Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

3: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Report: effects of the construction, presence and use of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre on the security of the site and surrounding area(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out the predicted effects on the security of the site and surrounding area arising from the construction, presence and use of any Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—(a) a list of those bodies and individuals consulted before construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre (subject to redaction of names where necessitated by national security),(b) a summary of the advice provided by each body and individual consulted,(c) a full description with visual depictions of all road and traffic changes, at and near to the chosen site, proposed to be made during construction and following completion of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre,(d) proposals for the continuing assessment of the security of the site and nearby buildings, and(e) such other security information as the Secretary of State considers to be relevant.(3) The Secretary of State may delegate the preparation of the report referred to in subsection (1) to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for the tabling of a motion for resolution in each House of Parliament within 56 days of laying the report before Parliament.”

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, my amendments in this group relate to security, and I appreciate the support of noble Lords who have signed these amendments. I start by emphasising to your Lordships that I want to see the erection of a Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens as soon as possible.

I have something personal to say. Nine days ago, I had the sadness and privilege of speaking at the funeral of a child Holocaust survivor called Renata Calverley. Renata was my beloved sister, literally my half-sister, her mother having died in Auschwitz. She was born in 1937, in Poland. How she survived was a miracle. Alas, in her survival, she lost her early childhood to five years of being hunted, hungry and hidden just because she was a Jewish child. She was, to be fair, a formidable memorial of the Holocaust herself, as I told her from time to time, but, unfortunately, she was ephemeral. What Renata and other survivors, and of course the dead, deserve is to be remembered in perpetuity in a memorial that is devoted solely to the Holocaust, the most horrific massacre of innocent people in human history. The reason for this amendment is partly based on my sister; that memorial must be a safe space, as free as can be managed from the threat of terrorism and other violence, and in as peaceful and accessible a setting as is possible in this city.

That is why I cannot support the erection of the planned learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, and for two reasons. The first has already been referred to frequently: it is not the right place for a proper learning centre. My noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, made that point. We heard a reference or two to the POLIN Museum. Yes, some of the POLIN Museum is underground, but the building of the POLIN Museum stands out as the most significant modern building above ground in Poland and in Warsaw. It is a competitor for style with the recreated buildings of the 18th century. It is not an underground museum. It is so big because it accommodates people who can do their PhDs and otherwise research the Holocaust properly, in a true learning centre.

My second reason is more pertinent to these amendments. I fear, and I warn, that placing a learning centre, whether small or large, so close to Parliament, that is expected to be visited by thousands of people each week and hundreds of thousands of people each year—perhaps millions—is a lure to terrorists. There are other potential sites for a much more complete learning centre elsewhere in this great city, more secure from the threat and risk of terrorism.

Our lamented friend Lord Etherton chaired the special Select Committee on the Bill, and I am delighted that there are other members of that committee here, including my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, who is in his place next to me. I welcome their presence; they all played a valuable part. Security was dealt with by the committee. It determined that it is imperative to recognise that the threat of terrorist activity here and abroad is much greater than when a planning inspector wrote his report on this proposal several years ago, and that much of what was said about security to the planning inspector in the early inquiries will now be out of date. I thank Lord Etherton and his committee for that view. None of the carefully organised flurry of letters supporting this Bill in recent days contradicts that a larger learning centre could provide for more, and more effective, learning, and that recent events have contributed to the substantial security risk that the Government’s proposal offers.

The Minister, who has always been extremely courteous and accessible to all of us—I thank him for that—has said publicly and in meetings that security can simply be dealt with by the planning process which would follow the passing of this Bill, if that occurs. I disagree with him that what is described as the planning process is adequate to deal with issues of security.

Before I come to that, I need to explain why I am so concerned about security. The proposed site is cheek by jowl with the Palace of Westminster. I and others—some of us over many years—have used Victoria Tower Gardens as a restful annexe to Parliament; we have sat there, eaten our sandwiches there, and sometimes been interviewed by the media there. It is very much part of the environment of this place, and any reconnaissance by an ill-wisher would reveal a stream of parliamentarians and journalists using the gardens, and children playing from estates with little open space near them in this part of Westminster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My apologies; I have to be careful with my words on this issue.

I oppose the amendment. We have heard these arguments before, quite frankly. I oppose it not because I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has great experience of planning, as do others who support it. I am just puzzled; we are saying that a memorial centre is okay and we can deal with the security for that, but somehow we cannot do the same for a learning centre. I do not understand.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

No, I am not going to give way because I have not finished developing my argument. I had to listen to quite a few minutes from the noble Lord; I will not give way until I have finished, then the noble Lord can tell me that I am wrong, which I am bound to be because I have only ever been a junior Minister.

I do not accept as a valid argument that the learning centre is impossible to protect. Of course it is difficult to protect Parliament; people are not just going to wander in and out. We have already heard that you have to make appointments online. Of course there will be significant security. It is not that I think that those who tabled the amendment did so in bad faith or because they want to undermine the proposal. I just happen to think they are wrong in their analysis in suggesting that we cannot provide a safe and secure environment.

Will the learning centre undermine the Buxton memorial? No, of course it will not, because it will be done sensitively. I see noble Lords shaking their heads as if we are going to reduce it to something insignificant—no, we will not do that. We want to make the whole complex something to be admired and respected. Have we got the planning capacity to do it? In my opinion, we have. Have we got the security ability to do it? I believe that we have.

What would the amendment really do? Once again, it says that Victoria Tower Gardens is not the right place, and even it was we could not provide the security. My reason for opposing it is not to doubt the genuine intent and sincerity of those who support the amendment, but to say that, in my view, I think they are wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The purpose of Clause 2 is to disapply the London county Act of 1906. That is why we want to push forward with the project. I reassure the noble Baroness that, subject to the Bill passing, this will be treated as a serious issue. The entire proposed project will be subject to full scrutiny and accountability, and will go through the full planning process that the designated Minister will determine. There will be plenty of opportunity for noble Lords to raise points about a number of issues, including security. Many points about planning were raised tonight, but I believe that this is the wrong forum for them.

I turn to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. We gave an undertaking that we would consult further on security and provide information to Parliament, and we will certainly do that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned queues. I reassure her that the ticketing and checking strategy is designed to avoid queues building up in the gardens.

Moreover, we have given a clear undertaking to the Select Committee that updated evidence on security will be provided and that we will consult on security matters with the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Community Security Trust, the Metropolitan Police, the National Protective Security Authority and Westminster City Council. We have undertaken that the updated evidence and the views of all these bodies, subject only to the redaction of any information that should be confidential for security reasons, will be placed in the Libraries of each House. The proposed amendment is not therefore necessary as a means of generating information about security or as a mechanism for ensuring that security is given proper consideration. The practical effect of the amendment would be to cause delay and to create uncertainty about the progress of the scheme.

I will repeat one final point about the amendment that was put to me with great force when I was preparing for this debate. Our response in this country to the threat of violence has never been to shrink from carrying out the normal, legitimate activities of a free society. We know that there are threats. In response to those threats, we plan, we prepare and we seek to protect our citizens from harm as they go about their lives. We should not send the message—which, with respect, I believe this amendment would send—that our approach is changing, that we fear we cannot protect our citizens and that, in the face of the threat of violence, we should place a Holocaust memorial somewhere less prominent.

Are we prepared to say that, in Britain today, visitors to a Holocaust memorial next to the seat of government cannot be protected? Are we willing to concede to the perpetrators of violence that a memorial established as a lasting reminder of a time when the Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany were denied the protection of the law and subject to appalling violence and persecution by their own Government cannot be placed next to our own Parliament? I do not think that this House would want to be associated with such a message. I therefore ask noble Lord not to press Amendments 3 and 10.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to this debate. I can tell your Lordships that I have had two big surprises tonight. One was the most wonderful compliment I have ever received from a former Home Secretary and Secretary of State from Northern Ireland, who is known for his pugnacious and accurate brain, so I take that seriously. The other—if I can refer back to an earlier debate—is that I have had the pleasure, for the first time ever, of agreeing with something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, who spoke earlier in the evening. I shall look upon that as something of value.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

With great respect, I remind the noble Lord that, in deciding the fate of his amendment, it is not necessary to respond to all the points raised in the debate. It might be helpful to the House if he could proceed to a decision.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

With great respect to the noble Lord—and I do admire him—he is a relative newcomer to this place. I am not replying to all the points that were made by all Members; I am making a few comments about particular points.

I was about to say, and will continue to say, to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, that I am afraid he was not listening to my speech when I first made it, because I was not opposed to what he thinks I was opposed to.

I am grateful for the numerous other speeches that were made. The questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, were not answered by the Minister. I am one of the quite large number here who remember her as the queen of nitty-gritty when she was Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. We learned enough in that other place to reply to her questions when they were asked, or else—I see the noble Lord, Lord Alton, nodding in agreement.

I have suggested something practical and sensible, and I have had encouragement and support from Members of your Lordships’ House who I admire. I beg to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I will be careful not to repeat what has already been said. I just want to draw attention to the availability of other sites that have been on offer for some years. The 2015 commission identified three sites: the Imperial War Museum, Potters Fields near Tower Bridge, and Millbank. There is still room on Millbank—I check all the time. A property was offered at one stage, which is no longer there, but there are empty buildings on Millbank for rent or sale. It is not necessary to build anything from scratch for a learning centre—or, indeed, for a museum, which, as many people have said, would be preferable to a learning centre.

The compromise we have offered would be a suitable figurative memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. It should not be overlooked that the designer of the current memorial and learning centre is now discredited. He has withdrawn or been withdrawn from nearly all the projects with which he is linked because of the allegations made against him, which have not been settled in any way over the past two years. Why this designer should still be considered good enough for a Holocaust memorial is very troubling and worrying. We need a new design for that.

There happens to be an excellent sculptured memorial in Gladstone Park, London, by Fred Kormis, the German-Jewish sculptor. It deserves a wider audience and could be moved to Victoria Tower Gardens, where it would fit admirably and would certainly be a lot better than the absolutely meaningless design by a discredited designer that we are given now.

The Jewish community remains divided on this matter. It is not the case that it is mostly in favour—far from it. A lot of donors and officials support the project; scholars and everyday members do not necessarily do so. The Chief Rabbi represents the mainstream, but on the left, as it were—the progressive element—Rabbi Jonathan Romain, among others, is against the project, and on the right the very Orthodox Rabbi Gluck, who should not be discredited, represents their views. There is simply no one view. Indeed, the Jewish community has not really been given the chance to consider this because many do not know the details.

Given advances in technology, the need for a physical exhibition space of this sort is diminishing. Everything that we have been told will be in the learning centre could be put on a memory stick—if that is the modern technological way of doing things—and distributed to every school in the country without necessarily having to bring people to London.

In essence, Victoria Tower Gardens as a site is not right. What we are being given is not a memorial and it is not a Holocaust learning centre; it is a political function arguing that democracy protects Jews and prevents genocide. This misguided narrative assumes that situating a memorial near Parliament enhances democratic accountability. In reality, there is no evidence that such a placement impacts antisemitism or political decision-making. Although officials claim that parliamentarians will reflect on their responsibilities while viewing the memorial, a nearly £200 million project seems an excessive way to underscore the obvious reality that political decisions have consequences.

Across the world, memorials unfortunately unintentionally serve as staging grounds for political virtue signalling, with people posing in front of them to demonstrate their commitment to remembrance while engaging in anti-Israel actions. Politicians, as we know, can stand in front of a memorial or go to a remembrance ceremony and say, “There isn’t a racist bone in my body”, but then in the afternoon shake hands with Hamas.

Victoria Tower Gardens is therefore unsuitable both practically and ideologically. Before settling on it as perhaps a last resort, we know that there are other locations that would do far better, and it is time to give the community information about what is happening. This amendment about alternatives and the others present an opportunity to make a more meaningful and lasting impact. A figurative memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens—not the current one on offer—and a learning centre of greater depth and scholarship elsewhere could be achieved quickly and more economically. The real effort should begin. I beg to move.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, sites come into potential because of changes in the usage of buildings around London. Quite apart from the sites referred to by my noble friend in moving this amendment, there are at least two sites in the City of London that, in my view, could well be available if the Government would negotiate with the City of London Corporation. I believe that each of those sites, and possibly there are others, would be iconic in their own way but would not contain the risks involved in putting a learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment. I heed very closely the words of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew; we have to look at the balance of risks. I will not go through the details of the substances that I looked at because I do not want to fuel any terrorist activity, but I worry that this will be a trophy for terrorists. Suffice it to say that, looking at the pharmacology of the different substances that are used in mass poisonings, it takes only two minutes to have the fatalities that you might see happen in a place where somebody is of malintent.

Having looked at the model that was here on display and asked questions about it, I remained completely unconvinced that the screening processes would be adequate to detect anything hidden in a body cavity, whether in the vagina masquerading as a tampon or put into the rectum. Highly concentrated chemical substances can be sealed and released. The other problem is that the open forum would allow for something to be lobbed into the area which is the exit route on the design at present.

I added my name to this amendment because I hope that planning alternatives will be looked at seriously, so that the proper meaning of this memorial and of a learning centre can proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Walmsley, for Amendment 6, and the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood, Lord Hodgson, Lord Lisvane and Lord Strathcarron, for Amendment 7. Both amendments seek to insert additional steps into the approvals process in the form of reports and resolutions in both Houses before planning permission can be implemented and the construction of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre at Victoria Tower Gardens can begin.

These steps are unnecessary. There is already an established statutory method of gaining planning consent, so there is no need to invent an additional process for this project. 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. This process considers diverse perspectives, extensive documentation and expert advice to reach a decision on whether planning consent should be granted.

Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords have the same opportunities as all other citizens to express their opinions about any proposed development. In the case of this planning application, Members of this House spoke at the previous planning inquiry. I have no doubt that many noble Lords will make representations to the designated Minister when he sets out the process for redetermining the planning application. If another planning inquiry is held, I am sure that several noble Lords will take the opportunity to appear and make their views known. The Government have already given an assurance that they will notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but he has come to a point where he has just said “if” another planning inquiry is held. In Committee, he was asked on a number of occasions whether a planning inquiry would be held, and we were told that there might not be a planning inquiry, and that it could all be done by written representations or even by an exchange of letters. Can he reassure the House that a planning inquiry will be held?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me clarify my comments, because that was a slight misinterpretation of what I said in Committee. I said then that the designated Minister would decide how we would take the planning process forward. As part of a number of options, there could be written representations, there could be a consensus by having a round table—though I doubt that that would happen, on the basis of this debate—and there could be a public inquiry. That is entirely the decision and prerogative of the designated planning Minister, and it is part of the planning process, from which we are totally detached.