Holocaust Memorial (Centre) Bill - New Clause 1

Introduced several amendments and new clauses, including New Clause 1, which requires a review of security arrangements for the Holocaust memorial or learning centre before commencement. Also mentioned that the Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review in Parliament.

Clarified that £40 million has already been spent on a scheme that has not moved forward, suggesting concerns about financial expenditure without clear progress.

Emphasised the importance of Victoria Tower Gardens as a local park benefiting thousands of social housing tenants, expressing concern over any changes that would affect this green space.

Suggested that there could have been a beautiful memorial eight years ago if the Government had not pursued an unsuitable underground learning centre location, indicating dissatisfaction with previous decision-making.

Declared her intention to speak only on Third Reading and did not provide substantive arguments for or against the amendment/clause at this stage.

Mr Stevenson raises concerns over planning issues, lack of proper consultation, escalating costs, and security risks associated with building a Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. He suggests that the Government should take a step back to re-evaluate the project or consider an alternative location such as the Imperial War Museum.

Ms Aiken interjects in support of Mr Stevenson's security concerns, referencing recent events where a memorial was covered for protection during protests, suggesting that Victoria Tower Gardens may face similar issues.

Mr Percy intervenes to argue against making security concerns the primary factor in deciding the memorial's location, suggesting that it would be giving into 'bad behaviour' by activists.

Mr Bottomley intervenes to note that Lord Carlile, the Government's terrorism adviser, has made strong points regarding security concerns. He supports Mr Stevenson’s view on the need for a thorough security review.

The Member opposes the current location due to concerns over lack of public consultation, cost implications, security risks, environmental impact on Victoria Tower Gardens, and its historical importance. She supports amendments that would require a full assessment of alternative sites and reduce damage to the park.

The Member agrees with Nickie Aiken's concerns, emphasising that if this legislation passes, it could set a dangerous precedent for other public spaces and undermine the original intent of protecting Victoria Tower Gardens.

The Member supports the importance of Victoria Tower Gardens as a community space, particularly highlighting its use by families on weekends and holidays. He acknowledges concerns but focuses on the park's current recreational value.

The Member supports amendment 2, acknowledging its impact on alleviating concerns of the Buxton family in his constituency who are related to the historic memorial fountain in Victoria Tower Gardens.

The Member clarifies that supporting this amendment does not set a precedent for other green spaces and is based on the specific merits of the current proposal. He emphasises the importance of addressing concerns while maintaining legal clarity.

Responded to interventions from other MPs about the possibility of amending the Bill in another place, precedent in planning law, and the perception that the project is being pushed through without adequate public support.

Supported the Bill and amendments tabled by John Stevenson. Emphasised the need for sensible use of taxpayers' money, reviewed security arrangements, and cited the importance of siting a national memorial in London post-7 October attack. Highlighted the impact of growing antisemitism on Jewish people's freedom of speech and living conditions in the UK.

He argues that the site next to Parliament is appropriate due to historical and educational significance, ensuring public access remains while improving the area's attractiveness. He highlights the cross-party support for the project, emphasising the importance of completing it swiftly for survivors who are growing older.

Interjected to question whether the current position on urgency was part of original proposals or foundation's stance. Suggests concerns about rushing the project might not align with initial plans.

Argues that serious Holocaust museums require vast spaces, implying the proposed learning centre may be insufficient to do justice to the scale and horror of the events depicted.

Andrew Percy argues strongly for building the Holocaust memorial next to Parliament, emphasising its importance as a place of education, remembrance, and defiance against antisemitism. He highlights the unique educational value it offers by being close to where key decisions were made during WWII, stressing the need for such memorials in light of rising antisemitic incidents today. Percy also addresses security concerns by arguing that moving due to fear sets a dangerous precedent.

He counters suggestions that the Bill is being steamrolled, noting its long development period. He argues against relocating the memorial due to security concerns, asserting it is essential to stand up to those who would vandalise historical sites or promote antisemitism. He highlights recent global events that demonstrate the need for such memorials as reminders of potential future atrocities.

He supports the Bill and opposes amendments, arguing it has taken too long to progress. He draws parallels with Commonwealth War Graves Commission memorials and argues that a prominent location is necessary for impact. He references an article he wrote nine years ago about the importance of Holocaust education and memorialisation.

He supports amendment 2 and argues that the current proposal for a national Holocaust memorial is flawed due to flooding risks, potential damage to Victoria Tower Gardens as a public park, traffic issues, and limitations on future flexibility for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. He highlights specific design flaws like an underground portion next to a river, an 18-metre ramp, and a moat that would alter the character of the garden. Furthermore, it does not adequately consider accessibility or educational purposes.

Ms Oswald supports amendment 6 and other amendments/new clauses, emphasising their importance in education and memorialisation. She appreciates the concerns raised about costs, clarity, and security but advocates for a balance that ensures the project moves forward without undue delay.

Mr. Bottomley interjects to emphasise that while he agrees with security measures not being made public, concerns remain about whether these arrangements will inhibit park use by local residents and children. He suggests it is important to debate and vote on new clause 1.

Mr. Hoare argues against amendments that would undermine security or location plans for the memorial and learning centre, emphasising that costs will rise with delay and stressing the importance of education.

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.

Called for clarification on spending figures, questioned the accuracy of the park gardens usage percentage provided by the Government. Advocated for a proper consultation process involving alternatives suggested by consultants before initiating the planning process again. Agreed with the Opposition's suggestion that there should be a new planning application to the local authority.

Intervened briefly to praise Peter Bottomley for his speech, referring to him as 'hon. Friend'.

[INTERVENTION] Requests to make a speech.

Mr. Bottomley expresses concern about the design of the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, highlighting that it would reduce the playground area by 31%. He suggests a more thoughtful approach to the planning process and advocates for acknowledging the hybrid nature of the legislation without resistance.

Ms. Hobhouse, whose family was affected by Nazi persecution, stresses the importance of educating future generations about the Holocaust to prevent similar atrocities from happening again. She supports building the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens and calls for rapid progress on the project due to the increasing frailty of survivors.

Supports the Bill, emphasising the importance of remembering historical figures like Licoricia and the need for a memorial near the Palace of Westminster. Acknowledges concerns but believes the site is appropriate due to its symbolic significance.

Supports the Bill despite it being far from her constituency, emphasising the importance of having a memorial and education centre to preserve testimonies and educate future generations about the Holocaust.

Supports the Bill, stressing the importance of capturing survivors' testimonies as they pass away and highlighting the lack of education on the Holocaust during his school days.

Praises the Minister for handling the debate well and acknowledges the significance of the topic, reflecting on 79 years since Europe was at war. Supports the Bill's aim to commemorate Holocaust horrors.