Holocaust Memorial Bill

Report (Continued)

My Lords, as everybody knows, we are now on Report. These issues have been debated extensively in Committee, so we do not need any Second Reading speeches. I urge noble Lords to reflect that in their contributions to the debate. This is a self-regulating Chamber, and one of the characteristics of that is discipline. I think we need to show that now.

Amendment 3

3: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— “Report: effects of the construction, presence and use of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre on the security of the site and surrounding area(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out the predicted effects on the security of the site and surrounding area arising from the construction, presence and use of any Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—(a) a list of those bodies and individuals consulted before construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre (subject to redaction of names where necessitated by national security),(b) a summary of the advice provided by each body and individual consulted,(c) a full description with visual depictions of all road and traffic changes, at and near to the chosen site, proposed to be made during construction and following completion of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre,(d) proposals for the continuing assessment of the security of the site and nearby buildings, and(e) such other security information as the Secretary of State considers to be relevant.(3) The Secretary of State may delegate the preparation of the report referred to in subsection (1) to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for the tabling of a motion for resolution in each House of Parliament within 56 days of laying the report before Parliament.”

My Lords, my amendments in this group relate to security, and I appreciate the support of noble Lords who have signed these amendments. I start by emphasising to your Lordships that I want to see the erection of a Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens as soon as possible.

I have something personal to say. Nine days ago, I had the sadness and privilege of speaking at the funeral of a child Holocaust survivor called Renata Calverley. Renata was my beloved sister, literally my half-sister, her mother having died in Auschwitz. She was born in 1937, in Poland. How she survived was a miracle. Alas, in her survival, she lost her early childhood to five years of being hunted, hungry and hidden just because she was a Jewish child. She was, to be fair, a formidable memorial of the Holocaust herself, as I told her from time to time, but, unfortunately, she was ephemeral. What Renata and other survivors, and of course the dead, deserve is to be remembered in perpetuity in a memorial that is devoted solely to the Holocaust, the most horrific massacre of innocent people in human history. The reason for this amendment is partly based on my sister; that memorial must be a safe space, as free as can be managed from the threat of terrorism and other violence, and in as peaceful and accessible a setting as is possible in this city.

That is why I cannot support the erection of the planned learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, and for two reasons. The first has already been referred to frequently: it is not the right place for a proper learning centre. My noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, made that point. We heard a reference or two to the POLIN Museum. Yes, some of the POLIN Museum is underground, but the building of the POLIN Museum stands out as the most significant modern building above ground in Poland and in Warsaw. It is a competitor for style with the recreated buildings of the 18th century. It is not an underground museum. It is so big because it accommodates people who can do their PhDs and otherwise research the Holocaust properly, in a true learning centre.

In recent weeks, we have witnessed scenes in the area of Parliament which generate a real cause for concern, and this is the evidential context of what I say. On 8 March, a Saturday, a barefoot man carrying a Palestinian flag easily penetrated the allegedly secure perimeter of Parliament. He managed to climb up the Victoria Tower and stay there for 16 hours. Those who guard this place and all the cameras around it failed to detect him. Where were they? Where is this great security that I keep being told has been applied to this Palace? I do not comment on the case itself, just on the fact that this occurred. It is astonishing that nobody was quick or observant enough to prevent that very significant trespass. Despite considerable expenditure on the safety and security of this place, the danger such an event could create is self-evident. It cannot have been lost on our enemies, whether non-state or state actors.

A few days ago, there was a demonstration around the Palace which caused great concern to Members of your Lordships’ House. Some of us—I was one—were interfered with as we were trying to get into the House from the Tube station. There were no police there. I had the pleasure of telling a young American that I thought that she should spend a little more time solving problems in her own country. One noble Lord I know had water thrown at him in exactly that place. For some astonishing reason, the police decided that the demonstrators should be allowed to completely occupy Corus Lane, so that vehicles could not be driven into Parliament. Is that the security arrangement that I am assured is going to keep us safe without further review?

I turn to the changes that have occurred since the previous planning application was made and the comment I have already reflected from Lord Etherton’s committee. The horrific criminal terrorist attack by Hamas on Israelis enjoying a music festival caused over 1,000 deaths —a terrible criminal attack. However, those deaths are many fewer than the number of deaths that there have been in the war in Gaza conducted by Israel, which of course has every right to defend itself within international law. I make no judgment of that. Whatever the rights and wrongs of those events, they are plainly a catalyst for disorder and they can breed terrorism. It would be foolish to ignore the increased risks which now exist because of those recent events. Indeed, it is officially accepted by JTAC that, during recent months, the risk of terrorism in this area has been and remains designated as substantial.

In the days leading to this debate, I was given the advantage of a meeting organised by the Minister with experts from the relevant security authorities, and I thank him for that. I asked them a plain question: is the risk of terrorism increased by those recent events and by having a learning centre at the proposed site in Victoria Tower Gardens? I looked at them hard and waited for their answer, but the officials declined to answer the question one way or the other, saying that it was a political matter. The Minister was there and I was there; that is exactly what happened. If it is a political matter, given that we are considering this Bill before Parliament, it is not merely one to be decided by a Minister or two; rather, it is a matter for both Houses of Parliament.

That brings me back to the planning issue. If Alex Carlile, as an individual, applied to build a Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, it would be refused because of Section 8 of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900. However, this is no such application. The applicant this time is the Secretary of State and the Bill is in front of the House—that is, he is applying to your Lordships. The application had to be to Parliament because it involves the statutory decision to overrule the 1900 Act of Parliament that made Victoria Tower Gardens immune from such development.

Conceptually and in legal principle, therefore, this is not any ordinary planning case before a local authority. It is an application to Parliament. Yes, the planning system can deal with some of the detail, but not before Parliament has decided upon the location—that is our role today—and whether it is safe to have it there. It is right in principle not to leave security considerations to the vagaries of the planning process but to give that authority to Parliament.

I have not done as many planning appeals as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who spoke earlier, but I have done a fair number of them and I have yet to appear in one in which I saw any issue of serious security discussed, so my proposed amendment sets out a process for doing that. The process would be simple and sensible, and I have yet to hear any objection to the methodology on its merits. It would involve full consultation, including with the security services. An independent report would enable Parliament to assess the security of what is proposed. I am of course prepared to listen to any constructive suggestions to improve my amendment.

I have said before that I do not wish to be the person who says “I told you so” after a terrible event. I have spent much of the last 25 years paying close attention to terrorism issues and matters of security, over 10 of those as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. In my parliamentary life and my professional life, I continue to focus on such issues. My firm and considered belief is that placing a learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, visited by thousands of people each week in an area that could easily be penetrated by a terrorist carrying weapons, is a risk that could be removed by creating a better learning centre and putting it on a more suitable site. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support both amendments in this group. If the Holocaust Memorial Learning Centre were to be placed in Victoria Tower Gardens, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, correctly warns, there is the risk of terrorism attacks, whether by state-sponsored or self-initiated terrorists. As he has indicated, that is because of its proximity to the Palace of Westminster. Thus, in association with whatever political controversies in general, not least particularly those currently surrounding the situation in Israel and Gaza, these amendments therefore give Parliament the opportunity to make the final decision on whether to put HMLC in Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere, based on proper evidence on where it makes best sense to put it without compromising national security.

My Lords, I rise to support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Carlile, whose knowledge and expertise in the field of security and associated matters is way beyond mine. My conclusions are aligned with his.

What was interesting to me was the judgment by Mrs Justice Thornton in the High Court case dealing with the application for the Victoria Tower Gardens proposal. It was quashed, which means of course that legally it never existed, and there is therefore no planning consent for anything of the sort in Victoria Tower Gardens. She said at paragraph 76(5) of the judgment:

“As was common ground by the end of the hearing, the advent of the modern planning system has no bearing on the obligations in the 1900 Act”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out, that is absolutely unequivocal. Mrs Justice Thornton ruled that the 1900 Act impacted on the character of the matters relevant to the determination of this planning application, and in parallel with that it is entirely within the discretion of Parliament—us—to take separate decisions on the merits of the matters under consideration, unconstrained by the precise criteria which applied in respect of the determination of any planning application.

It therefore seems to me that we are faced with two slightly separate issues, which are not those faced by a planning authority. First, we are legislators acting in the wider public interest, and secondly, we have been granted by the 1900 Act a right of veto on what goes on on the land immediately adjacent, which is in our curtilage. This is uncommon these days, but it is the kind of control over land that was relatively normal in the era of the 1900 Act. It seems to me that we have to exercise our powers in good faith, but that has nothing to do in itself with the law that relates to planning provisions.

We are faced with a series of woolly assurances from the Government on what will happen going forward and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out, in terms of security matters they need very substantially tightening up. After all, what is our role in this? Obviously, it is the security and safety of Members, staff and visitors. It is up to us to decide what is appropriate to do for us as employers and hosts to people in this building. I do not believe that we can somehow put this out to commission to somebody else. That is why I strongly support the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, because it brings to us the information we need properly and responsibly to carry out our duties in respect of our occupation of this building. This is quite separate from our approach to a whole range of other matters that may be discussed later this evening.

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment so I would like to speak next, if noble Lords do not mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said, this is no ordinary planning application and I will say why I think that is. The proposer is the Government. The Government are in a special position of being able to remove an important barrier to doing what they want to do, and Clause 2 removes the 100-year-old protections for the park. Most proposers of planning applications cannot do that. But guess what? It is even worse, because whoever decides on the planning application, yes or no, is the very same person as the proposer. It is the Government. It is a junior Government Minister. It was called in by a junior Government Minister when it first came before planning. That makes it a very unusual planning application.