Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I am pleased that the Government have allocated additional days to discuss the Bill, but I am slightly concerned that we are becoming repetitious and are in danger of spending more time on it than we are spending in Committee on reform of the House of Lords.

I have a couple of points. If I am honest, I do not entirely understand Amendment 17. My reading of the Bill is that we are not repealing the 1900 Act, we are just disapplying it. Anyone wishing to build outside the area that has planning permission would have to go through this process again and would require a special Act of Parliament to disapply the 1900 Act.

We should also be clear about Mr WH Smith—a name that looks like it is about to disappear from our high streets. His principal concern was to prevent wharfs being built next to the House because of the risks that would have in terms of industrial activity, and the risk of fire it posed to the House. I am sure that his wishes are not in any way being diminished by the various statues that have gone up in the intervening period.

I am sorry to repeat this, but Parliament has long decided how to deal with matters such as this, and it is through the planning Acts. They have a process whereby objectors can object and ideas are tested. That seems the most appropriate way of doing it, not setting up a separate system where the House of Lords is judge and jury in its own case.

I recognise that people have strong views, but I am disappointed that we are hearing repeats of things that are plainly untrue. There is no suggestion that this will be anything other than something that commemorates the Holocaust—the Shoah. Any references to other genocides are peripheral and probably will occur under two circumstances. One of the outcomes of that terrible event was the creation of crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide. They give the lie to “never again”. It is important that this memorial is not celebratory of British involvement but is “warts and all”, to use Mr Cromwell’s phrase.

The question is: who supports this? It is unseemly to play Top Trumps with Holocaust survivors. I could reel off a whole bunch of Holocaust survivors who have been supportive of this from the very beginning.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to go with the Minister to Ron Arad’s headquarters up in Chalk Farm, where there is a beautiful model laid out, which I hope the Committee will get an opportunity to look at—certainly, the House should do so—as many of the worries would disappear. Far from this memorial dominating the Buxton memorial, it would lie considerably below the very top of it. Far from it dominating the park, it would enhance it, and it seems very sensible. The Minister and I were fortunate to be joined by the Chief Rabbi, who has taken a great interest in this matter, as did the late Jonathan Sacks, of blessed memory. I can remember lots of discussions with Rabbi Sacks on this.

The Chief Rabbi is entirely happy with the design, the purpose and the like. I am not Jewish; I cannot make a judgment, but I think I am entitled to take the views of the Chief Rabbi in preference to those of others in this Committee. I hope, now that we are close to the possibility of coming to a decision on this, we will not drag our feet and repeat points that we made earlier, interesting though they are. Can we just get on with the job?

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was not planning to speak on this group, but I want to respond to some of the points that have been made. I agree completely with what the noble Baroness said about antisemitism and the marches in London—I think she knows that. She, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and I were all at a briefing by the historians working on the contents for this, who assured us that it would be specifically and only about the Holocaust, not about genocides generally, and that it would not relativise or compare the Holocaust to other genocides. We have been assured about that repeatedly by the Minister and the people working on the content, and we should accept that assurance.

On the question of the location, the Holocaust Commission recommended a new national memorial in central London

“to attract the largest possible number of visitors and to make a bold statement about the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust”.

Victoria Tower Gardens was chosen as the right setting because it would be a permanent reminder, as we have said before, to people next door in Parliament, to UK citizens and to visitors from all over the world of what can happen when politics is poisoned by racism and extremism.

If you go to Berlin, you will see its Holocaust memorial and learning centre right at the centre of its national life. If you go to Paris, you will struggle to find it, and in Vienna, it is a bizarre concrete block tucked away in a square, miles from anywhere. It would be much better to have this right at the centre of our national life, too.

There are serious voices in the Jewish community who do not support this, not least the noble Baroness, and I respect them, but there is no doubt that the vast majority of Holocaust survivors and refugees, their families and the overwhelming majority of the Jewish community support this project. As we heard a moment ago, the Chief Rabbi is not only happy about this project but described the venue as inspirational—his word—and said,

“it is in a prime place of … prominence and it is at the heart of our democracy”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As I understand it—and I am prepared to be corrected—neither of these amendments amend the plan. They just say that the plan must be stuck to, so all they are concerned about is what I describe as mission creep. Secondly, vanishingly few of us—certainly not me, and, I think, nobody else here—object to the idea of a memorial. Thirdly, he will understand that no Minister, of any party, can bind their successors. Assurances are fine, but circumstances change and so can the arrangements and the background to which assurances were given. All these amendments are seeking to do, I think, is to make sure that the assurances given by my party’s Front Bench—and, no doubt, by the noble Lord, Lord Khan, in due course—can be put into legislation, into statutory form, so we have assurances that it will not go any further than that.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

People have argued against this proposal from day one. They have argued against not just the location but the idea of having a memorial and it being in Victoria Tower Gardens. I accept and understand that the tactics now are to say, “Well, look, we are not against the memorial being in Victoria Tower Gardens, but we do not like the design or the size”, or some other spurious reason, and to drag this whole process out for as long as possible and make it as controversial as possible in the hope that, in the end, the Government will change their plans or drop the whole thing in its entirety.

I say this to noble Lords: people can table all the amendments they like, and we can have all the lengthy debates they want. I think there is cross-party support for this project. There is majority support in both Houses and, as I have said, widespread support in the Jewish community, too. It is about time we stopped tabling amendments and having lengthy, repetitive debates on the same points week after week. I can see that the noble Lord is about to get up and make all the same points once again, but we will respond to them, and we can drag this out for as long as he wants.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I cannot speak for my noble friends, but I deeply resent the suggestion that our suggestions for a proper memorial are somehow a tactic to delay and destroy the Bill. All of us on this side of the argument are deeply committed to a proper memorial, the memorial the Holocaust Commission recommended: one which is appropriately British and which recognises the killing of 6 million Jews, not the thing that was accepted by the last Government. I exempt the Minister from most of the blame for this; he is carrying on the vanity proposals of the Cameron Government.

I want to get to the bottom of a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Austin, and my noble friend Lord Pickles: that it is purely for the Shoah, and no other genocides will be there. But paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Notes refers to

“the persecution … of other groups … subsequently”.

On Second Reading, the Minister said:

“The learning centre will also address subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. GC 1224.]


Is the noble Lord saying that the Minister was lying when he told the House on Second Reading that it would commemorate other genocides? Was he telling the truth, was he misguided, or was it a lie? [Interruption.]

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

Let me respond to that point; it is a valid question, and I want to answer it. Every single Member of this House and the other place had the opportunity to sit down with the historian responsible for the content. As far as I am aware, the only three people who have bothered to take part in any of these debates are myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. I think it fair to say that all three of us were impressed by what we were told by the historian, who assured us—we have also had this assurance from the Minister and the relevant officials—that this will be a memorial to the Holocaust, not to genocides in general. It may be the case that, as people leave, there is a board saying, “Since then, there have been atrocities in Cambodia and Darfur, so clearly, we have not yet learned the lessons”. But this is specifically and solely about the Holocaust.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

In his argumentum ad historian, is the noble Lord suggesting that the rest of us do not know our history of the Holocaust? If so, that is extremely insulting.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

Of course I am not suggesting that; I would never do so.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

That is what the noble Lord just suggested.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

Hold on. Let me be really clear about this. Of course I am not suggesting that—not for one moment. What I said, very specifically—the noble Lord should concede this—was about the historian responsible for the content of the memorial. I was speaking about that specifically and not about anybody else’s knowledge of the history of the Holocaust. I would never do that. I would not presume to do that—certainly not to the noble Lord; I really would not.

I offer this right now: let us ask that historian to come back to Parliament before our next session. I hope that everybody here who is concerned about this matter will attend. They can sit down with him, listen to his assurances, and look at the plans and the content in detail.

[Lord Sassoon (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Austin, says that he wants to move things on in this Committee; I completely agree with him. So why does not he let the Minister answer the direct question about the assurances—or non-assurances—he gave about the content, rather than wasting our time with talk about historians, very interesting though it is? I attended an online seminar, and it is nonsense to say that no other noble Lords listened to what the historian had to propose. Instead of the noble Lord speaking for the Government, it would be interesting if, in due course, we moved on and let the Minister answer the charge that has been made by my noble friend Lord Blencathra and others.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord seems to have no objection to people making lengthy speeches on all sorts of points and tabling a million amendments that support his argument, but he objects now. This is a debate: people make points and others are allowed to respond to them. That is how it works. I offer the noble Lord this: if he can get everybody else not to make lengthy, repetitive speeches on spurious points, I will be very happy not to respond to them.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

What about the consultation’s representation of the Jewish community? That has never happened. There is a saying in the Jewish community: when you have two Jews, there are three opinions, and if you have one synagogue you have to have another one because someone has to have a synagogue they will not go to. A Rabbi of the Orthodox persuasion, which is about one-third of the community—he is a leader there—is opposed to this project, as is Rabbi Dr Romain, the recent leader of the Reform Judaism element. There is no one view. There has been no proper consultation, and most people have no idea what the design is or what will be in the learning centre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathcarron (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, and the Minister in particular—I would like to take up his offer of letting us see a model. That would be a very good idea, because the basic problem behind a lot of our amendments on this side of the argument is a complete lack of trust. This saga has been going for so long, with so many twists and turns. We have managed to spend £21 million so far on professional fees, and it seems to just be drifting on and on. To stop uncertainty, particularly about dimensions and sizes, and to see everything at scale would be really helpful.

Let me reassure my noble friend Lady Scott on the answers given: I do not for a moment suspect that she was doing anything other than reading them out, so please do not spend any time checking. They are all there. In summarising the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Austin and Lord Pickles, and all of us who joined in, I am reminded that at Second Reading, a noble Baroness on the Cross Benches—I apologise; I have rather ungallantly forgotten who—said that the expert opinions, whether of Jewish dignitaries or of historians, are really divided along geographical lines as much as anything else. Those of us who live and work near here are completely against the learning centre in particular, and those who live a long way away are, naturally, far more relaxed about it, because they are not going to be affected and it all sounds like a really good idea. That rang true at the time as being a very good dividing line.

We now await the planning stage. We are very suspicious. I remember Robert Jenrick MP called it in last time, and as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, many further twists and turns are possible, with government manoeuvres to get round it. It has been six years since it last went to planning—it has happened before, and it can happen again. Those are the reasons behind the suspicion, and I respectfully ask the Minister to bear them in mind.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord has just made a point about the basis on which people support or object to this proposal. First, it is not true. I used to live a few hundred yards away from the proposed location—my kids played in the playground—and I supported it all the way through. It is an extraordinary admission to say that the reason we are against it is that we live nearby. If members of this Committee were on a local council planning committee, or even a parish council, they would not be allowed to take part in a discussion about a proposal with an interest like that—on the basis that this is where they live.

I gently make the point that we are here in the House of Lords to make decisions solely on the basis of the public interest; we are not supposed to take decisions on the basis of our personal or private interests, or where we might or might not live. That is not why we are here. In fact, I think I am correct in saying that when we are appointed to the House and the Letters Patent are read out before we take the oath, we are required to set aside all private interests. This is something I have long suspected. It has never been admitted before, but I think it is an extraordinary admission.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Before my noble friend replies, I point out to the noble Lord that the Lords Select Committee deliberately excluded anyone who did not have a personal local interest or live close enough to be affected by this. That is quite a different matter from noble Lords’ consideration in this Committee. The Select Committee was restricted to hearing only noble Lords who could show a personal interest that might be affected—their property, their use of the park or whatever. The noble Lord should probably get up to speed on the powers of a special Select Committee.

[Lord Strathcarron (Con)]

To respond to—

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord has made a point directed to me and I want to respond to it. The public watching this will be pretty shocked, frankly, to discover that Members of your Lordships’ House think they have the right to intervene in committees such as this, on matters that affect them personally, on the basis of where they live, in a way they would never be able to do on a local authority planning committee or even a parish council. We cannot allow the public to get the impression that there is one rule for privileged Members of the House of Lords living in properties in Westminster, and another rule that affects every other member of the public sitting on any other committee in a parish or local council. We should not allow that.

[Lord Strathcarron (Con)]

To reply to the noble Lord, Lord Austin, I was not for a moment suggesting that anybody here, on either side of the argument, is motivated by that. I was reporting on a summary at Second Reading, which was a generalisation. But time is marching on, and I wish to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his experience and decades of work in keeping us and our country safe. There are few people who know more about these issues than him, so of course his views should be taken very seriously and there should be proper security risk assessments. I do not think that anybody will argue about that, but I think we need to bear in mind a couple of other points. As I understand it, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is that the learning centre in the gardens is too big a risk. I know that other noble Lords here today feel that the learning centre should be elsewhere, but Westminster is the most secure and protected place in the country, and if the learning centre and memorial are not safe here, where would they be safe?

Secondly, if one or the other were moved on security grounds, residents near any other proposed location would be completely justified in saying, “Look, if it is too dangerous for Westminster, how could it possibly be built near me?” Of course they would say that. That is what people near the Imperial War Museum, the Barbican or elsewhere would say.

Thirdly, if we think about this and take it to its logical conclusion, this is an argument against having the memorial or learning centre anywhere at all. In fact, if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, it is an argument against having anything that people think is controversial or dangerous and which they might oppose being built anywhere. This point has been glossed over, but it is an important point that we should take seriously because we should not be making a decision on the basis that we are scared about what racists or extremists might do. We have to deal with what racists or extremists might do.

The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, made a couple of other points that I want to pick up on. I do not think that anyone has suggested, anywhere, that there will be 1 million visitors to the memorial or the learning centre, which I think was the figure that he suggested.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I was present at a meeting with Mr Ed Balls and Michael Gove, and Mr Ed Balls said there would be 3 million a year. He said it would be the most visited memorial in the whole world.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

Well, I am not sure I would take Ed Balls’s figures on this. It is not going to be 3 million. I have talked to the government officials about this, and I think that the estimate is in fact 500,000, but the important point to bear in mind is that already 25 million people visit Westminster every year, and many of the people who will visit the memorial will be people who are already visiting Westminster or who work here. That is the important point I want to make, and if we break it down, it actually works out at a few hundred people an hour.

The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, also made a point about transport. My understanding is that this is estimated to attract 11 coaches a day. It is on a main bus route, and many more buses than that already go past each day. I do not know, but I would have thought that Parliament Square attracts hundreds of thousands of vehicles a day, so again, I think that the traffic and the number of visitors that this memorial will attract will be a fraction of the amount of traffic and number of visitors already visiting Westminster .