Eleanor Laing: Certainly—I was calling the hon. Lady because she is the only Member on the Opposition Back Benches who had indicated she wished to speak, but there is no need for her to contribute at this stage. We will save her contribution for Third Reading and continue with the Committee stage, with the Chair of the Committee that has examined this Bill, John Stevenson.
John Stevenson: Thank you, Dame Eleanor. I wish to speak to amendment 1 and new clause 1 and take the opportunity to speak to some of the other amendments. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend Sir Peter Bottomley for his contribution and his dogged determination, and for covering many of the issues that are relevant to this discussion.
Before making my other remarks, I would also like to say that I fully support the idea and concept of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre; indeed, I voted for it on Second Reading. I recognise that this is an incredibly important project, and one that is probably as important now as it ever has been in the past. The idea of a specific memorial is entirely appropriate, but the concept and idea of a learning centre is in many respects vital and, in my view, the most significant part of the project. It is coming up to 80 years since the end of world war two and there are fewer people who have a direct link with that time or indeed with what happened during the second world war. Therefore, it is even more important we do not forget and that we ensure that we learn from what happened then and educate for the future.
Please be in no doubt, therefore, of my support for an appropriate memorial and a worthwhile learning centre—something that I am sure the whole House will support. However, having had the privilege and responsibility of being part of the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, I have concluded that there are some serious issues that need to be properly addressed before this specific scheme potentially proceeds—if it does at all. My advice to Government would be to take a step back and pause. Is this really the right scheme? Is it really the right location? What about the appropriate costs involved?
We all want to see a successful scheme. We want to see it constructed in a timely fashion, and arguably too long has already passed. We want it to be built in the right location, and at a cost that is realistic and fair. If I may be so bold, I would suggest that such a scheme could be built quite quickly at the Imperial War Museum and fulfil all the ambitions and wishes of the original Committee and everybody in this House.
Let me turn to the Bill and the various amendments. Four key issues arise, but I will touch first on planning, on which I am sure the Minister will respond. Time has passed and circumstances have changed. What are the issues relating to air quality and flooding, the changes to the area in traffic management terms, and the prospect of thousands of visitors to such a site? Is a new planning application now required, to go back to the proposal’s origins, or should we just consider updating the current version, and, if so, what are the requirements for that? The planning application touched on security, but circumstances have fundamentally changed. I will come back to that point in due course, as it relates to my new clause 1.
Secondly, there is consultation, which new clause 2 touches on. It is something that the Select Committee picked up on very early. The original Committee had instructed consultants to seek an appropriate site. Recommendations were made and sites were located and considered. The Holocaust Commission itself came up with Victoria Tower Gardens. I understand that it has been said—allegedly, at least—that that was a lightbulb moment. What I find extraordinary, however, is that no further consultation on that particular site was taken. Had such a consultation taken place, it may have revealed the issue relating to the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900—the reason for our deliberations today—and because that issue was missed, the amount of time spent on this whole project has been extended.
That consultation may or may not have shown that that was the correct site, but at least there would have been proper consultation, people would have had the opportunity to consider the merits of the site and, perhaps, whether it was inappropriate, and it could have been compared with other locations. It was very telling that the counsel for the promoter and the Government all but acknowledged that a consultation should have taken place, and that it would have been better if one had. In my view, that was a serious error of judgment. I appreciate that the Government will argue that there was a consultation during the planning application, but I would dispute that it was the one that should have been carried out.
Let me turn to my two amendments. Amendment 1 would address the overall cost: the original amount set aside by the Government to kick-start an endowment fund was £50 million, as set out in 2015 by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron. By 2017, the figure quoted was still £50 million, but then the costs started to increase. In 2018, they had risen to an estimated £102 million, of which the Government would fund £75 million, and private donations the rest. We now have a cost estimate of around £138 million, but are we really suggesting that when the digging starts in Victoria Tower Gardens, the costs will remain anywhere near that? I suspect that they will escalate considerably to a much higher figure.
It does not end there. In 2021, the then Minister announced that entry to the site would be free. The estimated annual running costs were, at that time, £6 million per year. In 2024, they have risen to somewhere between £6.5 million and £8.5 million—and, indeed, they could go higher. Of course, we have still not considered the potential security costs, which are, in many respects, a complete unknown. Amendment 1 would restrict the funding to the original amount, which could be increased by substantial private donations. Might the Minister advise the House on the estimated private donations to date, and on what they are likely to be in future, so that we have some indication of the private contributions that could be made to the overall project?
New clause 1 is probably the most important of my two amendments. Security will become a huge issue in the future—we are already acutely aware of it, given the circumstances of what is going on in Gaza. I appreciate that some thought was given to security during the planning process, and would be again, but circumstances have completely changed. If the project goes ahead and we build the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, we do not want to see them being closed most of the time because of security considerations.
Nickie Aiken: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a serious issue regarding the security of Victoria Tower Gardens if the memorial and education centre are built? We have already seen the current Holocaust memorial that is based in Hyde Park covered up by the authorities to protect it during a recent pro-Palestine march that went through Hyde Park.
John Stevenson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Security issues should be one of our key considerations as a Committee, which is why I think somewhere like the Imperial War Museum would be a far better location.
Andrew Percy: I will address the security issue in my speech, but I think it is all the wrong way round to make a decision about where to place a memorial to 6 million murdered people because some protesters and activists might threaten it. That is giving in to bad behaviour.
John Stevenson: Security is one of the many considerations with regard to the site, and I think it is a valid one to look at, but what we want is somewhere that is actively attended—somewhere that people go to on a regular basis, and are not hindered from doing so because of security concerns. My new clause 1 asks the Government to get a security review and bring it to Parliament. That review may well conclude that there is no issue and we should proceed, or it may suggest to Government that there are active concerns and we should respond accordingly.
Peter Bottomley: I apologise if I am taking words out of my hon. Friend’s speech before he gets to them, but was it not Lord Carlile, the Government’s terrorism adviser, who made the point about security very strongly?
John Stevenson: My hon. Friend is exactly right—he certainly did so at that time.
I have tabled two amendments to this Bill: one is about cost, and the other is about security. Overall, the security issue must have priority, and I will certainly be looking to push that amendment to a vote, but I will just make some final comments on those amendments and, indeed, the whole project.
I believe the amendments to the Bill are sensible and appropriate, and sadly, I feel that unless the Government take a step back and give serious thought to the proposed project, there can be only two ultimate outcomes. Either at some point in the future, someone will have a lightbulb moment, reassess the whole matter, review where we are going with it and maybe draw back from the ideas that are being put forward, or we will press on and potentially create a very expensive white elephant, which will defeat the worthwhile aim of creating the memorial and learning centre that I believe we all want to see. I hope it is the former, rather than the latter, that prevails.
…later…
Simon Hoare: The planning inspector did the work that statute places upon them, to allow them to make a clear recommendation back to Government on how this application should be determined. The inspector saw all documentation that was germane to that appeal process and, of course, could have called for additional documentation if they so wished. I say gently and respectfully to my hon. Friend the Father of the House that I appreciate he does not like the outcome of the process and that he never will, but trying to cast a whole variety of assertions about how we arrived at the outcome, using questions about procedure and process, is not particularly helpful on an issue that clearly commands the support of the majority of the House. My advice to the House would be to tilt at windmills where they exist, of course, but where they do not exist, do not seek to create them.
I reiterate what I said in response to the invention by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Setting aside the relevant section of the 1900 Act is necessary to bring forward, in land use and planning terms, the proposal that will eventually be before us. It does not—let me say that again, it does not—establish a precedent for any public body or Government Department, nor does it create a precedent that can be relied upon in law, at judicial review or elsewhere, for private sector developers or joint venture partners with the public sector to base their argument on the proposal. They will not be able to say, “Ah well, this portion of Victoria Tower Gardens was allowed for this purpose, therefore the Government have opened up a Pandora’s box.” To mix my analogies, this does not create a Trojan horse either. It is not a Trojan horse bearing a Pandora’s box. Any application would need to be judged on its merits. I want to make that abundantly clear, because I know that it is an important point for my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster.
Many questions have been raised around costs, which are not necessarily an issue for this Bill per se. I will not test the patience of the House by saying that the public sector is tried and tested and reliable, with its letters of contract and contract managers, but everything seems to overrun. I say politely to the House that, of course, costs have gone up over the past nine years, since this idea was first mooted. And, of course, costs will go up still further the longer that we delay.
May I make two philosophical points, Sir Roger? First, whoever is monitoring the delivery and the budget management on this will, with due and proper cognisance to the public finances, be as resolute as they can be to ensure that proper contractual obligations are followed and that budgets are met and not exceeded. One would expect to see a contingency on something such as this, and, indeed, those costs will ebb and flow as the cost of materials rise and fall, and the cost of labour changes and the like.
John Stevenson: Does the Minister not share my concerns about costs? It was £50 million in 2015. It is now estimated at £138 million. He has already said that the cost is likely to go up even further. Are we really writing a blank cheque for this scheme?
Simon Hoare: My hon. Friend is right, and I will thank him properly on Third Reading, but may I just put on record at Committee stage my thanks to him for the work that he did chairing the Select Committee that looked into all of this? It did a thorough piece of work and I am hugely grateful to him and to colleagues who gave up so much of their time.
Yes, costs have gone up. I say this as somebody who has spent some considerable time looking at development costs in the private sector. Sometimes we can look at things in the public sector and say, “How on earth have they arrived at this particular figure?” But the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and others will keep a very clear view on that, and they are right to do so.
I say this to my hon. Friend: we want to commemorate and memorialise a horrible period in our world history, and ensure that education can be provided so that the mistakes of the past are hopefully not repeated in the future. I do not make this point to be flippant, but what cost can be put on that, given the scale and the seriousness of the task that we have in front of us?