---

Holocaust Memorial Bill

My Lords, I also support Amendment 16, or something like it. This is a very important amendment: it takes us right back to the core of the Bill, which is really about the nature of an appropriate memorial in this specially protected location for this unique purpose. I took a break during the afternoon to go out into the gardens, and it was interesting to observe that some things will

remain unchanged, whatever is built there: the extraordinary smell and the scent of the hyacinths at the north end of the gardens will remain unchanged—and might be enhanced, as we have heard.

There are some things that will not remain unchanged, but where compromise is appropriate and will certainly be necessary. I saw young children from a local nursery in the playground this afternoon. The Minister is looking weary, but I am afraid I am going to detain him, as this is important—he looks at his officials as if to say: “What do I say? What do I think?” In my view, this goes to the heart of the matter—where do we need to be concerned and what should the Bill address? We have to recognise that, whatever happens, the playground will be a noisier place, with people all around it. For the nursery assistants who were wheeling these children in this afternoon, it will be different, but that is the sort of thing which I believe is an appropriate and necessary compromise.

There are other things that, with good will—which seems to be a bit lacking today and over the past couple of weeks—and good sense, are clearly capable of being sorted out, including security, safety and other issues. I have had the privilege of standing where the Minister is today. For a lot of these debates or issues, people say, “This needs to be on the face of the Bill”, and the Government often, perfectly reasonably, say, “Oh, we’re going to do it, so we don’t need it on the face of the Bill”. There has been a certain amount of that, but these are important areas.

We are discussing something that will be irrevocably changed: the nature of the world heritage site if this proposal goes ahead. I know that the Minister, in response, will say that we will talk about UNESCO next week, as he said to me last week. However, my point is that UNESCO, a convention to which the UK is a signatory, places obligations—albeit not legal ones—on the UK. It is difficult to talk about this amendment without referencing the concerns of UNESCO. If the Minister wants to respond on UNESCO today—he does not look as though he is likely to—it would be welcome. I note that there are other UN conventions to which the UK is a signatory, which do not themselves impose legal obligations, for which this Government seem to be bending over backwards to follow UN rulings, decisions and advice.

It is also worth putting on the record—because people do read these proceedings—that what I have heard today is not about nimbyism; some extremely unfair accusations have been made. Yes, the proceedings may be going on a bit long, but a lot of what we have heard today, and in previous sessions in Committee, are examples of your Lordships at their best: bringing relevant expertise to a thorny, difficult problem. Like many, I live under the flight path to Heathrow. I am a proponent—I always have been in, both in government as an official and since I left government—of more runway capacity at Heathrow. The accusation that a lot of us are coming at this as nimbys is very unfair.

It is also worth restating—because earlier, one Member of the Committee completely mischaracterised the nature of hybrid Bills—that, for hybrid Bills, the House of Lords is obliged to allow for private interests to

be stated. That was dealt with admirably by the Committee looking at the Bill. I note that the House of Lords, between 1909 and 1969, considered and passed four Dudley Corporation Bills; they were hybrid Bills. I suspect those Members of the House of Lords, if they were here when the Dudley Corporation Bills were going through, would have been outraged if the interests of Members with an interest in Dudley had not been given a hearing. That is important to recognise. Now that we are speaking in the normal way, as Members of the House of Lords, it seems to me hardly surprising, given the proximity of the subject matter of this Bill and the nature of what is being proposed, that a significant number of Members of the House have important things to say about it, just as we would on any other topic where we thought we had something to bring to the party.

Having said that, it is important to go straight back to the planning question. I will not make artistic judgments, as some of my noble friends have, and I will not talk about architects. I happen to think that the Vienna memorial by a British sculptor, which was referenced earlier, is very moving; it is right in the centre of the city in Judenplatz. However, that just demonstrates that there are all sorts of views on artistic matters, and I do not believe that the Committee should spend time thinking about artistic matters. What we should be thinking about is what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said. He reminded us that this is a planning Bill. Clause 2 is all about sweeping away particular planning restrictions, so it is no good the Minister keeping on saying, “Well, it is all to be dealt with in the planning process”.

4.30 pm

We have no assurance about what that planning process will be, in spite of repeatedly asking for it. I am mindful of the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead—again, the Minister shakes his head. The noble and learned Lord, who is a very distinguished lawyer, said this during the evidence sessions of the Bill Committee:

“To say it is going to be in the future planning process seems to me to be far too woolly, to be perfectly frank”.

I very much agree with him. We have had no comfort on this, which is why all of this is so troubling. I say to the Minister that we have again, as we had last week, the makings of an amendment—I do not happen to have strong views as to whether it is figurative or not—that will deliver a memorial, which we all want to see in Victoria Tower Gardens, that is appropriate to the scale required; that will not irrevocably harm the character of the world heritage site; and that could be delivered at much lower cost, with much greater practicality around it. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take this amendment seriously, in the spirit of wanting to get something that represents value for money as well as quality built in a reasonable timescale.