London to make a bold statement about the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust. This will stand as a permanent affirmation of the values of our society”.

This recommendation was accepted by the then Prime Minister in 2015, with cross-party support. Each subsequent Prime Minister has given the same commitment. The current Prime Minister, the right honourable Sir Keir Starmer MP, has unequivocally committed his Government to fulfilling that promise.