Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Lisvane Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lisvane]

6: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning application and report to Parliament(1) In the event of any planning consent being granted for a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, the Secretary of State must arrange for the tabling of a motion for resolution in each House of Parliament on that planning consent within 60 days of that consent being granted.(2) Construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre must not begin until planning consent has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, in the form of a motion for resolution under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause seeks to ensure Parliamentary approval of the size and design of any Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in addition to planning consent, and to allow Parliamentary consideration of the implications of planning consent for Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is also in this group. Amendments 6 and 7 would do pretty much the same thing, but it is typical of the noble Lord’s gift for crisp expression that his Amendment 7 is about half the length of my Amendment 6.

We are after something which I would have thought would be beyond criticism: the approval of Parliament. It happens that this is first amendment of the evening—indeed, the early morning—that is not directly about the HMLC project. We seek straightforward approval from both Houses for the planning consent, should that be obtained. Ministers would have to table approval Motions in each House within 60 days of any consent being granted, and no work on the centre could begin until both Houses had agreed.

Planning consent is one thing, but the putting of the proposition to Parliament brings in a wider dimension: the achievability of the project and the proper expenditure of public money. Those are issues on which Parliament has a right to be consulted and express a view. There are quite a few former accounting officers in this place and I must admit to being one myself. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority report in January this year is the stuff of which accounting officers’ nightmares are made. The authority said:

“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.


The authority has rated the project red and unachievable for each of the last three years.

The National Audit Office has been no kinder. In its 2022 report, it described the promoter’s failure to consider any alternative sites, or to quantify or account for risk, as an emerging risk, causing potential cost increases. The latest capital cost estimate, which was kindly given to us by the Minister in a debate on an earlier amendment, is £146 million. This must make the case for the parliamentary approval that Amendment 6 would provide.

One argument which I hope the Minister will not think of deploying against this amendment is the canard that Royal Assent to the Bill will provide the necessary parliamentary authority for the project; of course it will not. What the Bill does is encapsulated in the long title: it allows expenditure but, crucially, does not approve it.

When and if planning consent is given, we will move into the next phase. That should be of a properly costed and funded project with serious management arrangements, which the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the National Audit Office feel able endorse. It is that which Amendment 6 seeks to submit to parliamentary judgment. I beg to move.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly disagree with the characterisation of what I said. What I said was that the planning application was live, as it is, but that there will be a new planning process. The actual planning application has been quashed because of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900. That is why we have brought forward Clause 2, so that we can disapply the powers of the county council Act 1906. I did say, as well, that the designated Minister will decide what process will be used to take the application forward; that could be a round table seeking consensus, a planning inquiry or written representations. That is a decision for the designated Minister; it is not in the remit of what we are discussing. At times, this has sounded very much like a planning committee, but that is not the remit of what the clauses of this Bill set out to do.

I will make progress. The Government have already given an assurance that they will notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable following the reactivation of the planning process for the current application. The restoration and renewal programme of the Palace of Westminster has also been considered. We will continue to work with the team responsible for the restoration and renewal programme to make sure we understand the interactions and potential impacts between the two schemes.

I will briefly clarify comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on the red rating assigned to the programme in the annual reports by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority. That rating, as has been made clear in each report since 2022, reflects the need to obtain Parliament’s approval for this Bill and to recover planning consent. Before losing planning consent in 2022, the programme was rated amber.

It is therefore unnecessary to seek further steps adding a report and a resolution in both Houses when a planning process will have been completed in accordance with the statutory requirements. These amendments would simply add further delays. I therefore ask the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane, Lord Hodgson, Lord Inglewood and Lord Strathcarron, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Walmsley, not to press Amendments 6 and 7.

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, I think that the intent that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and I had has been slightly misinterpreted. When the planning process—I use that general term, because, as we heard in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, it could have a number of different characteristics—has been completed, it may be that that part of the process imposes new requirements and that there is something that the planning process requires of the Government to acknowledge, to achieve or to allow for as the project goes forward. If that is the case then there will be a powerful argument for a reassessment of the achievability and affordability of the programme.

I had intended to test the opinion of the House on my amendment. However, at this late—or perhaps very early—hour, I can hear the first notes of the “Farewell” symphony being played. I do not think the House would be particularly happy if I inflicted another 12 or 13 minutes of Division upon it, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

There is a simple solution. R&R is of importance to the nation, the work of government, the dignity of Parliament and the needs of future generations. It must be allowed to go ahead as efficiently as possible. In planning the memorial, the considerations relating to R&R must be sorted out first. They must take priority, and we must be told how this will be achieved. The persistence behind the memorial project is hard to understand. It can now be seen to be adverse to the national interests, in addition to all its other flaws. We must get on with R&R and bring to an end the costly indecision and risks that we face now. I beg to move.

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and her Amendment 9. With the then Clerk of the Parliaments, I commissioned the first ever condition and survey of the Palace in October 2011. That reported in March 2012; its principal conclusion was that doing nothing was not an option, and that was 13 years ago. I am deeply frustrated that nothing, or very little, has been done since then. If there is some catastrophic event of fire, structure, electricity or water supply, those years of indecision will be partly to blame.

This amendment is based on the happy assumption that we finally get R&R going. But when we do, the last thing we need is for the construction of the memorial and learning centre to be a new obstacle to R&R.

I will very briefly revisit a point I made in Committee. At the north end of Victoria Tower Gardens is the Parliamentary Education Centre, which the noble Baroness mentioned briefly. It has been hugely successful in introducing young people to Parliament. As the then corporate officer of the House of Commons, I was the applicant for the planning permission for the centre. That permission ran out on 22 August last year. It has been extended to 2030, but when it runs out and the Parliamentary Education Centre is demolished, that will be a major works project in itself, and it will happen at the very time when the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is being constructed. Whatever difficulties of safety, security and access may be presented by that project, they will be substantially increased by the demolition of the Parliamentary Education Centre and the heavy traffic involved. It is all the more important that the authorities of the two Houses—in practice probably the corporate officers—should be satisfied that R&R will not be impeded. This amendment would achieve that aim.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, I put my name to this amendment and I wholeheartedly support it. We, as parliamentarians, have a duty to cherish and care for this wonderful building. That is what the restoration and renewal project is about. We have a duty to preserve this world heritage site and to hand it on to future generations; whatever else happens anywhere else in the vicinity, we must never lose sight of that duty. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, have put the case very well and there is no need, at this late hour, for me to add anything further to that.