Research Briefing
16 May 2024
By Felicia Rankl,
Graeme Cowie,
Joe Tyler-Todd

Holocaust Memorial Bill:
Progress of the Bill

Summary
1
Background: Commission and Memorial
2 Getting planning consent
3 Location of the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower
Gardens
4 Clauses of the bill
5 A hybrid bill
6 Progress of the bill through Parliament
7 Response to the Bill

commonslibrary.parliament.uk

CBP 9741

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

Contributing Authors
Joe Tyler-Todd, section 1;
Graeme Cowie, section 5
Image Credits
UK Holocaust Memorial - winning design | Flickr by mhclggovuk | Flickr, under
Creative Commons — CC0 1.0 Universal
Disclaimer
The Commons Library does not intend the information in our research
publications and briefings to address the specific circumstances of any
particular individual. We have published it to support the work of MPs. You
should not rely upon it as legal or professional advice, or as a substitute forit. We do not accept any liability whatsoever for any errors, omissions or
misstatements contained herein. You should consult a suitably qualified
professional if you require specific advice or information. Read our briefing‘Legal help: where to go and how to pay’ for further information aboutsources of legal advice and help. This information is provided subject to theconditions of the Open Parliament Licence.
Sources and subscriptions for MPs and staff
We try to use sources in our research that everyone can access, butsometimes only information that exists behind a paywall or via a subscription
is available. We provide access to many online subscriptions to MPs andparliamentary staff, please contact hoclibraryonline@parliament.uk or visit
commonslibrary.parliament.uk/resources for more information.
Feedback
Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publicly
available briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should beaware however that briefings are not necessarily updated to reflectsubsequent changes.
If you have any comments on our briefings please email
papers@parliament.uk. Please note that authors are not always able toengage in discussions with members of the public who express opinions
about the content of our research, although we will carefully consider andcorrect any factual errors.
You can read our feedback and complaints policy and our editorial policy atcommonslibrary.parliament.uk. If you have general questions about the workof the House of Commons email hcenquiries@parliament.uk.
2

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

Contents
Summary

5

1

Background: Commission and Memorial

8

1.1

Holocaust Commission

8

1.2

Location in Victoria Tower Gardens

9

1.3

Design of the memorial

11

1.4

Cost of the memorial and learning centre

14

2

Getting planning consent

16

2.1

Planning application and public inquiry

16

2.2

Judicial challenge to planning permission

19

2.3

Next steps: Holocaust Memorial Bill

21

3

Location of the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower
Gardens24

3.1

Support for locating the memorial and learning centre next toParliament

24

3.2

Concerns about the impact on Victoria Tower Gardens

26

4

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Clauses

30

4.1

Clause 130

4.2

Clause 230

4.3

Clause 3

31

5

A hybrid bill

32

5.1

What are hybrid bills?

32

5.2

Is the Holocaust Memorial Bill hybrid?

33

5.3

Standing Orders Committee decision

34

5.4

Select Committee stage

35

6Progress of the Bill through Parliament

37

6.1

Second reading

37

3

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

7

Response to the Bill

39

7.1

Support for the Bill

39

7.2

Opposition to the Bill

39

4

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

Summary
The Holocaust Memorial Bill 2023-24 would remove restrictions on building a
Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens next toParliament. The Bill would also give the government powers to use publicfunds to build and operate the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre.
The Bill is a hybrid bill. It passed its second reading on 28 June 2023. In
January and February 2024, a select committee heard petitions against theBill. The committee decided to not amend the Bill, and it is scheduled for its
committee and remaining stages on 22 May 2024.

Background: Holocaust Commission
The Holocaust Commission was launched by the then Prime Minister David
Cameron in 2014 to assess whether measures were needed to preserve thememory of the Holocaust. In its 2015 report, the commission recommended
the creation of a “striking and prominent new National Memorial” (PDF) whichshould be “co-located with a world-class Learning Centre”.
In January 2016, the government announced the memorial would be locatedin Victoria Tower Gardens, a grade II listed park next to the Houses ofParliament. The government decided to co-locate the learning centre with thememorial in September 2016.

Differing views on the location of the memorial
Although “the principle of a compelling memorial to the victims of the
Holocaust and all those persecuted by the Nazis” has general support, there
are differing views on whether the memorial and learning centre should be inVictoria Tower Gardens.
Those in favour of locating the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens include
the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education and the Board of Deputies of British
Jews. They said this location in a “prime place of prominence” (PDF) has the“potential to transform how people understand and reflect on this history”.
Others, such as the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust and the Thorney
Island Society, a local amenity society, objected to locating the memorial in
Victoria Tower Gardens. They have expressed concern about its impact on thegardens, a grade II listed park, as well as on other memorials in the gardens.
They also said the project could affect public access to the park (PDF).

5

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

Planning consent and judicial challenge
In January 2019, the government submitted a planning application to build
the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre to the local planning authority,
Westminster City Council. In November 2019, the Housing Minister ‘called-in’
the planning application, meaning that they would decide the application
instead of Westminster City Council.
Following a public inquiry led by a planning inspector, in July 2021, the then
Housing and Planning Minister gave planning consent to build the Holocaust
Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens (PDF). The inspector
had found that the public benefits of the scheme, including its location next toParliament, outweighed the potential harm it may cause to heritage assets.
The planning inspector also considered alternative sites, such as the Imperial
War Museum in London, but noted that these sites lacked a detailed scheme.

Judicial challenge to planning permission
The London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust challenged the decision in theHigh Court on procedural grounds, and the minister’s decision to approve theplanning application was quashed in April 2022.
The judge found that the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900
required Victoria Tower Gardens to be “laid out and maintained… for use as agarden open to the public”. The 1900 Act was therefore an obstacle to theconstruction of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in the gardens.

The Bill
The Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 would disapply sections 8(1) and 8(8) of
the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900, such that the 1900 Act
would no longer pose an obstacle to building the Holocaust Memorial andLearning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. Planning consent would still be
required.
The Bill would also give the government powers to use public funds to build,
operate and improve the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre.

A hybrid bill
The process by which a bill proceeds through Parliament differs depending onwhether it is a public bill, a private bill or a hybrid bill.
The Holocaust Memorial Bill 2023-24, when first introduced, was designatedas “prima facie hybrid” by the House of Commons Clerk of Legislation. It was

6

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Billreferred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. The government sought
to argue, unsuccessfully, that the Bill was not hybrid.
The examiners disagreed with the government’s position on hybridity. They
concluded that the Bill would have a “much greater adverse effect on theprivate interests of local residents” (PDF) and was therefore a hybrid bill.
As a hybrid bill, the Holocaust Memorial Bill 2023-24 was referred to a selectcommittee after second reading. The select committee considered petitions
from those who believed they were directly and specially affected by the Bill.
However, the House of Commons had passed an instruction which prevented
the select committee from considering whether there should be a memorial
and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens and issues related to planningpermission. The select committee decided not to amend the Bill (PDF), notingthat the changes the petitioners sought would have strayed into the mattersthat it could not consider as a result of the instruction.

Next steps
As the planning decision was quashed by the High Court, the relevant ministerin the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) would
need to re-take their planning decision. Another application to Westminster
City Council would not be required.
Any changes to legislation that were made since the planning decision was
originally made, such as the Holocaust Memorial Bill, would be taken into
account.
The government said “strict” decision-making arrangements are in place in
DLUHC to ensure a “functional separation” between those who brought
forward the planning application and those making a decision on it.

7

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

1

Background: Commission and Memorial

1.1

Holocaust Commission
On 16 September 2013, David Cameron, then Prime Minister, gave a speech ata dinner marking the 25th anniversary of the Holocaust Educational Trust. His
speech noted the contemporary importance of preserving the memory of the
Holocaust. To this end, he announced a commission that would consider iffurther measures were needed to preserve this memory:[…] at a time when Anti-Semitism is returning in some parts of mainland
Europe, it is more important than ever that – as a whole country - we doeverything possible to make sure that the memory of the Holocaust ispreserved from generation to generation.
So today I am asking the Chair of the Jewish Leadership Council, Mick Davis, toassemble a multi-faith, cross-party national commission representing ourwhole society and to investigate whether further measures should be taken to
ensure Britain has a permanent and fitting memorial and educational resourcefor generations to come. 1

Mick Davis, then chair of the Jewish Leadership Council, would act as chair of
the commission. It would also be cross-party, with representation from theConservatives (Michael Gove), the Liberal Democrats (Simon Hughes) and theLabour Party (Ed Balls). 2 The public call for evidence opened on the same day
and ran until the end of May 2014.
The commission’s report, Britain’s Promise to Remember (PDF), was releasedon 27 January 2015. It found “widespread dissatisfaction with the current
national memorial in Hyde Park”. 3 The report recommended the creation of a“striking and prominent new National Memorial” which should be “co-locatedwith a world-class Learning Centre”. 4
Under these proposals, the learning centre’s running costs would be covered
through the creation of an endowment fund. 5 The endowment fund would also
support Holocaust education around the country. Three possible locations forthe new national memorial were named in the report, all in London: Millbank,

1

2
3

4
5

8

Cabinet Office, 25th Anniversary of the Holocaust Educational Trust: Prime Minister’s Speech, 16
September 2013
HC Deb 27 January 2014 c25WS
Prime Minister’s Office and Cabinet Office, Britain’s Promise to Remember: The Prime Minister’s
Holocaust Commission Report, January 2015, p33
As above, pp41-49
As above, p15

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

Potters Field and the Imperial War Museum (see the box below for further
information). 6

1 Locations suggested by the Holocaust Commission
Millbank: Located next to the Tate Britain on a site owned by the Rueben
Brothers. The commission’s suggested design included a hidden garden,reflective pond, wall of remembrance and a learning centre. 7
Potters Field: Potters Field Park sits on the riverfront between Tower Bridge
and City Hall. The “water frontage and existing high footfall” made it a “veryattractive location”. 8
Imperial War Museum (IWM): The IWM is in Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park
near Lambeth. The IWM proposed to build a new wing to house a memorial
and learning centre. The new wing would have been linked to newly expanded
and upgraded Holocaust galleries in the main building (opened in 2021). 9
The Prime Minister accepted the commission’s recommendations andcommitted the government to establishing a new National Holocaust
Memorial and Learning Centre. 10 The UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation(UKHMF) was set up as an independent body to oversee the government’s
delivery of the commission’s recommendations.

1.2

Location in Victoria Tower Gardens
The commission’s initial report had suggested three possible sites that could
house the memorial and learning centre. In a September 2015 report, UKHMF
stated that whilst it would “continue to explore these sites in greater detail”,
the selection process was “also open to any other potential site”. 11 The reportlaid out 10 criteria that a site should be able to fulfil, listed in the table below.
Victoria Tower Gardens was first suggested by Lord Andrew Feldman, amember of the UKHMF, in an October 2015 letter to Secretary of State forCulture, Media and Sport, John Whittingdale. Lord Feldman suggested thememorial could be built in Victoria Tower Gardens and the learning centre

6

7
8
9
10
11

9

Prime Minister’s Office and Cabinet Office, Britain’s Promise to Remember: The Prime Minister’s
Holocaust Commission Report, January 2015, p16
As above, p56
As above, p55
As above, p54
HCWS226 [on The Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission] 27 January 2015
UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation (UKHMF), National Memorial and Learning Centre: Search for aCentral London site (PDF), September 2015, p2

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

located in Millbank. 12 The Secretary of State agreed it was a “good option”
and said the department would “consider all options available”. 13
The UKHMF then conducted “investigations into the feasibility of this site”. It
recommended Victoria Tower Gardens to the government in January 2016.

Criteria for the site of the National Holocaust Memorial
Site evaluation criteria

Description

Acquisition/title

The UKHMF required a freehold interest or a peppercorn long lease of thepremises for at least 250 years. 14

Cost/price

The price at which landowners were willing to sell the land and whether
they would take on construction costs.

FootfallAverage yearly footfall in and around the site, and any proposals toincrease footfall.

Location iconic impact

The memorial should be in central London; the UKHMF provided a map ofcentral areas (PDF).

Facilities

For instance, the learning centre should be at least 5,000 square metres,
including four learning rooms (able to seat at least 40) and an auditorium(seating at least 150).

Ownership

Responses should come from a site’s owner.

Partnership andgovernanceIf the site owner were to work with the UKHMF to develop the site, theapplicant should have the capacity and capability “to accomplish the
project in a short deadline”.

Planning/size

Proposals were to be accompanied with a plan setting out current uses andareas. Respondents “should only put a site forward where it believes the
Local Authority would in principle be supportive of this use on their site”.

Timing anddeliverability

Details of any planning permission or planning constraints around the site,
including relevant timings. There should be enough time for “the site to beopened in 2020”.

Transport

Ideally, the site should be within 1 km of a tube station and be easily
accessible by either foot and by bicycle.

Source: UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation (UKHMF), National Memorial and Learning Centre: Search for a Central London site (PDF),
September 2015, pp8-10

12
13
14

10

Lord Andrew Feldman, Letter to John Whittingdale MP (PDF), 26 October 2015
John Whittingdale, Letter to Lord Feldman (PDF), 3 November 2015
The freeholder of a property, or piece of land, owns it outright. A peppercorn long lease is a longterm arrangement in which the leaseholder pays a token or nominal rent.

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the BillOn 27 January 2016, Victoria Tower Gardens was announced as the chosen
location of the memorial, a triangular grade II listed park next to the Palaceof Westminster.
Victoria Tower Gardens is Crown land for which the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport (DCMS) hold the title. Currently, the site houses twomemorials and one sculpture:•

The Buxton Memorial. According to The Royal Parks, the memorial“celebrates the abolition of slavery and commemorates the work of the
MP Thomas Fowell Buxton”. 15 It was moved to the gardens in 1957.

•

The Emmeline Pankhurst memorial. Unveiled in 1930, this is a memorial
to the suffragette leader.

•

The Burghers of Calais, a sculpture by the French sculptor AugusteRodin. The Royal Parks state that it “represents the idea of freedom from
oppression” and “tells the story of the siege of Calais in 1347, during theHundred Years War”. 16 It was set up in the gardens in 1915. 17

The selection process included discussions within government and withproperty owners and developers in central London, invitations to respond to
the UKHMF specification and a search by the property agents CBRE. 18 During
this process, according to the government, “almost 50 sites” were identified
and considered. 19 The main reason for the selection of Victoria Tower Gardens
was that its “historical, emotional and political significance […] substantiallyoutweighed all other locations”. 20
The government decided to co-locate the learning centre with the memorial in
September 2016. 21

1.3

Design of the memorial
On 14 September 2016, the government announced an international designcompetition organised by Malcolm Reading Consultants. Entrants wereinvited to submit two designs, “the first fulfilling the minimum commitment ofa striking new national memorial, and the second including the below-ground

15
16
17

18
19
20
21

11

The Royal Parks, The Buxton Memorial, undated [accessed 29 April 2024]
The Royal Parks, Burghers of Calais, undated [accessed 29 April 2024]
Historic England, Detail view of the Burghers of Calais statue in Victoria Tower Gardens, undated[accessed 29 April 2024]
PQ HL3830 [Holocaust: Monuments] 19 December 2016
PQ 106178 [National Holocaust Memorial Centre and Learning Service] 16 October 2017
UKHMF, UK Holocaust Memorial public exhibition boards: December 2018 (PDF), 2018, p2
PQ 111730 [National Holocaust Memorial Centre and Learning Service] 27 November 2017

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

learning centre”. 22 In November 2016, 10 teams were then shortlisted from 92
entries.
Adjaye Associates and Ron Arad Architects’ winning design for the Holocaust
Memorial and Learning Centre was announced on 24 October 2017. The jury
said the design “resolved an essential challenge of the brief”, that is, “being
visually arresting (“highly visible from near and far”) yet showing sensitivity to
its location and context”. 23
According to the team’s initial design, the Holocaust Memorial and Learning
Centre will be located at the “far southern end of the gardens, embedded in
the land”. 24 The memorial will consist of 23 tall bronze fins. These lead “downinto the Threshold – a generous hall which acts as a place of contemplationand transition into the Learning Centre below ground”. 25 The initial design has
undergone the following changes:•

May 2018: The plans were revised to include a larger exhibition space. 26•

September 2018: Public consultation and exhibition for the plans. Under
these proposals, the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre would
take up 15% of Victoria Tower Gardens’ green space area. 27 Green spacerefers to all soft landscaping, including grass, planting and trees. 28•

December 2018: Public exhibition of the finalised plans. These proposals
responded to the concerns raised in the consultation, including “the lossof green space, security, increased visitor numbers, traffic and the effecton the children’s playground”. 29 The proposed size of the site remained
broadly unchanged.
–

The planning application was then submitted to Westminster City
Council (see section 2).

•

May 2019: The designs were revised further, following consultation withlocal residents, Holocaust experts, survivors and other victim groups,
Westminster City Council, Historic England, the Royal Parks andstatutory consultees. 30

22

UKHMF, MHCLG and Prime Minister’s Office, International design competition opens for new UK
Holocaust memorial beside Parliament, 14 September 2016
UKHMF and Cabinet Office, Adjaye Associates and Ron Arad Architects win UK Holocaust Memorial
International Design Competition, 24 October 2017
As above
As above
National Audit Office (NAO), Investigation into the management of the Holocaust Memorial andLearning Centre, 5 July 2022, HC 579 2022-23, figure 2
UKHMF, UK Holocaust Memorial public exhibition boards: September 2018 (PDF), 2018, p8
PQ 280916 [National Holocaust Memorial Centre and Learning Service] 31 July 2019
UKHMF, UK Holocaust Memorial public exhibition boards: December 2018 (PDF), 2018, p2
MHCLG and UKHMF, New Holocaust Memorial design revealed, May 2019

23

24
25
26

27
28
29
30

12

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill–

The new plans featured revised designs for the entrance hall,
entrance courtyard and surrounding landscape and a reduced
basement footprint.

The current plans mean the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre would
occupy 1,429 square metres of Victoria Tower Gardens (7.58% of its totalarea). This equates to around 15% of its green space area. 31 The floor area ofthe proposed underground construction would be 3,258 square metres. 32

Responses to the design
While stakeholders have uniformly expressed support for the construction of a
new memorial, concerns have been raised about the proposed design for the
Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre.
Historic England, the government’s adviser on the historic environment, said
the size of the Holocaust Memorial would have an impact on the significanceof the Buxton Memorial. It said the much larger Holocaust Memorial could
possibly dominate “its architecturally exuberant but much smaller design”.
Historic England recommended that the Buxton Memorial should be moved toa different location in the park. 33 The changes to the Holocaust Memorial’s
design in 2019 did not lead Historic England to revise its recommendation. 34
In a 2019 article, Rowan Moore, an architecture critic for The Observer, also
expressed concern that the Holocaust Memorial’s “flawed design” and size
would impact the other memorials in the gardens:
The gardens, apart from their trees and lawn, are notable for their existing
memorials to oppression and emancipation: Rodin’s The Burghers of Calais, astatue of the suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst, the Buxton memorial to theabolition of slavery. Their presence does indeed make a case for putting a
Holocaust memorial in their company, but its disproportionate scale blows
them away. The Buxton memorial in particular, an ornate work of Victorian
gothic, is left bobbing like flotsam on the grass-and-bronze wave of the new
design. 35

Some parliamentarians also expressed concern about the design of thememorial. Sir Peter Bottomley MP (Con) expressed concern that the design
did not meet the specifications of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation. 36

31
32
33

34
35
36

13

PQ 270274 [on National Holocaust Memorial Centre and Learning Service] 4 July 2019
PQ HL6914 [on National Memorial Centre and Learning Service] 12 April 2023
Historic England, Pre-application Advice: Holocaust Memorial, Victoria Tower Gardens, SW1 3JA(PDF), 7 November 2018
Historic England, Historic England Response Letter (PDF), 1 March 2019, p2
UK Holocaust memorial- time for a rethink, The Observer, 9 February 2019 [accessed 29 April 2024]
Holocaust Memorial Bill (HMB) Select Committee, Petitioning against the Holocaust Memorial Bill
(PDF), 24 July 2023, HC121 2023-24, Ev 1 [Sir Peter Bottomley MP]

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

Baroness Deech (Crossbench) said the design was “generic”. She said amemorial in Victoria Tower Gardens should be “smaller and figurative”. 37
Adjaye Associates’ description of their design states that their proposal“intervenes lightly, ensuring the park’s existing uses can be retained andenhanced rather than replaced”. 38
When announcing the revised designs in May 2019, the government said thatthe proposal aimed “to preserve and enhance the local park”. 39

1.4

Cost of the memorial and learning centre
In January 2015, the government committed £50 million “towards the deliveryof the new National Memorial, Learning Centre and endowment fund”. In May
2019, the government committed a further £25 million to the project. 40
It said the funding was “contingent on the securing of £25 million of match
funding” through private donations. The government set up a charity, led by
UKHMF member Gerald Ronson, to lead the fundraising campaign. According
to the National Audit Office, the charity will begin its fundraising campaign
only once planning consent has been given. 41
HM Treasury has said that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing andCommunities (DLUHC) must cover any shortfalls in funding or increases inforecast costs. 42

Costs to build the memorial and learning centre
The government estimated that, as of March 2023, setting up the Holocaust
Memorial and Learning Centre will cost £138.8 million. This is an increase fromthe £102.9 million estimated in March 2022 and £89 million in April 2019. 43
In November 2023, the government said it expected “charitable donations of£25m towards construction costs”. 44

37

38
39
40

41

42
43
44

14

HMB Select Committee, Petitioning against the Holocaust Memorial Bill (PDF), 24 July 2023, HC121
2023-24, Ev 6 [Baroness Deech and others]; HMB Select Committee, Oral evidence: Petitions against
the Bill (PDF), 24 January 2024, para 416
Adjaye Associates, UK Holocaust Memorial & Learning Centre, undated [accessed 29 April 2024]
MHCLG, New Holocaust Memorial design revealed, 1 May 2019
HCWS226 [The Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission] 27 January 2015; MHCLG and UKHMF, Prime
Minister leads unprecedented support for Holocaust Memorial as further £25m committed, May 2019
NAO, Investigation into the management of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, 5 July
2022, HC 579 2022-23, para 26
As above, para 25
As above, figure 6; HCWS891 [Holocaust Memorial Forecast Cost] 28 June 2023
NAO, Investigation into the management of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, 5 July
2022, HC 579 2022-23; Explanatory notes to the Holocaust Memorial Bill 007 2023-24, para 17

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

Costs to operate and maintain the learning centre
The government has estimated that the site will cost between £6 million and£8 million per year to run. HM Treasury has said these costs would come fromDLUHC’s budget. 45 In January 2021, the government announced that entry to
the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre would be free for visitors. 46 The
National Audit Office summarised how the site’s running costs will be funded:
It expects that £1.5 million of funding (per year after five years of the Memorial
and Learning Centre’s operation) will come from private donations andfundraising. It does not yet have a plan as to how it will raise these donations,for example, whether it will be from private individuals or visitor donations. 47

Spending so far
As of April 2022, DLUHC had spent £15.2 million on the Holocaust Memorial
and Learning Centre. The National Audit Office said, because of planning
delays, this was around £6 million less than DLUHC had anticipated spendingat this stage. 48
As of June 2023, the government had spent £17.8. million on the project. 49 The
government provided the following breakdown in March 2023:•

Client (for example, staff and contractor costs): £6.3 million•

Content research and development: £2 million•

Design (including architect and technical support): £7.4 million•

Exhibition delivery (such as consultants and designers): £0.4 million•

Construction (for example, enabling works): £0.3 million•

Planning inquiry: £1.4 million 50

45

46

47

48
49
50

15

NAO, Investigation into the management of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, 5 July
2022, HC 579 2022-23, para 27
MHCLG and UKHMF, Jenrick announces free admission to the proposed UK Holocaust Memorial,
January 2021
NAO, Investigation into the management of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, 5 July
2022, HC 579 2022-23, para 27
As above, para 22
PQ 186809 [National Holocaust Memorial Centre and Learning Service: Finance] 8 June 2023
PQ HL6311 [National Holocaust Memorial Centre and Learning Service] 23 March 2023

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

2

Getting planning consent

Building the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre requires planningpermission. The Housing Minister ‘called in’ the application from the local
planning authority, Westminster City Council, and gave planning consent.
However, the decision to give consent was quashed following judicial review,
because the judge found that the decision-makers had not considered an Act
of Parliament from 1900 that requires Victoria Tower Gardens to be “laid out
and maintained… for use as a garden open to the public”.
The government appealed this judgment, but it was upheld. The appeal judge
said that primary legislation would be required to amend the 1900 Act so thatplanning permission could be given.

2.1

Planning application and public inquiry
In January 2019, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local
Government (MHCLG, now the Department for Levelling Up, Housing andCommunities, DLUHC) submitted a planning application to construct the
Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre to Westminster City Council.
As the local planning authority for the area, Westminster City Council would
usually decide whether proposed developments should be granted planningpermission. 51
In November 2019, before Westminster City Council had made a decision, theHousing Minister, Esther McVey, ‘called-in’ the planning application. 52 Thismeans that the minister, instead of the local planning authority, would makea decision on the application and decide whether the memorial and learning
centre should be granted planning permission.
The Secretary of State for DLUHC, or a DLUHC minister on their behalf, cancall-in any application for their own determination, as long the application iscalled-in before the local planning authority makes a decision on it. 53
DLUHC is allowed to decide whether planning permission should be granted,
or refused, for projects submitted by itself. Given that the Secretary of State
51

52
53

16

Westminster City Council, Planning application: Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre at
Victoria Tower Gardens (Ref 19/00114), last updated April 2022; Westminster City Council, Holocaust
Memorial inquiry, last updated April 2022
McVey calls in Holocaust Memorial, The Planner, 26 August 2022 [accessed 10 May 2024]
Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Billfor MHCLG (now DLUHC) was the applicant, however, arrangements were put
in place to ensure a “functional separation” between those bringing forward
the proposal and those responsible for making a decision on it. 54

2 How are planning applications decided?
Planning applications are usually decided by the local planning authority inthe first instance. It will decide planning applications in line with its local
plan, unless ‘material considerations’ indicate otherwise. 55 A local plan setsout a local planning authority’s vision and framework for the development
and land use in its area.
There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a material consideration inplanning law. It can be anything that is potentially relevant to a planning
decision. One material consideration is the government’s National Planning
Policy Framework. 56

Report by the Planning Inspectorate
The Housing Minister asked the Planning Inspectorate, an agency of DLUHC,
to hold a public inquiry on the planning application and prepare a report. In
the July 2021 report, the planning inspector said that he had considered thefollowing issues:•

The impact of the proposed Holocaust Memorial on heritage assets,
including how it would affect Buxton Memorial, a grade II listed building,and Victoria Tower Gardens, a registered park and garden.

•

Other material considerations, including:–

The public benefits of the memorial and learning centre, including
its location in central London next to Parliament and its construction
within the lifetime of survivors of the Holocaust.

–

Victoria Tower Gardens as a location and alternative sites. 57

The inspector found that the memorial would not cause “substantial harm” toheritage assets (as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework). In line

54

55

56
57

17

In line with Regulation 64 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017. The
government has published a note detailing these arrangements: DLUHC and MHCLG, Holocaust
Memorial: handling arrangements for planning casework, last updated April 2022
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 1990; Section 70(2) of the Town andCountry Planning Act 1990
DLUHC and MHCLG, Determining a planning application, last updated December 2023, para 8
MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London (Ref: 3240661), 29 July 2021

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

with the National Planning Policy Framework, he therefore weighed the publicbenefits of the proposal against the harm it might cause to heritage assets.
The inspector concluded that the public benefits of the memorial in Victoria
Tower Gardens “clearly and demonstrably” outweighed the potential harm it
might cause. He recommended that planning consent should be granted. 58
The inspector also considered alternative sites for the memorial, including theImperial War Museum. He said, while seemingly “a benign alternative”, there
was no “detailed scheme” for the delivery of a memorial on that site, which
could affect the construction of the memorial within the desired timescale. 59
The then Housing and Planning Minister, Christopher Pincher, agreed with theinspector’s recommendation. He also concluded that the public benefits ofthe scheme were “sufficient to demonstrably outweigh” the identified harmthat the development might cause. In July 2021, the minister granted planningpermission for the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. 60

3 What is statutory review of a planning decision?
The planning decisions of the DLUHC Secretary of State or ministers can bechallenged in court under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990. This is called ‘statutory review’. Section 288 sets out the grounds forchallenge:
If any person… (b) is aggrieved by any action on the part of the Secretary ofState to which this section applies and wishes to question the validity of that
action on the grounds (i) that the action is not within the powers of this Act, or(ii) that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with inrelation to that action,
he may make an application to the High Court under this section. 61

The court will only consider the lawfulness of the way in which a decision was
made, not the planning merits of the case itself. For example, the court might
consider questions about whether a decision-maker considered all relevantmaterial considerations and provided adequate reasons for their decision. 62
For further information, see the Library briefing, Planning appeals (England)(April 2024).

58
59
60
61
62

18

As above, para 15.189
As above, para 15.169
MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London (Ref: 3240661), 29 July 2021
Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Planning Inspectorate, Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England, last updated January 2024,
Annex L.3; Buckles Solicitors, Legal challenges to Planning Decisions, April 2022

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

2.2

Judicial challenge to planning permission
A planning decision, including one made by the Secretary of State or aminister, can be challenged in the High Court under ‘statutory review’.
The London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust (also known as London Parks
and Gardens), a charity whose aim is to preserve and enhance London’s
green open spaces, applied to the High Court for statutory review of theplanning decision. 63
In October 2021, the High Court gave permission to review the decision. The
role of the court was to determine whether the inspector (and, by implication,
the Housing and Planning Minister) reached their decision in a lawful way. It
did not consider the merits of the planning proposal:
It is important to emphasise that the merits of the memorial’s proposed
location in Victoria Tower Gardens are not a matter for the court. Its location
there may raise matters of legitimate public debate but they are not mattersfor the court to determine. The role of the court in judicial review is concernedwith resolving questions of law and ensuring that public bodies act within thelimits of their legal powers. 64

The High Court quashed the decision to grant planning permission to thememorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens in April 2022. 65
The judge ruling on the case found that the inspector had not considered that
the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 imposed an “enduring
obligation” to maintain Victoria Tower Gardens “for use as a publicgarden”. 66
She noted that that this obligation continued once the gardens had been laidout, meaning the gardens could not be used for another purpose or built on:[…] section 8(1) and (8) provide a continuing obligation to maintain it [thegardens]. Section 8 has not been repealed and accordingly the obligation
subsists. The question that arises is whether 'maintained' is to be understoodas meaning that the land must be kept for use as a public garden or whether it
is limited to meaning to the garden must be kept in good repair/maintenancefor so long as it is used as a public garden.
I am of the view that the wording of Section 8(1) “The lands…shall be laidout and maintained…for use as a garden open to the public” is to be read as acontinuing obligation to keep the land in use as a public garden. […] section
8(8) is similar to section 8(1) and the latter refers to 'hereinafter provided'. In

63

64

65
66

19

London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local
Government [2020] EWHC 2580 (Admin) (PDF)
London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin),para 5
London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin)
London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin),para 76

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Billmy view the language of both section 8(1) and 8(8) is to the same effect – theland must be laid out and thereafter kept as a public garden. 67

The judge concluded that the 1900 Act was a “potential impediment” to thedelivery of the memorial in the gardens. It was a material consideration theinspector should have considered; particularly given the emphasis he hadplaced on building the memorial within the lifetime of Holocaust survivors:
In my judgment, the 1900 Act is a material consideration because of the
impediment it presents to delivery of the Memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens
and the importance attached by the Inspector to the delivery of the Memorial
in the lifetime of Holocaust survivors. 68

The judge also noted that the inspector had placed considerable weight on
the deliverability of the scheme when comparing its location in Victoria Tower
Gardens with alternative locations. Therefore, the inspector’s failure toconsider the implications of the 1900 Act for the scheme’s deliverability in thegardens also held implications for his assessment of alternative sites. 69
The London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust also argued that the memorial
would cause “substantial harm” to the gardens and the heritage assets in thegardens. The judge stated that the inspector had properly addressed whether
substantial harm would be caused. 70

4 What happens if a planning decision is quashed?
If a statutory review is successful, then a planning decision can be quashed.
The case will be returned to the decision-maker. Depending on the case, thismay be either the local planning authority, the Planning Inspectorate or the
Secretary of State for DLUHC (or a DLUHC minister).
The decision-maker will review their decision, correcting any mistakes
identified by the court. In remaking their decision, they may reach the samedecision again, for different or expanded reasons, or a different decision. 71
The Secretary of State for DLUHC and the Housing Minister sought to appeal
the decision of the High Court. The Court of Appeal refused the application toappeal the decision, stating it would have “no real prospect” as “the judge’s
construction of the 1900 Act… was plainly correct”. 72

67

68
69
70
71

72

20

London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin),para 70
As above, para 117
As above, para 149
As above, para 52-53
Planning Inspectorate, Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England, last updated January 2024,
Annex L.9
Landmark Chambers, Court of Appeal refuses permission to appeal against quashing of Holocaust
Memorial planning permission, 27 July 2022; London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister ofState for Housing [Court of Appeal 2022-000831] (PDF)

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

The 1900 Act was “an obstacle to delivery which has not been addressed”, thejudge noted. She went on to state that “the only way of removing the obstacle
would be a repeal of the section, which would require primary legislation”. 73

London County Council (Improvements) Act 1990
The London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 was a private act. Unlike
public acts, which apply universally and change the general law, private acts
give certain groups or bodies, such as local authorities, specific powers.
The 1900 Act gave the then London County Council the power to carry out
improvement works to the Thames Embankment area. The Act also extended
Victoria Tower Gardens. During the statutory review, the judge presiding overthe case highlighted the following subsections of section 8 of the 1900 Act:
(1) The lands lying to the eastward of the new street […] and between the said
street and the new embankment wall shall be laid out and maintained inmanner herein-after provided for use as a garden open to the public and as anintegral part of the existing Victoria Tower Garden subject to such byelaws andregulations as the Commissioners of Works may determine[…](8) The Commissioners shall maintain the garden so laid out and theembankment wall and kerb and railings enclosing it. 74

The Local Law (Greater London Council and Inner London Boroughs) 1965
repealed most of the 1900 Act except “sections 1 and 7 to 9 and so much ofsection 2 as is necessary to give effect to those sections”. 75 Therefore, section
8 of the 1900 Act is still in force. 76

2.3

Next steps: Holocaust Memorial BillIn January 2023, the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the government
would introduce a bill to “build a holocaust memorial and learning centre
next to Parliament”. The government said that the Bill would “update historiclegislation” (the 1900 Act) to remove “a statutory obstacle” that prevented

73
74

75
76

21

As aboveLondon Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin),para 61. The obligations the 1900 Act places on the “Commissioners of Works” now fall to
Department for Culture, Science and Media (DCMS) as the current owner of the land and statutory
successor to the Commissioners of Works.
Schedule 3 of the Local Law (Greater London Council and Inner London Boroughs) Order 1965
London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin),para 65

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Billthe delivery of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower
Gardens. 77
Further information about the Holocaust Memorial Bill is set out in section 4.
Planning consent would still be required to build the memorial and learning
centre, as highlighted by the representation made on behalf of the Secretaryof State to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills (see section 5):[…] if the Bill were to be passed and then receive the Royal Assent, the ability
for the UKHMLC [UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre] to be brought
forward would remain subject to the Secretary of State obtaining all of thenecessary consents and permissions for it to be constructed and operated at
Victoria Tower Gardens, not least a planning permission under the Town andCountry Planning Act 1990. For example, it is under that process that theappropriateness of the location, design and other matters relating to the
UKHMLC would be duly examined and determined. In contrast, the Bill simply
removes a legislative barrier to the UKHMLC being constructed and operated
in the event those separate consents and permissions are obtained. The Bill
itself does not authorise any works, which is of key importance and it is entirely
separate from those processes. 78

Re-taking the planning decision
As the decision to grant planning permission to the Holocaust Memorial andLearning Centre in the gardens was quashed by the High Court, the relevant
minister will need to re-take their decision. 79 Before re-taking their decision,
they may ask the Planning Inspectorate to hold another public inquiry. 80
The government said, subject to planning consent being granted, it aimed toopen the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in 2027. 81
Any changes to legislation that were made since the original decision was
made, such as the Holocaust Memorial Bill, would be taken into account. 82

Decision-making arrangements
As mentioned above, when the planning application was called in, decisionmaking arrangements were put in place in DLUHC to ensure a “functional
separation” between those who brought forward the proposal and those

77

78

79

80

81
82

22

HC Deb 25 January 2023 c1000; DLUHC, Government to introduce legislation to pave way for new
National Holocaust Memorial, January 2023; DLUHC and UKHMF, New bill introduced to pave way
for National Holocaust Memorial, February 2023
Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, Representations on behalf of the Secretary of State (PDF),
March 2023
DLUHC, Government to introduce legislation to pave way for new National Holocaust Memorial,
January 2023
Behind the story: What now for the Holocaust Memorial?, Architects’ Journal, 14 April 2022
[accessed 10 May 2024]
PQ 186805 [National Holocaust Memorial Centre and Learning Service] 25 May 2023
Planning Inspectorate, Procedural Guide: Planning appeals, last updated June 2023, para 7.3

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Billmaking a decision on it. 83 Following a legal challenge by the London Historic
Parks and Gardens Trust, these arrangements were revised and published. 84
In its press release on the Bill, the government reiterated that “strict handlingarrangements” were in place at DLUHC to ensure a “functional separation”. 85

83
84

85

23

In line with Regulation 64 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017
London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Secretary of State for Housing Communities And Local
Government [2020] EWHC 2580 (Admin); Planning Court, London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v
Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government (PDF), October 2020
DLUHC, Government to introduce legislation to pave way for new National Holocaust Memorial,
January 2023

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

3

Location of the memorial and learning
centre in Victoria Tower Gardens

In the ruling on the planning decision, the judge highlighted that all parties tothe case “support the principle of a compelling memorial to the victims of the
Holocaust and all those persecuted by the Nazis”. The issue they disagreed
on was the proposed location of the memorial and learning centre in Victoria
Tower Gardens. 86
This section discusses the different views on locating the Holocaust Memorial
and Learning Centre (UKHMLC) in Victoria Tower Gardens (VTG). For further
information about other proposed locations, see box 1. The different views on
the proposed location in Victoria Tower Gardens can be found in:

3.1•

The planning inspector’s report on the planning application (PDF).

•

The representations received by Westminster City Council on theplanning application.

•

The written and oral evidence of those petitioning against the Holocaust
Memorial Bill to the select committee. The select committee only heard
evidence from those opposed the Bill, not from those who supported theBill (for further information, see section 5.4 of this briefing).

Support for locating the memorial andlearning centre next to Parliament
In 2016, the Prime Minister David Cameron announced that the Holocaust
Memorial would be built in Victoria Tower Gardens to “show the importance
Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust”. 87 In 2021, thegovernment restated the importance it placed on locating the Holocaust
Memorial and Learning Centre in the Victoria Tower Gardens:[…] a proposal of such obviously profound national and international
importance warrants being located at the heart of Westminster, beside

86

87

24

London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin),para 3
UKHMF, Prime Minister’s Office and MHCLG, PM: Holocaust memorial will stand beside Parliament
as permanent statement of our British values, 27 January 2016

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

Parliament, in VTG, a place of national significance adjacent to a WHS [World
Heritage Site]. 88

The co-chairs of the Holocaust Memorial Commission – Lord Eric Pickles (Con)and Ed Balls (Lab) – have also said Victoria Tower Gardens was “absolutely
the right place” for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre. 89
In his report on the planning application, the planning inspector summarised
the arguments of those in favour of locating the memorial and learning centre
in the gardens:•

The location next to Parliament was “iconic”. It was the location “of thegreatest possible prominence”.

•

The location next to Parliament would serve as “a permanent reminder”
of the consequences of political decisions and “a necessary challenge”.

•

It was one of the most visited parts of London, within easy reach of major
tube stations and many bus routes, that would attract many visitors. It
would therefore allow many members of the public and students visiting
Parliament to remember and learn about the Holocaust.

•

The memorial would be sited alongside other important memorials thatmark other significant historic events. 90

Those in support of building the memorial and learning centre in the gardens
included the UK’s Chief Rabbi, the president of the Board of Deputies of British
Jews, the director of the Wiener Library (a library devoted to the study of the
Holocaust) and the director of the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education among
others.
For example, the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, said the memorial and learning
centre should be in “a prime place of prominence”. 91 Marie van der Zyl, thepresident of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said building the memorial
and learning centre “next to the centre of the UK’s democracy” was “uniquely
powerful”. 92
Ephraim Mirvis also argued that the location next to Parliament would “serveas an ongoing reminder to our lawmakers” and help raise awareness “of what
transpired to the Jews in the 20th century”. 93
Professor Stuart Foster, director of the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education,
pointed to research that demonstrated the need to educate students about

88
89

90
91
92
93

25

MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, para 6.23
MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, para 6.24; DLUHC,
Government to introduce legislation to pave way for new National Holocaust Memorial, January2023
MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, sections 6-7
MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, para 6.32
MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, para 11.31
MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, para 6.32

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Billthe Holocaust. 94 He argued that the memorial and learning centre had the“potential to transform how people understand and reflect on this history”,
but that placing them elsewhere would diminish their impact:
Thus, if we believe as a society that learning about and commemorating the
Holocaust is profoundly significant, then it follows that the Memorial and LC
should be in a place of immense national and international importance. Thus,
locating it in London- the nation’s capital city- and directly adjacent to theiconic Houses of Parliament, has an irresistible appeal. Indeed, if the Memorial
and LC is not placed in such a prominent location it will severely diminish its
impact and reach and, inevitably, raise questions about Britain’s commitment
to educate about the Holocaust and to memorialise its victims. 95

The Holocaust Educational Trust, a charity which aims to educate people in
the UK about the Holocaust, said locating the memorial and learning centre
next to Parliament would also allow them to also reach visitors from othercountries. 96

3.2

Concerns about the impact on Victoria Tower
Gardens
Westminster City Council, the local planning authority for the area, opposed
the proposed location of the memorial and learning centre. It raised concerns
about “the impact of this memorial in this location”, noting the following:•

The excavation and construction could harm the plane trees that enclose
Victoria Tower Gardens, possibly resulting in their loss.

•

The memorial and learning centre would have an impact on othermemorials in the park and on the grade II listed park itself.

•

The memorial and learning centre would affect access to “a material
proportion” of Victoria Tower Gardens, reducing the amount of open
space available in the local area.

•

Because they would increase the number of visitors, the memorial andlearning centre would also harm the tranquillity and functionality of thegardens as a place for recreation. 97

94

MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, paras 11.55-11.68;
UCL Centre for Holocaust Education, What do students know and understand about the Holocaust?
(PDF), 2016
MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, para 7.58
MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, para 11.107
MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, paras 8.1-8.15;
8.46-8.56

95
96
97

26

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

Westminster City Council said it would have refused planning permission if theplanning application had not been called in. 98 It suggested “a more modest
form of memorial” could be built in Victoria Tower Gardens and the learning
centre should be located elsewhere. 99
Other groups who object to locating the memorial and learning centre in thegardens have expressed similar concerns. For example, the campaign group
Save Victoria Tower Gardens said that it was “the right idea but in the wrong
place”. 100 These groups have suggested alternative locations for the
memorial or at least the learning centre, for example the Imperial War
Museum. 101
Baroness Deech (Crossbench), who is also opposed to building the memorial
and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, also highlighted that not all
Jews in the UK or all Holocaust survivors supported the proposed location. 102

Impact on the gardens and the other memorials
London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust said the scheme could “irreversibly
change the character” of the gardens:
The scale of the proposed development, the size and massing of its structures,its juxtaposition and obscuration of the Buxton Grade II* Memorial, Spicer
Memorial, and designed open views to Grade I Victoria Tower and Parliament
from the south of the Gardens, will result in significant negative and harmfulchanges to the Gardens. […]LPGT [London Parks and Gardens Trust] considers that the application
constitutes substantial harm to this historic Garden and the setting for the
associated heritage assets. 103

The charity Royal Parks, which manages royal parks in London, also argued
that the memorial and learning centre could “dominate the park and eclipse
the existing listed memorials”. 104 Members of the Buxton Family and Thomas
Fowell Buxton Society expressed concern that the Holocaust Memorial could“overshadow” the Buxton Memorial. 105

98

99
100
101
102

103

104
105

27

Westminster Council rejects Adjaye and Arad’s Holocaust Memorial plans, Architects’ Journal, 12February 2020 [accessed 10 May 2024]; Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, Representations byWestminster City Council (PDF), 13 April 2023
MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, para 7.33
Gardens Trust, High Court quashes VTG planning decision, 12 April 2022
MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, para 8.92
HBM Select Committee, Petitioning against the Holocaust Memorial Bill (PDF), 24 July 2023, HC121
2023-24, Ev 6 [Baroness Deech and others]; HMB Select Committee, Oral evidence: Petitions against
the Bill (PDF), 24 January 2024, para 441
London Parks and Gardens Trust (LPGT), Objection letter submitted to Westminster City Council(PDF), 4 February 2019
The Royal Parks, Objection letter submitted to Westminster City Council (PDF), 8 February 2019
HMB Select Committee, Petitioning against the Holocaust Memorial Bill (PDF), 24 July 2023, HC121
2023-24, Ev 8 [Buxton Family and Thomas Fowell Buxton Society]

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

Impact on the park as a recreational space
Further, the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust said the memorial andlearning centre could lead to “a significant loss of both green space and playspace” in an area that already lacked parks. 106 Save Victoria Tower Gardens
argued that the memorial and learning centre would “inhibit the enjoyment of
the park for recreational use”. 107
The Thorney Island Society, a local amenity society for the Westminster area,
argued that the memorial would also “profoundly and completely change thecharacter” of the park. 108 In petitions to the select committee, local residents
who are part of the Save Victoria Tower Gardens campaign and the Thorney
Island Society argued that the memorial and learning centre would make thegardens “a less welcoming, less safe, less natural and less versatile
space”. 109
They also said that the park would be unavailable for “many years” during
construction of the memorial and learning centre. 110
The Thorney Island Society expressed further concern that the memorial
would separate the playground from the rest of the park. 111 Baroness Deech
said a memorial to the Holocaust should not be next to a playground. 112

Concerns about security
Some groups who object to locating the memorial and learning centre in thegardens have also raised concerns about the impact on traffic and security inthe area. Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench) argued that the site presented“a very real terrorism risk”, particularly in light of “recent events in IsraelPalestine”. 113
They highlighted that more traffic and security measures would also affectthe park. For example, the Royal Parks stated they would “change the natureof what is currently a relaxed park”. 114 In petitions to the select committee,
local residents who are part of the Save Victoria Tower Gardens campaign

106
107
108

109
110

111
112
113

114

28

HMB Select Committee, Oral evidence: Petitions against the Bill (PDF), 24 January 2024, para 5
Save Victoria Tower Gardens, About the campaign, undated [accessed 10 May 2024]
Thorney Island Society, Objection letter submitted to Westminster City Council (PDF), undated[accessed 17 March 2023]
HMB Select Committee, Oral evidence: Petitions against the Bill (PDF), 24 January 2024, para 33
HBM Select Committee, Petitioning against the Holocaust Memorial Bill (PDF), 24 July 2023, HC121
2023-24, Ev 7 [Thorney Island Society and Residents of Westminster]
As above
HMB Select Committee, Oral evidence: Petitions against the Bill (PDF), 24 January 2024, para 425
HMB Select Committee, Petitioning against the Holocaust Memorial Bill (PDF), 24 July 2023, HC121
2023-24, Ev 5 [Lord Carlile of Berriew]; HMB Select Committee, Oral evidence: Petitions against theBill (PDF), 17 January 2024, para 373
The Royal Parks, Objection letter submitted to Westminster City Council (PDF), 8 February 2019

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Billand the Thorney Island Society also argued that security measures could
affect the “current relaxed and informal character” of the park”. 115

Response to concerns
Those who support building the memorial and learning centre in the gardens
have responded to the concerns raised by those who object to the proposed
location.
Difference in opinions
In response to concerns that not all Jews or Holocaust survivors support the
proposed location, Holocaust education charity ‘Learning from the Righteous’said a lack of unanimous support was “not in itself of significance”:
There are different views on this scheme within in the Jewish community, andeven among Holocaust survivors. This country is home to almost 300,000
Jews, a socially, politically and culturally diverse community, which at times isalmost characterised by its members’ strong views on every side of every
debate. As such the lack of unanimous support for this scheme, or any other, is
not in itself of significance. 116

Impact on the parkIn response to concerns that Victoria Tower Gardens could be overtaken by
the memorial and learning centre, the government highlighted that theywould only take up 7.5% of the gardens (15% of the green space). It said it
was “not credible to think that any of the various activities which currently
take place […] would be constrained in any real sense”. 117
The Holocaust Memorial Foundation also said there was “no reason at all”
why the memorial and learning centre could not co-exist with the use of thegardens as a park. 118
Concerns about security
The president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Marie van der Zyl, said
concerns about the park becoming a target for terrorists and extremists were“an insult to victims and survivors”:
The very fact that the enemies of democracy and justice would have us
abandon plans for a significant memorial, is not a reason for us to cower in
defeat, but to redouble our efforts to get it built. 119

115
116
117

118
119

29

HMB Select Committee, Oral evidence: Petitions against the Bill (PDF), 6 February 2024, para 51
MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, para 7.25
HC Deb 29 June 2023 c323-324; HC Deb 29 June 2023 c362; MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria
Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, para 6.97
MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, para 6.98, 11.110
MHCLG, Called-in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London, July 2021, para 11.30-11.34

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

4

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Clauses

The Holocaust Memorial Bill 2023-24 was introduced in the House ofCommons on 23 February 2023. The Bill was carried over from the 2022-23
parliamentary session to the 2023-24 parliamentary session.
The Bill passed its second reading on 28 June 2023. It is scheduled for its
committee and remaining stages for 22 May 2024.
The Bill consists of three clauses. The Bill and its explanatory notes can befound on the parliamentary website.

4.1

Clause 1
Clause 1 would give the government powers to use public funds to build,
operate and maintain the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre. The
explanatory notes to the Bill say that “significant expenditure” would be
required to build and operate the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre. 120
According to the government’s March 2022 forecast, building the Holocaust
Memorial and Learning Centre will cost £102.9 million. Its operation will cost
£6 million to £8 million annually. The government said it expected charitable
donations of around £25 million towards the building costs and additional
donations for the running costs. 121

4.2

Clause 2
Clause 2 would disapply sections 8(1) and 8(8) of the London County Council(Improvements) Act 1900. The 1900 Act would therefore not pose an obstacle
to the construction or operation of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning
Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. Planning consent would still be required.

120
121

30

Explanatory notes to the Holocaust Memorial Bill 007 2023-24, para 6
NAO, Investigation into the management of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, 5 July
2022, HC 579 2022-23; Explanatory notes to the Holocaust Memorial Bill 007 2023-24, para 17

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

4.3

Clause 3
Clause 3 covers extent and commencement of the Bill. It explains that the Bill
would extend to England and Wales (although it applies only to England) andwould come into force two months after the passage of the Act.

31

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill5

A hybrid bill

Whenever the government, or a backbench MP, introduces a bill, it isreviewed by the Clerk of Legislation before it is formally introduced at firstreading. Part of the purpose of this review is to ascertain whether the Bill is
exclusively ‘public’ in character or whether it is ‘hybrid’. 122

5.1

What are hybrid bills?
A hybrid bill is a public bill that includes elements of a private bill. This
usually means that it is introduced by the government but makes provision (inpart) about or affecting the private interests of specific individuals ororganisations, rather than only provision that is of a general character. 123
Recent hybrid bills have included those connected with the construction of
HS2. Private bills are often used in connection with the management ofcommunal spaces (such as the Monken Hadley Common Act 2022). One
common feature of some hybrid and private bills is their use to disapply oroverride planning restrictions or consent requirements or to confer
compulsory purchase powers for specific pieces of land.

Procedure for deciding whether bills are hybrid
If the Clerk of Legislation considers that a bill is “prima facie hybrid” 124 it isreferred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills after its first reading.
The examiners are parliamentary officials who will hear representations anddetermine whether a bill is hybrid. If it is hybrid, they will also determine
whether its promoters (in this case, the government) have complied with any
standing orders for private business that apply to the bill.
If the examiners determine that a bill is not a hybrid bill, it can then proceed
to a second reading in the same way as any other public bill. However, if theexaminers determine that it is hybrid, it is then likely that one or more of theprivate business standing orders will not have been complied with (such as
parliamentary deadlines, publication of notices, or petitioning/consultation
periods).

122
123

124

32

For further advice on hybrid bills, see the MP’s Guide to Procedure or contact the Private Bill Office.
Private Members’ Bills can also be hybrid. However, the vast majority of Private Members’ Bills are
public bills, and should not be confused with private bills, which are promoted by nonparliamentarians with the help of parliamentary agents.
Prima facie is a Latin term meaning “at first sight”.

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

If one or more standing order has not been complied with, the matter will bereferred to the Standing Orders Committee (which consists of eleven MPs
including the three Deputy Speakers). That committee will assess whether anyof the relevant standing orders should be disapplied or varied, so that a bill
can proceed.
The committee will take into account, for example, whether individuals ororganisations are likely to have been disadvantaged by the failure of thepromoters to comply with the private business standing orders. They will
weigh any disadvantages to private individuals or organisations against thepotential benefits to the public.

5.2

Is the Holocaust Memorial Bill hybrid?
The Holocaust Memorial Bill was designated as “prima facie hybrid” by theHouse of Commons Clerk of Legislation and was therefore referred to the
Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
In late March 2023, the examiners invited submissions from the governmentand others (PDF) as to whether the Bill was hybrid and, if it was, whether any
private business standing orders had not been complied with. The examiners
heard oral submissions in April 2023.
The government argued that the Bill was not hybrid, as its provisions did not
differentially impact the private interests of any particular group, but equally
impacted the interests of the public at large. 125
The Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills published a report in May 2023
(PDF) and published a factsheet summarising their proceedings, decision,and next steps (PDF). They concluded that the Bill was hybrid, that certain
private business standing orders applied to it and that these had not been
complied with. In the report, the examiners said the Bill would have “a muchgreater adverse effect on the private interests of local residents” than othermembers of the public:
The Bill would therefore have a much greater adverse effect on the privateinterests of local residents in the Gardens’ preservation than it would have on
the private interests of other members of the public in the Gardens’preservation. The interests of local residents would be affected in a different
manner from those of other members of the public. 126

On the question of “where to draw the line” in identifying the impact of the Billon different groups and their interests, the examiners added:

126

Representations on behalf of the Secretary of State (PDF), 31 March 2023
House of Commons Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, Holocaust Memorial Bill: Report from the
Examiners and Statement of Reasons (PDF) HC 1403, 22 May 2023, para 10

33

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

125

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

it is not necessary to draw any such line: the test is whether it is possible toidentify particular private or local interests that are differently affected. 127

The examiners identified six standing orders that had not been complied with.
In each case, there was a requirement to give or publish a notice, deposit a
document, or make a document available for inspection. In each case, thishad not been complied with, because the government had introduced the Bill
based on the position that it was not hybrid (and had not made the necessary
arrangements). The six standing orders are:

5.3•

Standing Order 4: Giving notice of intention to bring in a private bill•

Standing Order 4A: Making available copies of the bill for physicalinspection•

Standing Order 10: Publishing notice of the bill in newspapers•

Standing Order 11: Publishing notice of the bill in the Gazette•Standing Order 38: Depositing copies of the bill in the Vote Office andPrivate Bill Office•Standing Order 39: Depositing copies of the bill with relevant government
departments and public bodies

Standing Orders Committee decision
The Standing Orders Committee met in June 2023 (PDF). It heard from thegovernment, Baroness Deech, the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust,the Buxton Family and Thomas Fowell Buxton Society and the Thorney Island
Society.
After deliberations, the committee decided to dispense with all the private
business standing orders with which the hybrid bill had failed to comply. This
allowed the Bill to progress to its second reading in the House of Commons.
Although the government had not complied with the time limits set out in thestanding orders, it had sought to provide, retrospectively, the various notices
and documentary deposits. It also argued that certain of the standing orders
were traditionally disapplied with hybrid bills and should be disapplied in thiscase too. The committee agreed with this assessment.

127

House of Commons Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, Holocaust Memorial Bill: Report from the
Examiners and Statement of Reasons (PDF) HC 1403, 22 May 2023, para 11

34

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

5.4

Select Committee stage
In addition to imposing certain notice requirements before second reading,the private standing orders provide for a ‘petitioning’ process on a private or
hybrid bill after second reading. This allows those who are directly andspecially affected by provisions of a bill to raise objections, and to implore
either House to make changes to or prevent the passage of a bill.
In the House of Commons, petitions against a bill are normally received andconsidered by a select committee and must be disposed of before a hybrid bill
can progress to public bill committee or a committee of the whole House.
In this particular case, the House of Commons issued an “instruction” to the
Holocaust Memorial Bill’s Select Committee, immediately following second
reading. This procedural device curtailed the range of matters that could be
examined in relation to petitions, by making clear that the House had alreadyendorsed the “principle” of the Bill and that it could not therefore be revisited.
In particular, the committee could not hear any petitions that related to:(a) the question of whether or not there should be a memorial commemorating
the victims of the Holocaust or a centre for learning relating to the memorial,
whether at Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere; or(b) whether or not planning permission and all other necessary consents
should be given for the memorial and centre for learning, or the terms andconditions on which they should be given. 128

As the committee noted in its special report (April 2024):
The Instruction deemed matters concerning planning permission andnecessary consents to be beyond our focus, leaving us with a very limited remit
compared with what we might have considered. 129

Ten petitions were submitted to the committee, of which eight were heard inoral evidence sessions and two of which were withdrawn.
The select committee, in its report, raised concerns about the government’s
approach to consultation on selection of the memorial site. It also highlighted
uncertainties surrounding the costs of the project and called for more work to
be done on the intended security arrangements for the site.
However, the select committee decided not to amend the Bill, noting that thechanges to the Bill sought by petitioners would have strayed into the mattersthat it could not consider as a result of the instruction.
The committee made several observations and recommendations about boththe operation of the petitioning process and the challenges that they faced

128
129

35

HC Deb 28 June 2023 cc373-374
HMB Select Committee, First Special Report (PDF), 26 April 2024, HC121 2023-24

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

with regards to this issue and Bill. For further information, see the First
Special Report of the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee. 130

130

36

HMB Select Committee, First Special Report (PDF), 26 April 2024, HC121 2023-24

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

6

Progress of the Bill through Parliament

6.1

Second reading
The second reading debate on 29 June 2023 was opened by Michael Gove, theSecretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC). He
said that the Bill served “a vital purpose”, as it would allow the government toestablish a “national memorial and learning centre to honour the 6 million
who died in the holocaust […] in a suitable, prominent centre at the heart ofour capital city”. 131

Support for the Bill
Lisa Nandy, Shadow Secretary of State for DLUHC, and Matthew Pennycook,
Shadow Housing and Planning Minister, said that they supported locating thememorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. Matthew Pennycook
said they supported the Bill “as a means to facilitate its establishment”. 132
Other members of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party and the
Shadow SNP Spokesperson, Kirsten Oswald, also expressed support for theBill.
For example, Bob Blackman (Con), a co-chair of the Holocaust Memorial AllParty Parliamentary Group, said “no place in Britain is more suitable” for the
memorial and learning centre than Victoria Tower Gardens. He said that theproximity to Parliament would “serve as a reminder to us decision makers toensure that this never happens again, and attract large numbers of tourists
to visit the site and learn the history”. 133
Dame Margaret Hodge (Lab) said siting the memorial “in the centre of
London” would make it “visible and accessible to the largest number ofpeople”. 134

Opposition to the Bill
Some members of the Conservative Party emphasised that they were “fully
supportive of a national holocaust memorial” but opposed the Bill because of
the memorial and learning centre’s design and proposed location.

131
132
133
134

37

HC Deb 29 June 2023 c321
HC Deb 29 June 2023 c325-326; HC Deb 29 June 2023 c359
HC Deb 29 June 2023 c357
HC Deb 29 June 2023 c328

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

Sir Peter Bottomley (Con) tabled a ‘reasoned amendment’ to object to second
reading of the Bill. He said “no adequate reason” had been given for building
the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. Sir Edward Leigh(Con) expressed concern that the site was “so constrained that it cannot dojustice to the cause and to the issue”. He also expressed concern that Victoria
Tower Gardens could not continue in “its current, useful way” if the memorial
and learning centre were built in the park. 135
Nickie Aiken (Con), the MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, said it
was “the right memorial but in the wrong location”. She said the proposed
location of the memorial and learning centre could result in “a serious loss ofamenity for local people” in an area that already lacked community parks. 136
Sir Peter Bottomley and John Baron (Con) expressed concern about the lack ofpublic consultation about the site. They said that “many” people in the Jewish
community, including Holocaust survivors, opposed the proposed location. 137
Government response
In response to these concerns, Michael Gove said there had been “extensive
consultation on this project” and interested parties had been able to raise
concerns and objections during the planning inquiry. He acknowledged that“the choice of venue” had attracted “some controversy” but said it was “aprime place of great prominence”. 138
Michael Gove acknowledged that “some people within the Jewish community
have expressed concerns”. He said, however, that “the overwhelming view of
the Jewish community and its representative organisations is that this is theright memorial in the right location”. 139
Michael Gove said the government would ensure the green spaces in the park
were “accessible to all”. Felicity Buchan, the Parliamentary Under-Secretaryof State for DLUHC, reiterated that the proposed development would “takeonly 7.5% of the area of the gardens” and the learning centre would be built
underground. 140
Sir Peter Bottomley did not push his amendment objecting to the progress of
the Bill to a vote, and the Bill passed its second reading.

135
136
137
138
139
140

38

HC Deb 29 June 2023 c330; HC Deb 29 June 2023 c352-353
HC Deb 29 June 2023 c338-340
HC Deb 29 June 2023 c329; HC Deb 29 June 2023 c330
HC Deb 29 June 2023 c323-324
HC Deb 29 June 2023 c322
HC Deb 29 June 2023 c362

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill

7

Response to the Bill

7.1

Support for the Bill
Stephen Crabb (Con) said there was “strong cross-party consensus” forbuilding the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. 141 An
early day motion in January 2023 which welcomed the scheme’s delivery“adjacent to Parliament” received support from 45 MPs across parties. 142
Members of the Labour Party have, on several occasions, expressed theirsupport for the Bill. In a debate on Holocaust Memorial Day in January 2023,
Alex Norris, then Shadow Housing Minister, said the Labour Party supported
the project “wholeheartedly”. 143 Thangam Debbonaire, then Shadow Leader ofthe House of Commons, said the Labour Party would support the government“in getting the Bill through as quickly as possible”. 144
The Board of Deputies of British Jews welcomed that the government had
introduced a bill to allow the construction of the memorial and learning
centre to proceed. It described the memorial as “a powerful and important
tool in combatting the rising tide of Holocaust Denial and distortion”. 145
Karen Pollock, the chief executive of the Holocaust Memorial Trust, also said
she supported the Bill to enable the construction of the Holocaust Memorial
and Learning Centre next to Parliament. She said the memorial and learning
centre “will educate future generations and ensure the Holocaust remains in
our […] collective memory”. 146

7.2

Opposition to the Bill
London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust (also known as London Parks andGardens) urged “MPs and Peers to avoid building on a public park”. It called

141
142

143
144
145

146

39

HC Deb 26 January 2023 c1234
EDM-748 of 2022-23 (Holocaust Memorial Day 2023). Tabled on 11 January 2023. It was signed by 46
Members, but Sir Peter Bottomley requested it to be changed to “search for a central London site”.
HC Deb 26 January 2023 c1268; HC Deb 9 February 2023 c1036
HC Deb 9 February 2023 c1036
Board of Deputies of British Jews, Board of Deputies welcomes introduction of Holocaust Memorial
Bill, 23 February 2023
Government introduces new Holocaust Memorial Bill to parliament, Jewish News, 23 February 2023

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Billon them to “protect parks as places for everyone” in making their decision on
the Bill. 147
Some groups that had previously expressed concerns about the design andlocation of the memorial and learning centre used the petitioning process toreiterate their concerns (as explained above, this process only heard fromthose opposed to the Bill). They included, among others, the London Historic
Parks and Gardens Trust, the Thorney Island Society, Baroness Deech and Sir
Peter Bottomley. 148
Petitioners called for the Bill to be amended to allow a memorial, but not thelearning centre, to be built in the gardens. The Thorney Island Society said
this could mitigate the impact on the park, as “only a comparatively small
space” would only have to be closed “for a comparatively short period”. 149
Baroness Deech and Lord Carlile of Berriew (both Crossbench) also argued
that the learning centre was “too big for the park” and “too small for thecontent that [Holocaust] survivors could wish for”. Two Holocaust survivors
who supported Baroness Deech’s petition expressed similar concerns. 150
Baroness Deech called for an endowment fund to be established instead to“spread the benefits of the learning centre and of holocaust education acrossthe country”. 151 The Jewish Chronicle reported that Baroness Deech and Sir
Peter Bottomley, among others, had sent a letter to the government, asking it
to cancel the project and instead invest the funds in other Jewish museums. 152

Government response
In response to calls by the petitioners to amend the Bill, the government said
it had “no intention at this stage to change the proposal”. It said: “this is theright proposal for this space at this time”. 153

147

148

149
150

151

152

153

40

No ‘fast track’ for Bill to allow Adjaye’s Holocaust Memorial plans, Architects’ Journal, 23 May 2023
[accessed 10 May 2024]; London Parks and Gardens, The campaign to protect London parks andprovide for a fitting Holocaust (PDF), 25 January 2023
No ‘fast track’ for Bill to allow Adjaye’s Holocaust Memorial plans, Architects’ Journal, 23 May 2023
[accessed 10 May 2024]; London Parks and Gardens, The campaign to protect London parks andprovide for a fitting Holocaust (PDF), 25 January 2023
HMB Select Committee, First Special Report (PDF), 26 April 2024, HC121 2023-24, Annex
HMB Select Committee, Petitioning against the Holocaust Memorial Bill (PDF), 24 July 2023, HC121
2023-24, Ev 5 [Lord Carlile of Berriew]; HMB Select Committee, Petitioning against the Holocaust
Memorial Bill (PDF), 24 July 2023, HC121 2023-24, Ev 6 [Baroness Deech and others]; HMB SelectCommittee, Oral evidence: Petitions against the Bill (PDF), 24 January 2024, para 622
HMB Select Committee, Petitioning against the Holocaust Memorial Bill (PDF), 24 July 2023, HC121
2023-24, Ev 6 [Baroness Deech and others]
Calls grow to scrap Westminster Holocaust memorial for a new Jewish Museum, The Jewish
Chronicle, 2 June 2023 [accessed 10 May 2024]
HMB Select Committee, Oral evidence: Petitions against the Bill (PDF), 16 January 2024, para 77

Commons Library Research Briefing, 16 May 2024

The House of Commons Library is a research andinformation service based in the UK Parliament.
Our impartial analysis, statistical research andresources help MPs and their staff scrutinise
legislation, develop policy, and support constituents.
Our published material is available to everyone
on commonslibrary.parliament.uk.
Get our latest research delivered straight to your inbox.
Subscribe at commonslibrary.parliament.uk/subscribe
or scan the code below:

commonslibrary.parliament.uk@commonslibrary