Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Strathcarron Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Strathcarron]

8: Clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert “, subject to the total area used for such activities not exceeding either 1429 square metres or the area shown in the plan in appendix 4 of the letter sent by the Promoter to the House of Commons Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee on 5 February 2024, including in that total area any—
(a) entrance pavilion,(b) courtyard,(c) ramp,(d) associated hard standing,(e) service access,(f) ticketing and security facilities,(g) access paths,(h) areas enclosed to ensure the security of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, and(i) areas not accessible to the public.”

[Lord Strathcarron (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 8 simply seeks to ensure that the area taken up by the Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens will not occupy an area any greater than is required, should it go ahead as currently proposed. One thousand four hundred and twenty-nine square metres has been accepted as the area required. I note that the Government have further provided assurances that this will be the case.

In January 2024, the Government gave the Select Committee in the House of Commons the following assurance:

“the Promoter will only site the permanent buildings and other … structures comprising a Holocaust memorial and learning centre and its ancillary facilities … on, under and over … land”

according to a plan submitted to that committee on 5 February 2024, citing once again the 1,429 square metre figure.

The proportion of the park to be taken up by the Holocaust memorial has long been disputed. The planning inspector’s report stated that “the area directly affected by the proposals would in my view be likely to be greater than the 7.5% calculation”. The proposed design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is so dominant and disproportionate that, as the inspector’s report also stated, “its role as the setting for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre inevitably becomes the more substantial element of its identity as a public space.” Thankfully, he did not go on to repeat the architect’s desire that it should also disrupt the peace of the park, although one could draw that conclusion from the planning inspector’s remarks.

Confusion concerning the precise square metreage in question has arisen because of a Written Answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, to this House in March and April 2023, in response to a Written Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about the total area needed. The noble Baroness’s answer said that the area was intended to cover

“both the size of Victoria Tower Gardens and the area taken by the Holocaust Memorial above ground within the park.”

However, inadvertently, the noble Baroness then stated in the subsequent text of her answer that the area of 1,429 square metres also included the enclosed Holocaust memorial courtyard with its ramp and entrance pavilion, its fence, and the associated hard-standing items A to D, as per my amendment; but also, five other areas specified in the amendment as E, F, G, H and I—all of these within the 1,429 square-metre area. At the same time, it provided a plan of the area which excludes the five areas, E, F, G, H and I. This plan was repeated in the letter addressed by the promoter’s lawyers to the Commons Select Committee on 5 February, and has been repeated since then.

Given these official inconsistencies concerning the actual area affected by the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, I propose that Clause 2 of the Bill should be amended to include a clear limit in terms of square metreage—1,429 square metres, as previously claimed—or to include an appropriate amendment to the plan submitted by the Government to the Commons Select Committee on 5 February 2024.

This is all fundamental, and we really must sort this out. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 14 says that the proposed monument must not be extended or altered in any “replacement scheme”. On this occasion, I shall be relatively brief.

It was my experience as a constituency MP that developers would get planning permission for, say, 20 houses, and then a few months later bung in a revised application for 30 or 40 houses, or one to convert bungalows into two-storey houses. It is a well-known planning racket, and it works because local councils conclude that they would have to spend a fortune on planning appeals which they might not win, on the grounds that they had already given permission for some sort of development, so how could they resist additional development? This is what we must prevent happening here.

We know that the department is considering tweaks to the plans, and many of us have been hypercritical of the inadequacy of the so-called learning centre in the bunker. We have amendments down later on the need for new planning permission, but what is to stop the department saying that the planning rejection was called in already and that the inspector ruled in favour, so no new planning permission is needed—and then use its own powers to alter the plans on the ground that they are just minor tweaks?

The original planning application is six years old and a new application to Westminster City Council is essential, in the view of most of us on this side of the argument. We know that the department wants to avoid that public scrutiny and refused to submit the new application, saying that nothing has changed, but it cannot be trusted. After the Commons Select Committee reported, I met its chairman, who has since lost his seat in the election last year. He said that he and most of the committee were appalled at the lies and disinformation about the project. Nothing that the department or its lawyers produced could be trusted, but their hands were tied by the resolution passed by the Government in the Commons: that they were forbidden to look at any of the flaws, inadequacies, misinformation or downright lies that they had been told.

The Government gave assurances following the Lords Select Committee report, and these two assurances are relevant here. Assurance 7 is about the exact location of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre within Victoria Tower Gardens. It basically relies on the as yet unspecified planning process to deliver an acceptable proposal. Assurance 8 focuses on a redesign of the area around the Buxton memorial. They promised to give detailed consideration and claim that they had already gone back to their design team. What does that prove? They are going to have to go back to get detailed designs anyway, and there is no indication that they will increase the gap between the two memorials.

There is no one, other than at planning, to opine on whether the calibre of the new design delivers insignificant adjustments which count, since the only way to do that is to redesign the whole memorial and learning centre, or to move the Buxton memorial so that they are further apart. I also support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Strathcarron and Lord Robathan.

We can all guess what will happen: the department will use the figure of 1,429 square metres for the building but will then have some fairly wide paths for people to queue, or for admission and searches. Then a police or security box will be added—and how could one possibly complain about that? Then there will be hard-standing areas at the back for vehicles to load and unload, and probably maintenance trucks. If there will be vehicles, will there be vehicle access from Millbank? We will be told that it will be essential to let in fire engines—and if there is a fire, how could we possibly oppose letting those in? They will inevitably build some facility above ground for what they will call essential maintenance support, or electrical power sheds. Has anyone ever heard of or seen an underground visitor centre without some fairly large above-ground support facility? Of course not.

I simply want an assurance from the Government that if this Bill passes, there will not be the slightest change in the design or location, and that they will not seek to make it larger by claiming that the 1,429 square metres relates only to the space below ground. All the items in my noble friend’s Amendment 8 are essential accoutrements, for which planning permission is not required or they say are taken as read.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that we can address these points in a collegiate way. I was trying to address them by noting that, given that the 1900 Act still applies, quite a lot of these amendments are simply not necessary.

[Lord Strathcarron (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 17 in my name, which I do not think has been particularly addressed. I reply, in part, to my noble friend Lord Pickles: this tries to stop any ambiguity that might be there, and which I think still is there. The amendment is intended to clarify that there is a defined limit to the area for which the 1900 Act is being disapplied and that it relates only to the areas on which the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be built.

The Government have been at pains not to repeal Section 8 of the 1900 Act, only to disapply it in a limited manner. It will obviously be the source of even greater later confusion than it is now if it is not made totally clear at this stage exactly what the area is, on what criteria that is based and what precisely the defined area will be used for.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Strathcarron for introducing this group, which is primarily focused on design. I would like to make it clear to my noble friend that, in relation to the accusation that he made about my inconsistencies in figures relating to the amount of the park that would be required for the memorial, I will look into it and respond to him personally.

Clearly, the planning process will, as we have heard numerous times from my noble friend Lord Pickles, take into account concerns about the design of the memorial and learning centre. I hope that the Minister—I will ask him once again—can give the Committee more detail on how these concerns can be raised in an appropriate way, at an appropriate time. It is crucial that the Government bring people with them when pressing ahead with these plans, as we know how strongly people feel. We feel it would be helpful if the Minister could take this opportunity to set out the next stages of progress after the passage of this Bill, particularly the processes for the planning stage. If he is unable to do so this afternoon, it would be helpful for the Committee to have these details in writing well before Report.

I will speak to Amendments 8 and 14. The principle behind Amendment 8 is very sensible: it seeks to protect the interests of existing users of Victoria Tower Gardens while construction is under way. Perhaps this need not be set down in legislation, but I am pleased that my noble friend has brought this amendment forward. This should certainly be addressed during the planning process.

Amendment 14, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, seeks to extend any limit to the size of the memorial and learning centre to any replacement memorial and centre in the future. We are not sure that this Bill is the right place to put a limit on the size of the centre, but we accept that my noble friend has legitimate and deeply felt concerns about the impact that the memorial and centre will have on Victoria Tower Gardens.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion—and this is a very important point—I remind the Committee that I have said previously that content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem, supported by an academic advisory group, to ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into and interpretation of the Holocaust. As the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said, that should also be seen in the context of “never again”.

[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.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathcarron (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, rise to speak to this amendment, not so much to comment on the design, although I find it meaningless, unimaginative and repetitive, but to comment on the designer, his tainted reputation and the effect that this will have on not just the public and media perception of the whole project but, more importantly, on Holocaust survivors and their relatives, who this memorial is designed to honour.

When this project was announced by the promoter, it claimed with great pride and numerous times the involvement of Sir David Adjaye, even calling him a “starchitect”. Since then, Adjaye has faced some seriously unpleasant sexual allegations. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, outlined many of them, so I will miss the next section of my notes, which goes into considerable detail, as the noble Baroness did, on all of this. As a result of these scandals, Adjaye felt that it was best for him to resign from his role as architectural adviser to the Mayor of London. He has also removed himself from involvement in the Holocaust memorial that we are now discussing.

However, without a doubt, the memorial is now and will for ever be tainted by Adjaye Associates continuing as the designated lead architect. In spite of the promoter’s recent efforts to downplay his involvement, all of the plans and documentation, including the promoter’s documentation, to this day feature the name of Adjaye Associates. To prove the point, this morning, I Googled: “Who designed London’s new Holocaust memorial?” Straightaway, the answer “Adjaye Associates” came up, with no mention of the substitutes which the promoter is now promoting in his stead.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, not wishing to bring shame by association on to their projects, the Africa Institute in Sharjah cancelled his major new campus project. His practice was also dropped from the £57 million project for Liverpool’s International Slavery Museum. Quite why we are persisting with his design when other prestigious projects have seen the light and when his association with the project can only bring it into disrepute remains a complete mystery.

In view of that and of the widespread dislike of the design, as per my amendment, would now not be a good time to invite fresh and more imaginative designs in keeping with the Holocaust and Victoria Tower Gardens from firms not associated with sexually inappropriate shame and scandal and from firms that will bring honour, not dishonour, to the memorial centre?

[Baroness Fleet (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 16 in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathcarron. I, too, am greatly in favour of a new Holocaust memorial in London—we all are—but the proposed memorial, designed by the discredited architect David Adjaye, is totally inappropriate. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, delivered, in her inimitable way, a brilliant analysis of the once-fashionable David Adjaye. As the former chairman of Arts Council England, London, I would like to make a few observations.

Since 2015, I have taken an interest in the process to select a design and location for the Holocaust memorial. It was clear early on that this proposal would run into trouble, as indeed it has. A long process involving an international competition with 92 entries from all over the world by no means guarantees a good outcome. The then new Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, announced in October 2017 that the memorial’s location next to the Houses of Parliament was,

“designed to ask questions about the role of society and its institutions in preventing hatred”.

A noble aim, I am sure, but it was also clear that we were heading for trouble because of the highly contentious issue of including other genocides, which has been hotly debated today. Surely the purposes of the project are to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust and to provide an educational learning centre about the Nazi’s genocide of the Jews. Can the Minister clarify once again why and when other genocides were added to the memorial’s purpose?

Then we come to the design of the memorial. Call it what you will—a giant toast-rack or a ribcage—but it is the wrong design. It is a recycled, previously rejected design in the wrong place. Members of the design jury, a number of whom I know quite well, might normally be considered sensible and sensitive. However, there is nothing sensible and sensitive about the Adjaye design with its disproportionate scale. UNESCO has declared that it will compromise a world heritage site.

In the design, I am influenced by the dignity of memorials that I have seen across Europe and America while travelling with my husband, whose grandfather died in Auschwitz. The design of the memorial in Berlin, for example, is inspired and inspiring. It is very sombre; the slabs of grey concrete tell a powerful story. It is a place of understanding and contemplation. I remember that, on the day that I visited, drops of rain fell, like tears, on the grey slabs. It was a memorable and deeply moving experience.

The memorial proposed for London, however, is overbearing, with its showy 23 looming bronze fins. Why 23? The explanation will be puzzling to almost everyone who sees it, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said. Did the design jury actually visit the site? They would surely have seen how the chosen design would dwarf the other memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, in particular the important memorial to Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton in recognition of his work to abolish slavery. The design by the Victorian architect Samuel Sanders Teulon and Buxton’s own son, Charles, is quite delicate and modest, as Buxton himself was.

My ancestor Sir John Bowring, MP for Bolton, was a colleague and contemporary of Sir Thomas. Bowring was a strong opponent of slavery, being an early member of the Anti-Slavery Society founded in 1823. An economist, Unitarian and polyglot, I can only imagine what Sir John’s view would have been of the giant toast-rack. My half-brother is a Buxton, and I share his family’s disappointment that those remembered for campaigning against slavery will be minimised by this thoroughly inappropriate Holocaust memorial.

It is not just residents, disparagingly described in the past as self-interested, who are opposed to this memorial. Jewish people are not universally at one with the Chief Rabbi who supports it. I am not Jewish, but I know that a great many members of the Jewish community, including the remarkable Holocaust survivor Anita Lasker-Wallfisch—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—are opposed to it. This memorial really is the wrong design in the wrong place.