Clarified the debate will include motions ranging over all four motions, setting the stage for discussing amendments (a) and (b).

Asked a question about the possibility of considering an overground memorial instead of an underground learning centre, expressing concern that the amendment may limit such considerations.

Peter Bottomley argues that the Government's approach to the hybrid Bill is flawed and has wasted significant funds without achieving much. He suggests a more democratic procedure where residents of affected areas are informed about petition rights and encouraged to participate actively. He believes the Committee should have the ability to impose conditions on costs and alternative locations, allowing for fair consideration of petitions from concerned citizens.

Rises in support of amendments due to concerns over lack of proper consultation regarding the memorial's location and due process. He emphasises that trust is an issue, given the high court decision questioning the legality of the site selection. Argues that the bill removes the requirement for planning permission and other necessary consents, which undermines transparency and due process.

Supports Baron's concerns about trust. Points out that admission to the memorial will be free in perpetuity, similar to protections for Victoria Tower Gardens from such constructions.

Pays tribute to those campaigning against the memorial’s siting in Victoria Tower Gardens and stresses the importance of hearing local voices throughout the Bill process.

Clarifies that clause 2 is within the principle of the Bill. Assures the House about strict processes for decision-making and transparency in consultation, but states that the Committee’s purpose is not to re-debate clauses 1 and 2's principles.