← Back to House of Commons Debates
Holocaust Memorial (Centre) Bill - New Clause 1
22 May 2024
Lead MP
Peter Bottomley
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 39
At a Glance
Peter Bottomley raised concerns about holocaust memorial (centre) bill - new clause 1 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Eleanor Laing
Con
West Wycombe
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.
Nickie Aiken
Con
City of Westminster
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.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
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.
Wera Hobhouse
Lib Dem
Bath
Declared her intention to speak only on Third Reading and did not provide substantive arguments for or against the amendment/clause at this stage.
John Stevenson
Con
Workington
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.
Nickie Aiken
Con
Smethwick
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.
Andrew Percy
Con
Brigg and Goole
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.
Peter Bottomley
Con
Worthing West
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.
Nickie Aiken
Con
Cities of London and Westminster
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.
Lia Nici
Lab
Brent Central
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.
Richard Bacon
Con
South Norfolk
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.
Carmarthen East and Dinefwr
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.
Simon Hoare
Con
North Dorset
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.
Richard Bacon
Con
South Norfolk
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.
Rachel Maclean
Lab
Redditch
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.
Bob Blackman
Con
Harrow East
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.
Peter Bottomley
Constitutional
Bristol East
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.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
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
Con
Brigg and Goole
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.
Michael Ellis
Con
Brigg and Goole
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.
Philip Dunne
Con
Chesham and Amersham
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.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
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.
Kirsten Oswald
SNP
West Tyrone
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.
Simon Hoare
Con
North Dorset
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.
Peter Bottomley
Constitutional
Bristol East
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
John Stevenson
Constitutional
Carlisle
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
Nickie Aiken
Con
Cities of London and Westminster
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
Peter Bottomley
Con
Worthing West
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.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Con
North East Somerset
Intervened briefly to praise Peter Bottomley for his speech, referring to him as 'hon. Friend'.
Wera Hobhouse
Lib Dem
Bath
[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.
Wera Hobhouse
Lib Dem
Bath
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.
Steve Brine
Con
Winchester
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.
Kirsten Oswald
SNP
East Dunbartonshire
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.
Bob Blackman
Con
Harrow East
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.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.