Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment because it seems a brave attempt to bridge a gap between two very entrenched positions.

Having sat through most, if not all, of the Committee and through today at Report, I am reminded of the football manager saying, “I have a sense of déjà vu all over again”. One important thing we can do is try to focus on what has united us as opposed to what has divided us.

I think everybody who took part in the Committee was supportive of the key objectives of the Holocaust Commission. It is worthwhile quoting briefly what the committee said:

“The National Memorial should … be a place where people can pay their respects, contemplate, think and offer prayers … provide factual information about what happened”,


and

“convey the enormity of the Holocaust and its impact”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Moore, reminded us earlier, those are two very different activities. The first is a personal thing: I go to pray and I go to pay my respects. The second may be personal but it is more likely to be collective: I am learning something. The emphases of the two parts of what is required by this Bill are quite different. Therefore, when people say that they need to be linked together, I am not sure I buy that, for the reasons I have just explained. My noble friend Lord Evans suggested it is going to be ticket-only admission. Is it going to be ticket-only admission for me to pray? That puts quite a different emphasis on the nature of the relationship between the public, Jewish or non-Jewish, and the memorial we are creating.

Part of our difficulty has been that, during Committee, although valuable points were made, it was clearly felt by both Front Benches that this was a Bill that was close to perfect and therefore amendments were unlikely to be tabled to improve it but, rather, in many cases, to impede its progress. The Minister dealt with all these amendments with his customary humour, tolerance and patience. I was grateful, and I am sure the Committee was grateful to him too. He is, I know, a proud Lancastrian from Burnley, the home of the cricketer Jimmy Anderson. I hope he will forgive me if I say that, on this occasion, at the Dispatch Box his performance reminded me of another cricketer—the proud Yorkshireman Geoffrey Boycott, whose renowned shot was the forward defensive prod, giving nothing away. The consequence of that is that we have returned to a lot of the stuff that we could have cleared out in Committee, if there had been any evidence of a readiness to reflect and consider matters in a more constructive way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 7 and in support of Amendment 6. I strongly reiterate and endorse the wise words from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. As he said, we are not a planning authority. We are Parliament, and we are looking at changes in the legislation contained in the Act of 1900. The criteria used to determine whatever decisions may be reached are different in the two separate cases and we must exercise our judgment independently of the rules which relate to the granting or otherwise of planning permission.

The one thing I feel very strongly about here is certainty. In 1900, the legislation incorporated a plan that was deposited with the Clerk of the Parliaments—I understand it is currently somewhere between this building and Kew, so I have not been able to see it—which shows precisely what was going to happen, and it was in law that what was in the plan was to be implemented.

We are now being asked, in repealing that piece of legislation, to rely on a series of the most generalised principles, and we do not know what we are being asked to approve. It is only right and proper, once planning permission has been granted and there is a degree of certainty about the detail of what is going to be proposed, that we then have the last word. That is consistent with the pattern of the way in which this has occurred.

Let us remember: Victoria Tower Gardens is not just any old public park. It was established by an Act of Parliament, and at the time it was established, it was agreed between the committee and the LCC—and, I think, the First Commissioner of Works—that it was a “national improvement”. Given that context, what we are seeing is both entirely reasonable and quite proper.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I added my name to these two amendments. I will add very briefly to the remarks that have already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in moving his amendment.

I referred earlier to the unsatisfactory nature of Committee, when all sorts of issues which could usefully have been dug out and discussed were put to one side. This included the fact that we were told that a large number of issues that we would have liked to have discussed in Committee were to do with planning and were therefore nothing to do with us. We did not have the competence, experience or indeed the legal position to be able to make a useful contribution.

Let me be clear: I absolutely respect the planners’ competence and their experience. However, the provisions and implication of a Bill such as this go far beyond the normal arrangements. This is not like a controversial proposal to build on the green belt; it is about constructing an iconic memorial on a small piece of open space in the lee of the Palace of Westminster, itself a world heritage site.

When these plans come to fruition—as I hope they do, as I have said before—it will be really important that the then Members of the two Houses of Parliament, who are, after all, essentially the trustees of the Palace of Westminster, should take responsibility for all the decisions that are made. They should finally tick it off once we have reached that particular point in the process. That is why I support the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I also added my name to this amendment. I will be extremely brief: I support it.