Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

They are advisory only.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I just say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Strathcarron’s Amendments 8 and 17. Projects such as this are always liable to mission creep. This has already had quite a lot of mission creep attached to it, and I can see many reasons why there might be further mission creep in future. My noble friend has undertaken a valuable role in drawing attention to the areas where this might happen and, therefore, bringing in the agreements and undertakings so far given by the Government and the promoters of the Bill. That relates to Amendment 8, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra has also underlined many of the words and excuses that will be used for wishing to go wider than originally anticipated.

Amendment 17 would help guarantee that this does not become a way for creep in the future. We can stop mission creep as far as this project is concerned, but there may be subsequent creep thereafter. The amendment is therefore very valuable, because this is controversial and all sides are entitled to know exactly what is proposed. I honestly cannot see how the Government and promoters—if they are being honest—can refuse to accept an invitation that lays everything out clearly and precisely so that we know where we are from the beginning.

These two amendments therefore have my support.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

On the size of the thing, given that we have had many assurances—from Ministers of the current Government, and the last Government—and every opportunity to look at it, we have reached the point where we ought to accept that it is just going to take up 7.5% of the park. I have looked at the plans and the data, and it seems to me to be completely accurate.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 15, particularly the use of the words “surrounding area”. The Minister and my noble friend Lady Scott placed great emphasis on the reassurance given by the Lords Select Committee about security and other matters, which they have seen as reason for us not to be worried about the various points raised in debates during the past couple of days. There is a gap here. I have an office in Millbank, and I gave evidence to the Select Committee because I have seen what my noble friend Lord Blencathra described, which is very large queues and very great difficulty accessing the Palace at present. I said that I thought that that was an issue that needed to be considered by the Select Committee.

The Select Committee ruled that out of order because it could consider only matters that were within the curtilage of Victoria Tower Gardens. Anything that happened in the street outside was irrelevant. I respect the committee’s judgment; I am sure that it has followed the Standing Orders to the letter, but the reality is that, when we are talking about “and the surrounding area”, we are taking the security issues to something that has not so far been considered at all. All the undertakings given to the Select Committee concerned only the curtilage of Victoria Tower Gardens because that is all that it was allowed to consider by the House of Lords Standing Orders. That is why I particularly emphasise and support that part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of this group of amendments, particularly those from the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Carlile of Berriew. I remind the Committee, if I may, that last time, when I spoke about the risk of fire to the building, it was somehow deemed as if I am against having a memorial. That is not the case. We want a memorial that is respectful and allows people to learn but that does not become a focus for mass terrorist attacks. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing of Elderslie, highlighted that these are very real risks in today’s world. The world has changed.

I also remind noble Lords that if we look at anything underground—coal mines, for example—it must now have two exits. This building will have a single point of entry and exit. The reason for two exits is so that people can get out if one exit is blocked. I therefore ask the Minister whether he can tell us about that. He is smiling and shaking his head, but I do not think that this is fanciful. This does not go against having a memorial; it is about whether we have done a real risk assessment and whether the design of the building and the memorial mitigate the risks that have been assessed. It would therefore be very helpful to know when a comprehensive risk assessment of the building and the memorial was undertaken as well as whether we can have sight of that. We are being offered sight of a building, but to have sight of the in-depth risk assessment would be helpful.