Holocaust Memorial Day

Debate between Martin Vickers and Alec Shelbrooke

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate once again. There have been some profound, passionate, emotional and informative contributions, as is so often the case when we put our political exchanges to one side. As Members have mentioned, this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day theme is, “Bridging Generations”. Every year we move further away from the horrific events of the Holocaust, it becomes even more distant, and every year more of our Holocaust survivors pass away. I understand that the median age of Holocaust survivors globally is 87. It is becoming harder and harder for those few remaining survivors to share their testimonies in person. Nothing compares to the raw shock of hearing the horrors of the Holocaust spoken from the mouth of someone who experienced it. When those voices pass away, who will pick up the mantle?

That is why this year’s theme is so important. We have to bridge the gap between the generations. We must begin the process of passing on the responsibility of remembrance from survivors to the next generations. Sadly, as a global society, we have not learned the lessons, and we know there have been many examples of genocide since the Holocaust.

Last year, I spoke in this debate ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide, which the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) mentioned— I apologise if I make some of the same points. I have taken a particular interest in the western Balkans because when I studied for my politics degree, one of the units was the break-up of Yugoslavia. When I arrived here in Westminster, I became involved in the various all-party groups that focus on the region, and I subsequently served as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the western Balkans.

The Srebrenica genocide took place in July 1995 during the Bosnian war. As has been said, 8,372 Bosniak Muslim men and boys were murdered, and it is legally recognised as the first genocide on European soil since world war two. It was a campaign of war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide against the non-Serb population. The war cost over 100,000 people their lives and caused the displacement of more than 2 million men, women and children.

Like others, I had the privilege of meeting some of the Mothers of Srebrenica, a group that represents the mothers, wives, daughters and families of those who perished. It does magnificent work in keeping the world focused on the terrible events of July 1995.

Today, as we look back on three decades since that darkness fell over Bosnia, we can ask the same question about the Srebrenica genocide. When the voices that speak of that genocide finally fall silent, who will speak for them? Sadly, as with our Holocaust survivors, in the coming years and decades the direct testimonies of Srebrenica survivors will be merely written ones.

I have before spoken in the Chamber about my visits to Srebrenica. As with visits to military cemeteries in Belgium and France, or indeed to country churchyards where a handful of graves are maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the sacrifice of so many people hits home on those visits to Srebrenica. Like any location where tombstones stretch for row upon row, the harrowing sight and silence of the Potočari battery factory stirs the emotions.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the gravestones that mark massacres in Bosnia and elsewhere. They emphasise the importance of Holocaust Memorial Day and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, because millions of people were cremated so that there was no evidence of genocide.

[Martin Vickers]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend.

Srebrenica is located in Republika Srpska, a semi-autonomous region of Bosnia and Herzegovina controlled by Serbs as part of the Dayton peace agreement. Many perpetrators are still at large, and genocide denial is widespread among some groups of Bosnian Serbs. Had it not been for the involvement of the international community, the Potočari memorial may never have come into being at all.

The decision to locate the Srebrenica-Potočari memorial and cemetery and to secure its funding was made by the UN High Representative. Much of the funding came from foreign countries. The village of Potočari was chosen by survivors and bereaved relatives because it was where many of them last saw their loved ones. The Srebrenica-Potočari memorial complex was subsequently established in May 2001. Beginning as a cemetery, the site was officially opened by former US President Clinton on Saturday 20 September 2003.

The lesson we learn from Srebrenica is that hatred and intolerance can flourish if left unchallenged. In Bosnia, people of many faiths lived as neighbours for generations, and yet in a short time those neighbours were viewed not just as the enemy but as an enemy so threatening that they must be ethnically cleansed. Not only were 8,372 men and boys massacred, but thousands of women and girls—some estimates are as high as 50,000—suffered sexual violence. Thousands of women and children were forcibly deported. For children born today, Srebrenica is as much a historical event as the Holocaust was to my generation. And that is the worry: there is danger in distance as it can lead to detachment, and detachment can allow the seeds of division to grow once more.

That leads me to my next point, on addressing the issue of genocide denial. Sadly, we see a rising tide of genocide denial across the western Balkans today. To bridge generations, we must arm our young people with the truth. We cannot allow the history of 8,372 murdered men and boys to be debated into non-existence by those who seek to revive the same nationalist hatreds that led to those murders in the first place. We must ensure that our schools teach not just the dates of the Bosnian war and the genocide in Srebrenica, but the mechanics of them. How does the slow drip of dehumanising rhetoric turn a neighbour someone has lived alongside for many years into an enemy they are willing to destroy? It is young people we must reach; it is for them that the lessons of Srebrenica, the Holocaust and subsequent genocides are most important. They are our future, and it is they who we will rely on to avoid the mistakes of the past.

We live in an increasingly dangerous world—one in which human decency is sometimes in short supply; one that is forgetting the lessons of the recent past. Let us state today that the story of Srebrenica, the Holocaust and other genocides will not fade into the archives and that we will never forget how stripping people of their humanity can lead to some of the worst crimes in human history.

As is often the case, we can turn to the words of our forefathers who wrote the religious texts of the many faiths that are represented here and throughout our country. The service of Compline in the Book of Common Prayer says that we must

“be vigilant, because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour”.

It is vivid, stark language, but sadly the devil can enter the hearts of people, especially when propaganda and evil leadership are involved. We must never forget the brutality of which man is capable, and it is right that we use parliamentary time to commemorate these horrific events.

To the young people watching this debate today or taking part in Holocaust education events in their schools or communities, I say: pick up the mantle. Do not let these testimonies fade away and be forgotten. Bridge the gap between the generations and carry the lessons of the Holocaust forward. When my daughter was in her late 20s, she went on a social project to Rwanda, where she met people who had survived the genocide there. That had an enormous emotional impact on her, which is why I believe it is particularly important that young people are involved. I attended a Holocaust memorial event in the town of Brigg in my constituency last Sunday, and one of the highlights was the readings from pupils of a local school at the short service. We rely on our young people to succeed where past generations have failed.

Local Government Reform

Debate between Martin Vickers and Alec Shelbrooke

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I apologise for not having turned my mobile phone to silent earlier in the debate. It was actually the leader of the council on the phone, who was no doubt going to tell me. “Don’t say that, under any circumstances.”

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) on initiating the debate. I was going to say that it is timely, but it is one of those subjects that we debate about every six months, coming to similar conclusions and perhaps not advancing as much as we would like. We ought to congratulate the Minister, and both the present Government and the coalition that preceded them, on advancing the localism and decentralisation that those of us who have served on councils have encouraged. In my 26 years as a councillor, whatever Government were in power, there was more and more centralisation, and we railed against it to no effect. We have now got a reversal of that, and we should congratulate the Secretary of State and his predecessor for the work they have done on that.

If the Government believe, as they clearly do, in the process of devolution—and to some extent in elected mayors, though they do wobble on that occasionally—they have to grasp the nettle and move forward. I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell said when he spoke about having a county mayor. The problem, of course, is that counties such as Yorkshire and my own county of Lincolnshire are somewhat large. Lincolnshire is 75 miles from north to south, and the connection between, say, Gainsborough in the north and Spalding in the south is somewhat tenuous, both in their local economy and in the fact that, in all honesty, people in Gainsborough rarely, if ever, go to Spalding, and vice versa, nice though those towns are.

My preference is for unitary authorities across the board. Personally, I would have them headed by elected mayors. We should not be frightened of the elected mayor process, as other Members have said. It is a form of direct election in which, as with the referendum and so on, the voters give a clear answer; it is black and white. I think that is to be encouraged. I know people will draw comparisons with the police commissioners and say that we should look at the terrible turnouts, and that nobody really knows who the commissioners are and so on, but it is early days yet. I genuinely think that the police commissioners have a role to play, though I would not be opposed to transferring their powers to an elected mayor.

There are problems with that, of course. My own county of Lincolnshire is actually served by two police forces. Unfortunately, those of us in the north of the county still have the relics of the County Humberside scheme—we have Humberside fire and Humberside police and so on, but that could be corrected relatively easily. I think we should move forward on that. We are moving forward in the sense that we have the Greater Lincolnshire devolution deal, which the local authorities have signed up to, although there are reservations about the role of an elected mayor. As I said, I am personally very much in favour of an elected mayor, and I hope the Government do not wobble on that. One or two of the authorities are wobbling, mainly because the consultation came out with more or less a 50:50 decision.

The reality, of course, is that such consultations are pretty meaningless. How many real voters actually took part in the consultations? Yes, there was the chamber of commerce and the institute of this, that and the other, but the reality is that they do not engage the average voter. Why should they? The man and woman in the street want the bins emptying, the streetlights going on and the potholes filling. They want an efficient local authority. The structure of the authorities is completely irrelevant to them, though of course they want to be able to influence the outcome, particularly in relation to the setting of council tax.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) made a point about having more regular elections. Personally, I have always been in favour of election by thirds. I recognise that does mean that there cannot be a clean sweep and people cannot make a sudden change, but in the past one of my arguments has always been that having elections every year is actually good for local political parties. Across the political spectrum, we struggle to maintain interest in local elections and local parties. The local parties are a vital part of the structure of our democracy, and I do not think we should lose sight of that.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Is that not a party political argument rather than a local government argument? Is the problem of electing on thirds not that, a couple of months after an election, people are immediately looking to the next election, and long-term strategic decisions that may be controversial at the start but have a long-term effect do not get taken?

[Martin Vickers]

That is certainly true, but the opposite of that is that local authorities are constantly looking over their shoulders at the electorate—and so they should. That is the whole point of accountability. The one thing that perhaps weakens the argument about the importance of keeping local parties involved is that we now have more elections, because we have police commissioners, and under my system we would also have elected mayors, so there is a constant move toward elections. Personally, I think we should give local authorities the option of having elections not by thirds but by halves every year or two years. That might be a sensible way forward.

Mindful of your comments of wanting to get other speakers in, Mr Howarth, I will not dwell on the matter too much further. I like the idea that my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell put forward of having the chairman or chief executive of a clinical commissioning group as some part of the structure. I also draw attention to the role of local enterprise partnerships. Yes, they have grown and are playing an important part, but they suffer from a lack of accountability. If we had cross-border unitary authorities, it would be useful to transfer some if not all powers from the LEP to the unitary authority.

Localism Bill

Debate between Martin Vickers and Alec Shelbrooke

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am listening very carefully to my hon. Friend’s points. I think Members of all parties have been guilty of trying to explain why they do not think particular referendums, on serious issues, should be binding.

If there were a referendum suggesting that councillors should not receive any money whatever for their work, I believe it would find popular support, yet councillors work hard and need some sort of recompense. If that referendum were binding, how would councillors deal with that situation?

[Martin Vickers]

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point, and my response is obvious—I am arguing in favour of binding referendums, so I believe that such a referendum would have to be binding. There could be turnout—