LIBRARY
BRIEFING

HL Bill 4 of 2024–25

Holocaust Memorial Bill
Author: Heather Evennett
Date published: 22 August 2024

The Holocaust Memorial Bill is due to have its second reading in the House of Lords on
4 September 2024. It is a government bill, introduced under the previous Conservative
government and continued by the newly elected Labour government. It is sponsored by the
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).
This short bill seeks to make provision for expenditure on the construction and operation of
a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. It would also remove restrictions on building
these in Victoria Tower Gardens, next to Parliament. While there has been cross-party
support for the concept of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre, concerns have beenraised relating to its location, design, cost and security measures in place to protect it. One
demonstration of this is the 2021 legal challenge to the planning decision to build thememorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.
The High Court subsequently decided to quash planning permission for a memorial andlearning centre, citing restrictions in the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900.
These are the restrictions the bill seeks to remove. Should the bill pass, the planning decision
to locate the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens would need to beretaken.
The bill is a hybrid bill, meaning it applies generally but also has a particular effect on specificgroups, people or places. This entails additional stages for the bill. The bill was subject to acarry-over motion prior to the dissolution of the 2019–24 parliament, having completed allof its stages in the House of Commons. The bill is made up of two substantive clauses. It
would extend to England and Wales, and apply to England. It would come into force twomonths after receiving royal assent.

2

Table of Contents
1.

Background........................................................................................................ 3
1.1

Establishing a new national Holocaust memorial and learning centre ................. 3

2.

Provisions in the bill.......................................................................................... 7

3.

Reaction ............................................................................................................. 8

4.

3.1

Support for a Holocaust memorial .............................................................................. 8

3.2

Location, design and security ........................................................................................ 9

Parliamentary scrutiny ................................................................................... 13
4.1

A hybrid bill? .................................................................................................................. 14

4.2

Second reading .............................................................................................................. 16

4.3

Committal and instruction to select committee ................................................... 17

4.4

Select committee .......................................................................................................... 19

4.5

Committee of the whole house ................................................................................ 20

4.6

Third reading ................................................................................................................. 22

4.7House of Lords stages ................................................................................................. 23

3

1.

BackgroundOn 18 July 2024, the government introduced the Holocaust Memorial Bill in the House ofLords. 1 The bill would authorise expenditure on the construction and operation of a
Holocaust memorial and learning centre. It would also allow the building of a memorial in
Victoria Tower Gardens by disapplying relevant sections of the London County Council(Improvements) Act 1900. Victoria Tower Gardens is a Grade 11 listed public park next toParliament and dates from the nineteenth century. 2
The bill is a hybrid bill and completed its stages in the House of Commons during the
2019–24 parliament. 3 It was subject to a carry-over motion in the House of Commons on
22 May 2024, 4 and had been introduced in the House of Lords on 23 May 2024. The bill was
re-introduced into the House of Lords in the 2024–25 parliamentary session on 18 July
2024. 5 The bill was not mentioned in the 2024 Labour Party manifesto. However, the briefing
notes accompanying the King’s speech on 17 July 2024 outlined the government’s intention
to proceed with the bill, stating:
We must do everything we can to ensure that the Holocaust is never forgotten andto fight antisemitism and all forms of hatred and prejudice in our society. Our
Holocaust Memorial Bill will support the building of a national Holocaust memorial
and learning centre in the heart of our democracy, next to the Houses ofParliament. It will be a focal point for national remembrance of the Holocaust,
dedicated to the six million Jewish men, women and children and all other victims of
the Nazis and their collaborators. 6
1.1

Establishing a new national Holocaust memorial and learning centre

The potential creation of a new memorial to the Holocaust has been mooted for over a
decade. Prime Minister David Cameron stressed the importance of preserving the memoryof the Holocaust when he gave a speech to mark the 25th anniversary of the Holocaust
Educational Trust on 16 September 2013. To this end he announced a multi-faith, cross-party
commission “to investigate whether further measures should be taken to ensure Britain has
1

HL Hansard, 18 July 2024, col 132.
Royal Parks, ‘History of Victoria Tower Gardens’, accessed 6 August 2024.
3
UK Parliament. ‘Holocaust Memorial Bill’, 18 July 2024.
4
HC Hansard, 22 May 2024, cols 992–3.
5
HL Hansard, 18 July 2024, col 132.
6
Prime Minister’s Office, ‘King’s Speech 2024: Background briefing notes’, 17 July 2024, p 100.
2

4

a permanent and fitting memorial and educational resource for generations to come”. 7 The
events which culminated in the Holocaust Memorial Bill reaching the House of Lords on
18 July 2024 are outlined in brief below:

7•

2013: Speech by then Prime Minister David Cameron announcing the creationof a commission to investigate the potential for a memorial and educational
resource. The commission was led by Mick Davis, who was the then chair of
the Jewish Leadership Council.

•

2014: A public call for evidence ran from 27 January to the end of May withpeople across the country invited to submit their views.

•

2015: The commission published its report, ‘Britain’s promise to remember’,in January. 8 Its recommendations included “a striking and prominent new
national memorial” and a “world-class learning centre”, an endowment fund“to secure the long-term future of Holocaust education”, and three potentialsites for any memorial; these did not include Victoria Tower Gardens. 9 David
Cameron accepted the recommendations and set up the United Kingdom
Holocaust Memorial Foundation (UKHMF) to “get on with this urgent
work”. 10 He also committed £50mn towards the delivery of the new national
memorial, learning centre and the endowment fund. In September, the
UKHMF laid out ten criteria for considering the siting of the new memorial. It
noted that while it would explore the three locations recommended by thecommission, it would also consider other options.

•

2016: The UKHMF recommended Victoria Tower Gardens to thegovernment. The government confirmed the memorial would be in Victoria
Tower Gardens on 27 January. 11 In September, the government confirmedthat the learning centre would be co-located with the memorial. In the samemonth an international design competition for the memorial and learning
centre was launched.

Cabinet Office, ‘25th anniversary of the Holocaust Educational Trust: Prime Minister’s speech’, 16 September
2013.
8
Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission , ‘Britain’s promise to remember: The Prime Minister’s Holocaust
Commission report’, January 2015.
9
As above, pp 41–52.
10House of Commons, ‘Written statement: The Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission (HCWS226)’,
27 January 2015.
11
Prime Minister’s Office, ‘PM: Holocaust memorial will stand beside Parliament as permanent statement of our
British values’, 27 January 2016.

5

12

•

2017: In October, the winning design by Adjaye Associates and Ron Arad
Architects for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was announced. 12•

2018: Revisions to the design. Public consultation on the plans and exhibitionof the finalised plans.

•

2019: The designs were revised further. In January, the government submitted
a planning application to Westminster City Council. 13 In May, the government
committed a further £25mn to the project. 14 In November, prior to a decisionfrom Westminster City Council, the then housing minister Esther McVey“called in” the planning application. 15 This is where the secretary of state
directs a local authority to refer the application to the secretary of state to
make a decision on a planning application. 16 The government said there werestrict handling arrangements in place to ensure a functional separation
between those bringing forward the proposal for development and thosetaking a decision on it. 17•

2020: The planning inspector held a public inquiry into the planningapplication.

•

2021: In April, recommendations from the planning inspector were provided
to MHCLG. 18 In July, the then housing and planning minister, Christopher
Pincher, gave planning consent to build the Holocaust memorial and learning
centre in Victoria Park Gardens. 19 The London Historic Parks and Gardens
Trust, a charity which seeks to preserve and enhance London’s open green
spaces, applied to the High Court for statutory review of the planning
decision. Permission to review the decision was given by the High Court in
October. 20

Cabinet Office, ‘Adjaye Associates and Ron Arad Architects win UK Holocaust memorial international designcompetition’, 24 October 2017.
13
City of Westminster, ‘Planning application documents’, accessed 25 July 2024.
14
UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, ‘Prime Minister leads unprecedented support for Holocaust memorial
as further £25mn committed’, 7 May 2019.
15
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, ‘Holocaust memorial and learning centre: DLUHC
handling note’, 14 April 2022. This note indicates that the administrative arrangements to ensure functional
separation between the secretary of state making the application and the individual deciding it meant that the
housing minister, rather than the secretary of state, would determine whether the planning application would
be granted.
16
Planning Inspectorate, ‘Guidance: Called-in planning applications’, 18 January 2021.
17
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, ‘Government to introduce legislation to pave theway for new national Holocaust memorial’, 26 January 2023.
18
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, ‘Called in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens,
Millbank, London (ref: 3240661—29 July 2021)’, 29 July 2021, pp 26–407.
19
As above, p 1.
20
London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local
Government [2020] EWHC 2580 (Admin).

6•2022: In April, the High Court quashed the government’s decision on planningpermission. 21 The judgment found that the inspector’s assessment did not take
into account the implications of the London County Council (Improvements)
Act 1900. In July, the Court of Appeal refused the government’s application toappeal the decision. 22•

2023: On 25 January, then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak committed to “legislate
to build a Holocaust memorial and learning centre next to Parliament”. 23

A more detailed analysis of events since 2013 is provided in the House of Commons Librarybriefing ‘Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the Bill’, 16 May 2024.
As of June 2023, the Conservative government had spent £17.8mn on the project. 24 It
indicated that forecast costs for the completion of the proposed Holocaust memorial haveincreased since estimates were made in July 2021 from £102.9mn to £138.8mn excluding
contingency. It stated that this increase was due to delays to the programme arising from theHigh Court challenge and the “effects of construction price inflation”. 25 The previous
government said that it expects that charitable donations will cover at least £25mn of thesecosts. An independent charity, The Holocaust Memorial Charitable Trust, chaired by Sir
Gerald Ronson CBE, will lead the effort to secure pledges towards the fundraising
campaign. 26 In April 2024, the House of Commons Select Committee on the Holocaust
Memorial Bill expressed concerns that the “true costs of this project” had not been
established. 27
The Holocaust Memorial Bill does not include all the provisions necessary to enable theconstruction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre at Victoria Tower Gardens.
Should the bill pass, planning consent will be sought through the provisions of the Town andCountry Planning Act 1990. 28

21

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 [Court of Appeal 2022-000831].
23
HC Hansard, 25 January 2023, col 1000.
24
House of Commons, ‘Written question, National Holocaust memorial centre and learning service: Finance(186809)’, 8 June 2023.
25
House of Lords, ‘Written statement: Holocaust memorial forecast cost (HLWS875)’, 28 June 2023.
26
House of Lords, ‘Written question: National Holocaust memorial centre and learning service (HL3105)’,
20 March 2024.
27
House of Commons Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, ‘First special report of the Holocaust
Memorial Bill Select Committee’, 26 April 2024, HC 121 of session 2023–24, p 3.
28
Explanatory notes, p 3.
22

7

While there is support for the principle of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre, there
have been several areas of contention. In particular, these relate to location, design andsecurity measures in place for the memorial. This is considered further in section 3 of thisbriefing.

2.

Provisions in the bill

The Holocaust Memorial Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 18 July 2024. 29 As
outlined in the explanatory notes to the bill:
The purpose of this bill is to make provision for and in connection with expenditureby the secretary of state on the construction, use, maintenance, operation or
improvement of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre, and the removal ofrestrictions to the siting of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre on certain
land. 30
Clause 1 would allow the secretary of state to incur expenditure in relation to a Holocaust
memorial and learning centre. This would include:•

construction on, over or under any land of a memorial commemorating
victims of the Holocaust and a centre for learning relating to the memorial•

the use, operation, maintenance or improvement of the memorial and learning
centre and any ancillary costs

Clause 2 would disapply sections 8(1) and (8) of the London County Council(Improvements) Act 1900 in relation to the proposed activities described in clause 1. 31
Sections 8(1) and (8) of the 1900 act require that Victoria Tower Gardens be “laid out andmaintained in manner herein-after provided for use as a garden open to the public”. The
importance of the 1900 act was mentioned by the judge in the April 2022 High Court
decision to quash planning permission for the memorial and learning centre in Victoria
Tower Gardens. 32

29

HL Hansard, 18 July 2024, col 132.
Explanatory notes, p 2.
31
London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900.
32
London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin).
30

8Clause 3 provides that the bill would apply to England and Wales and would come into force
two months after it received royal assent. The clause also contains the bill’s short title.

3.

Reaction

3.1

Support for a Holocaust memorial

As the timeline in section 1 of this briefing demonstrates, there has been ongoing discussion
about the most appropriate memorial to victims of the Holocaust.
The concept of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre received cross-party support
during the bill’s progress in Parliament. Likewise, in her 2022 ruling quashing planning
consent in Victoria Tower Gardens, Mrs Justice Thornton noted that all those involved inthat action, brought by London Historic Parks and Garden Trust, “support the principle of acompelling memorial to the victims of the Holocaust”. 33 The Holocaust Commission’s 2015
report had itself identified widespread dissatisfaction with the existing national Holocaustmonument and education about the Holocaust.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews supports the proposed Holocaust memorial andlearning centre, describing it as “a powerful and important tool in combatting the rising tideof Holocaust denial and distortion”. 34 In July 2024, it welcomed the inclusion of the bill in theKing’s speech. 35 Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, expressedgratitude to the Labour government for re-introducing the bill, arguing “the need forprogress on building the memorial and learning centre next to Parliament has never been
more urgent”. 36
However, despite the consensus on the need for a new memorial and learning centre, there
have been ongoing disagreements on issues including location, cost, design and security.
Some of the arguments relating to these issues are outlined in brief below.

33

London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin).
Board of Deputies of British Jews, ‘Board of Deputies welcomes introduction of Holocaust Memorial Bill’,23 February 2023.
35
Board of Deputies of British Jews, ‘Board of Deputies welcomes inclusion of Holocaust Memorial Bill ingovernment’s legislative agenda’, 17 July 2024.
36
Lorin Bell-Cross, ‘Government commits to building Westminster Holocaust memorial’, Jewish Chronicle,
17 July 2024.
34

9

3.2

Location, design and security

The proposed location of the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens has proved contentious.
In its 2024 report, the House of Commons Holocaust Memorial Committee provided an
overview of events leading to the choice of Victoria Tower Gardens. 37 It noted that the site
was not identified in the initial 2015 shortlist of sites generated by the Prime Minister’s
Holocaust Commission. Victoria Tower Gardens was originally identified by a member of the
UKHMF in October 2015, with Millbank proposed as a site for a learning centre. As outlined
in section 1 of this briefing, the decisions to locate the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardensand co-locate the learning centre were taken in 2016. The committee expressed surprisethat the choice of site had not been reached through a consultation. 38
In 2016 a design competition for designs for a “striking new national memorial” and a“below-ground learning centre” was held. 39 The winning design by Adjaye Associates and
Ron Arad Architects was announced in October 2017 and subject to public consultation in
2018, with further changes made in 2019 following further consultation. Adjaye Associates
describe their design as follows:
Visitors approaching the memorial will see a subtle grass landform with only the tipsof the memorial’s fins bristling in the distance. Its design stimulates a sense of
curiosity and intrigue where visitors are encouraged to explore further into thememorial […] the overarching vision for the memorial and learning centre, is toretain Victoria Tower Gardens as a public park affecting minimal green space. Our
proposal intervenes lightly, ensuring the park’s existing uses can be retained andenhanced rather than replaced. 40
During public consultation on the plans, concerns were raised about the potential loss ofgreen space, security, traffic, the impact on memorials already present in Victoria Tower
Gardens and the impact of the memorial on the children’s playground in Victoria Tower
Gardens. 41

37

House of Commons Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, ‘First special report of the Holocaust
Memorial Bill Select Committee’, 26 April 2024, HC 121 of session 2023–24, p 5.
38
As above.
39
Prime Minister’s Office, ‘International design competition opens for new UK Holocaust memorial beside
Parliament’, 14 September 2016.
40
Adjaye Associates, ‘UK Holocaust memorial and learning centre’, accessed 9 August 2024.
41
More detailed discussion about the development of the design and response to it can be found in House ofCommons Library, ‘Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the bill’, 16 May 2024.

10

According to government figures, the current plans mean that the Holocaust memorial andlearning centre would occupy 7.58% of the total area of Victoria Tower Gardens(1,429 square metres). 42 The government said the reduction in the lawn areas of Victoria
Tower Gardens would be 15%. 43 The plans also include a floor area of 3,258 square metersof underground construction, with 52.85% of that space used for exhibitions and public spaceas part of the learning centre. 44
In 2022, London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust brought a challenge in the High Court tothe planning decision, concerning the location of the memorial. In its argument to the court,
the trust argued that the gardens were chosen without any professional assessment tosupport the choice of the site and no public consultation as to its suitability, acceptability or
desirability as a location. 45 The trust has expressed concern about the impact of thememorial on the park itself and concern for other monuments in the park. 46
The trust has calculated that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre would occupy amuch larger proportion of Victoria Tower Gardens than the figures given previously by thegovernment. It has published diagrams to illustrate its calculations that the design would
occupy 3,910 square metres, or 20.7% of the total area of the gardens. 47 It also calculated
that 31.2% (370 square metres) of the current children’s playground would be lost.
Other groups and individuals have also set out their concerns about the proposed memorial
and learning centre through petitions about the bill. 48 The Thorney Island Society andresidents of Westminster opposed the location of the memorial, arguing that thedevelopment of a memorial in “a small park which has for more than a century been used
42

House of Lords, ‘Written question: National Holocaust memorial centre and learning service (HL6914)’,12 April 2023. The government said this figure included the entrance pavilion, the courtyard and ramp into thelearning centre, associated hard standing, service access, new access paths, parts of the grass mound that would
be inaccessible to the public, and areas to be enclosed to ensure the security of the centre.
43
House of Commons, ‘Written question: National Holocaust memorial centre and learning service (270274)’,
4 July 2019.
44
House of Lords, ‘Written question: National Holocaust memorial centre and learning service (HL6914)’,12 April 2023.
45
London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin).
46
House of Commons Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill, ‘Petition HMB-009: London Historic
Parks and Gardens Trust’, 24 July 2023.
47
London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust, ‘VTG plans before and after August 2024’, August 2024. The trust
said this figure included all the areas the government had listed when it set out what was covered by its own
7.5% figure.
48
Individuals, groups of individuals, organisations and businesses directly and specially affected by a hybrid billcan “petition” in either or both Houses of Parliament to seek to mitigate the effects of the bill on theirproperty or business. This is covered further in section 4 of this briefing.

11

and enjoyed as a place of peace and recreation for local residents, workers and visitors” waswrong. 49 They called for the separation of a learning centre from the memorial and limiting
the size of the development.
The Buxton family and the Thomas Fowell Buxton Society expressed concern about “ourancestor’s memorial” and the impact of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre upon it
should it be built. The Buxton Memorial Fountain was erected in Victoria Tower Gardens by
Charles Buxton to commemorate the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, and the achievement of his
father, Thomas Fowell Buxton, and his associates, in bringing it about. 50
Other petitions have been received by the House of Lords Select Committee on the
Holocaust Memorial Bill. 51 These will be examined if the bill receives second reading in theHouse of Lords. For example, in their petition, Baroness Deech and six Holocaust survivors
stated “we do not understand the thinking” behind the decision on the location of thememorial. Stating that the results of the decision on location made with “no studies,
research or consultation” were dire, the petition argued:[…] first, the promoters have had to justify the choice by specious and vague
references to democracy. This turned the project from a memorial to the victims ofNazism, predominantly Jews, into a reassuring and political project about “British
values”. Secondly, the physical constraint of having to squeeze the learning centre
into a restricted space under the memorial has resulted in the promised “worldclass learning centre” being converted into a visitors’ centre. 52
The petition expressed concern about the local impact of the project, the size and nature of
the learning centre, and the design of the memorial. It included a number ofrecommendations including a new public consultation on the form and location of any
memorial or learning centre and a government report on the security and costs aspects ofthe project.

49

House of Commons Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill, ‘Petition HMB-0007: The Thorney
Island Society and residents of Westminster’, 24 July 2023.
50
House of Lords Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill, ‘Petition: Buxton family and the Thomas
Fowell Buxton Society’, 17 July 2024; and Historic England, ‘Buxton memorial fountain, Victoria tower gardens’,
September 2020.
51
Petitions about the bill can be made to both the House of Commons Select Committee on the Holocaust
Memorial Bill and the House of Lords Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill.
52
House of Lords Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill, ‘Petition: Baroness Deech et al’, 17 July
2024, pp 4–5.

12

A number of these arguments were reiterated by Baroness Deech in an article in the Jewish
Chronicle in August 2024. 53 She argued that the location of the memorial beside Parliamentwas “to make light of the fears of the Jewish community for their safety now and in the
future” and would serve as a focus for what she described as “anti-Israel and antisemitic
protest”. She expressed several concerns about the content of the learning centre and statedthat the proposed memorial “is no longer a Holocaust memorial” and would “treat the
Holocaust as one amongst several hate-related genocides”. Baroness Deech concluded:
If the new government really wants to do more than pay lip service to eradicating
antisemitism, it should end this misguided, divisive and expensive campaign andinstead redirect resources to a better understanding of Jewish history by a moremeaningful memorial and larger learning centre, ideally a new Jewish museum.
Security considerations at the site were also raised by the former independent reviewer ofterrorism legislation, Lord Carlile of Berriew. In his petition to the House of Lords SelectCommittee he argued that “the site proposed presents a very real terrorism risk”,
commenting “there is a real and present and serious prospect” that the memorial would be
regarded as “iconic and tempting […] given its proximity to the Palace of Westminster”. 54
Sir Peter Bottomley (until May 2024 the Conservative MP for Worthing West) called for arequirement in the bill that there should be a public consultation on “a better or best
location”. 55 Lord Strathclyde and a number of peers called for “a complete rethink”, with afresh planning application made to Westminster City Council. 56
In contrast, the co-chairs of the Holocaust Memorial Commission, Ed Balls and Lord Pickles,
have stated:
Victoria Tower Gardens, at the heart of Westminster and alongside the great
symbol and heart of our democracy, is absolutely the right place to construct thenational memorial to the Holocaust. 57

53

Baroness Deech, ‘The government must rethink its Shoah memorial’, Jewish Chronicle, 8 August 2024.
House of Lords Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill, ‘Petition: Lord Carlile of Berriew’, 17 July
2024, pp 5–6.
55
UK Parliament, ‘House of Lords Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill’, accessed 9 August 2024.
56
House of Lords Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill, ‘Petition: Lord Strathclyde et al’, 17 July
2024.
57
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, ‘Government to introduce legislation to pave theway for new national Holocaust memorial’, 26 January 2023.
54

13

Responding to concerns raised by Baroness Deech in her Jewish Chronicle article, Lord
Pickles argued that the memorial’s location “immediately speaks of the unparalleledsignificance of the Holocaust and situates the memorial at the centre of our national life”. 58
Addressing security concerns, he said that the memorial would have “security arrangements
similar to many other public buildings in Westminster”. In relation to the proposed learning
centre’s content, Lord Pickles stressed that historians would make those decisions, stating“we owe it to the victims and survivors of the Holocaust to tell the unvarnished truth about
what happened and why”.
Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis described the choice of venue as “inspirational”, arguing it was“the most wonderful location because it is in a prime place of prominence, the heart of ourdemocracy”. 59
More detailed analysis of objections, particularly related to the location of the monument canbe found in the following documents.

4.

•

House of Commons Library, ‘Holocaust Memorial Bill: Progress of the bill’,
16 May 2024•

Written and oral evidence given to the House of Commons Select Committee
on the Holocaust Memorial Bill by those petitioning against the bill. Available
at House of Commons Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee,‘Publications’.

•

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, ‘Called in decision:
Victoria Tower Gardens, Millbank, London (ref:3240661—29 July 2021)’,29 July 2021•

Westminster City Council, ‘Holocaust memorial inquiry information’, accessed
7 August 2024.

Parliamentary scrutiny

The Holocaust Memorial Bill was first introduced into the House of Commons on

58

Lord Pickles, ‘The Shoah memorial’s proposed location speaks to the Holocaust’s unparalleled historicalsignificance’, Jewish Chronicle, 15 August 2024.
59
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, ‘Called in decision: Victoria Tower Gardens,
Millbank, London (ref: 3240661—29 July 2021)’, 29 July 2021, p 48.

14

23 February 2023 and has been subject to several carry-over motions. 60 For these reasons
substantive parliamentary stages have often occurred under the previous Conservative
government, when the current MHCLG was at times known as the Department for Levelling
Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC).
4.1

A hybrid bill?

Hybrid bills combine elements of public and private bills in that they apply generally but also
have a particular effect on specific groups, places or people. 61 A hybrid bill has extra stages
compared to a public bill; notably, after second reading it is sent to a specifically formed
select committee which considers petitions against the bill.
Following the introduction of the bill in February 2023, the House of Commons clerk oflegislation designated the bill as being “prima facie hybrid”. It was therefore referred to theexaminers of petitions for private bills to determine whether the bill was hybrid. 62 The bill
could not receive its second reading until the examiners’ report. 63
In this case, the examiners of petitions for private bills included the clerk of bills in the Houseof Commons, the deputy head of the Legislation Office in the House of Lords, counsel fordomestic legislation in the House of Commons, and assistant counsel to the chairman ofcommittees in the House of Lords. 64
In evidence to the examiners, the Conservative government argued that the bill was not
hybrid. 65 The examiners also received submissions from a number of interested parties who
argued that the bill was hybrid and standing orders for private business should therefore
apply; these submissions are known as memorials. The London Historic Parks and Gardens
Trust, the Thorney Island Society and residents of Westminster, Baroness Deech and60

Hybrid bills, like private bills, can be ‘carried over’ from one session to another (including dissolution). The
procedure by which this is done provides for the waiving of certain standing orders by agreement between the
two Houses in order that the bills may be taken pro forma up to the stage that they had reached in theprevious session. House of Lords, ‘Companion to the standing orders and guide to the proceedings of theHouse of Lords’, 24 February 2024, para 2.15, p 24.
61
UK Parliament. ‘MPs’ guide to procedure: Hybrid bills’, accessed 18 July 2024.
62
House of Commons Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, ‘Holocaust Memorial Bill: Report from theexaminers and statement of reasons’, 22 May 2023, HC 1403 of session 2022–23, p 2.
63
House of Commons and House of Lords, ‘Examination of the Holocaust Memorial Bill factsheet’, May 2023,
p 1.
64
As above, p 2.
65
As above, p 3.

15

Holocaust survivors, the Buxton family and the Thomas Fowell Buxton Society, andWestminster City Council, and Sir Peter Bottomley MP all submitted memorials. 66
In May 2023 the report by the examiners found that the Holocaust Memorial Bill was hybrid,and that private business standing orders 4, 4A, 10, 11, 38 and 39 were applicable to thebill. 67 These standing orders chiefly relate to the publication of notices outlining how
objections can be made by petitioners and making copies of the bill available. 68
The examiners argued that removing the protection in the 1900 act would affect all membersof the public, and in addition those who live close to Victoria Tower Gardens would be“particularly affected”. 69 As outlined by the examiners:
If a bill is found non-compliant with the private business standing orders by theexaminers, it is referred to the Standing Orders Committees of the two Houses(the committee of the House of Commons first). The House of Commons Standing
Orders Committee is made up of MPs, including the deputy speakers. The Standing
Orders Committees can decide to dispense with the relevant standing orders andallow the bill to proceed, to allow the bill to proceed with conditions, or to preventthe bill from proceeding. 70
On 13 June 2023, the House of Commons Standing Orders Committee met. It heard fromthe government, as well as London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust, the Thorney Island
Society and residents of Westminster, Baroness Deech and Holocaust survivors, and the
Buxton family and the Thomas Fowell Buxton Society.
Speaking for the government, parliamentary agent Robert Owen argued that “this was not acase where government could reasonably have concluded that the bill would be seen to be
hybrid. It is a highly unusual bill. There is no clear precedent”. 71 The government sought
66

House of Commons and House of Lords, ‘Examination of the Holocaust Memorial Bill factsheet’, May 2023,
p 3.
67House of Commons Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, ‘Holocaust Memorial Bill: Report from theexaminers and statement of reasons’, 22 May 2023, HC 1403 of session 2022–23.
68
UK Parliament, ‘Standing orders of the House of Commons—Private business’, 19 December 2019, HC 6 ofsession 2019–21; and ‘The standing orders of the House of Lords relating to private business’, 18 December
2017, HL Paper 55 of session 2017–19.
69
House of Commons and House of Lords, ‘Examination of the Holocaust Memorial Bill factsheet’, May 2023,
p 4.
70
As above.
71
House of Commons Standing Orders Committee, ‘Minutes of proceedings’, 13 June 2023.

16

dispensation of the standing orders and for the bill to proceed. It argued that the secretaryof state had taken action to comply substantively with the standing orders following thedecision by the examiners that the bill was hybrid. Other respondents argued the standingorders should apply. Several respondents said there had been a lack of consultation ormeaningful dialogue with the government, calling for a pause in the bill proceedings to allow
this to happen. In addition, concerns with legislative drafting and concerns about
environmental protections were raised.
After deliberations, the committee decided to dispense with all the private business standingorders with which the hybrid bill had failed to comply. The bill would therefore progress to
its second reading in the House of Commons. 72
4.2

Second reading

The bill received its second reading on 28 June 2023. 73
Opening second reading on 28 June 2023, the then secretary of state for levelling up, housing
and communities, Michael Gove, noted the cross-party support for the bill. He emphasised
the “vital purpose” of the bill to ensure that a “fitting, government-led” memorial andlearning centre was established “in a suitable, prominent centre at the heart of our capitalcity”. 74
Lisa Nandy, the then shadow secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities,
highlighted the Labour party’s support for the bill. She also supported the proposed locationof the memorial, commenting that while “I do not doubt the sincerity of those who havetaken part […] that debate has run for long enough”. 75 Matthew Pennycook, then shadow
housing minister agreed. He argued that the hybrid process and resulting petitioning window
would allow any “outstanding criticisms and objections” to be expressed and heard. 76
Other speakers also supported the bill, emphasising the need for timely progress on theissue.

72

House of Commons Standing Orders Committee, ‘Minutes of proceedings’, 13 June 2023, p 9.
HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, col 364.
74
HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, col 321.
75
HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, col 328.
76
HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, col 361.
73

17

In contrast, several members expressed concerns about the legislation. Nickie Aiken (thenConservative MP for Cities of London and Westminster) raised concerns from her
constituents “which come back to one major issue: location”. 77 She noted that the loss ofeven small open spaces could have a big impact on the community, concluding “rightmemorial but in the wrong location”. 78 John Baron (then Conservative MP for Basildon andBillericay) argued “there appears to have been a complete lack of public consultation”. 79
Sir Peter Bottomley (then Conservative MP for Worthing West) tabled a reasoned
amendment to object to the second reading of the Holocaust Memorial Bill. He alsoemphasised concerns about a lack of consultation about the proposed location of thememorial. 80 Sir Peter did not push his amendment objecting to the progress of the bill to a
vote, and the bill passed its second reading. 81
4.3

Committal and instruction to select committee

The bill was then committed to a select committee to consider petitions against the bill. This
reflects the procedure used in the case of hybrid bills. 82 The House of Commons also passed
an instruction to the select committee outlining how the bill should be considered. 83 The
instruction had the effect of limiting the matters which the committee could consider. Felicity
Buchan, then parliamentary under-secretary for levelling up, housing and communities,
explained that passing an instruction was “familiar practice” for hybrid bills. 84 The instruction
specified that the committee could not hear any petition relating to:77•

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•whether or not planning permission and all other necessary consents should
be given for the memorial and centre for learning, or the terms and conditions
on which they should be given.

HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, col 337.
HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, col 340.
79
HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, col 321.
80
HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, cols 330–4.
81
HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, col 364.
82
HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, col 377.
83
HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, col 377.
84
HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, col 368.
78

18

In its April 2024 report, the select committee noted this left it “with a very limited remit
compared to what we might have considered”. 85 It also expressed concerns about assurances
MPs were given regarding what would be in the scope of the committee. For example,
Sir Edward Leigh had asked whether not having an underground learning centre might beconsidered by the committee. Responding Felicity Buchan stated, “the committee canconsider the extent and any conditions on the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens”. 86 The
committee’s report noted:
The interpretation of the instruction was raised in discussion during proceedings. It
was at this point that the promoter told us that the secretary of state’s statement
could be interpreted as the following: “he meant that it would be a matter for thecommittee to consider whether [a given issue] fell into scope” […]The minister’s assurances are of utmost importance to members in deciding
whether to support the bill. We were therefore surprised to read the promoter’sarguments in their letter to the committee of 5 February 2024, which stated that:
We do not consider that the ministerial statements made during the second
reading of the bill are relevant to the committee’s interpretation of the
instruction, because it is the instruction itself which determines the mattersthat the committee may consider.
[…] The notion that we should disregard anything that a minister says in debate
when trying to persuade the House to agree to something is wrong. What is further
troubling is that the government seems to hold two quite opposing views about
which matters fell within the scope of our committee. 87
During debate on the instruction, several MPs had sought clarity on the effect of the
instruction. Sir Peter Bottomley argued the instruction “makes it impossible for thepetitioners to have their cases heard effectively”. 88 He moved an amendment seeking to
remove elements of the instruction about planning permission and the location of the

85

House of Commons Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, ‘First special report of the Holocaust
Memorial Bill Select Committee’, 26 April 2024, HC 121 of session 2023–24, p 7.
86
HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, col 368.
87
House of Commons Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, ‘First special report of the Holocaust
Memorial Bill Select Committee’, 26 April 2024, HC 121 of session 2023–24, p 8.
88
HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, col 370.

19

memorial but was defeated at division. 89
A carry-over motion for the bill was agreed in the Commons on 28 June 2023, 90 and by theHouse of Lords on 23 October 2023. 91 The bill was reintroduced into the House ofCommons and received its first and second reading in the new parliamentary session on
8 November 2023 and was committed to a select committee. 92
4.4

Select committee

As it is a hybrid bill, the passage of the Holocaust Memorial Bill includes a petitioning phasefollowing second reading. Guidance to petitioners in the House of Lords outlines the process
as follows:
As well as being debated in both Houses of Parliament in the usual way, individuals,
groups of individuals, organisations and businesses directly and specially affected by
the bill are given the opportunity to “petition” in either or both Houses to seek tomitigate the effects of the bill on their property or business. They do this bysubmitting a petition and then, if they wish, putting their case to a select committee[…] This process may result in amendments to the bill or commitments made by
the promoters. Petitions may not, however, seek to defeat or stop the bill. This isbecause, by granting the bill a second reading (which takes place before selectcommittee stage), the House has agreed to the principle of the bill. 93
Following the bill’s committal to the select committee, the committee received ten petitions
objecting to the bill, of which two were withdrawn at a later stage. 94 The committee
subsequently held oral evidence sessions for petitioners in January and February 2024,
publishing its final report on April 2024. 95 Issues raised in petitions and oral evidence
included a lack of consultation about the location of the memorial, increasing costs of the
project, security concerns for any Holocaust memorial and suggestions that the Holocaust

89

HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, cols 375–7.
HC Hansard, 28 June 2023, cols 377–8.
91
HL Hansard, 23 October 2023, cols 394–5.
92
HC Hansard, 8 November 2023, col 168.
93
House of Lords, ‘House of Lords petitioning guidance’, 17 May 2024, p 1.
94
House of Commons Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, ‘First special report of the Holocaust
Memorial Bill Select Committee’, 26 April 2024, HC 121 of session 2023–24, p 5.
95
As above.
90

20

memorial and learning centre should be undertaken separately. 96
The committee decided not to amend the bill, concluding that suggestions put forward toamend the bill would either engage planning considerations, in contravention of the
instruction agreed by the House, or focus on the principle of the bill, which would be acourse of action out of scope of the committee. However, it raised concerns about the lackof a full consultation at the site selection phase and the costs of the project. The committee
also recommended that the government published information on the steps it intended totake around the security of any memorial and learning centre “expeditiously before any
planning application is progressed. 97
Once a hybrid bill has been considered by a select committee, it is sent to a public billcommittee or committee of the whole House and continues its parliamentary stages in thesame way as a public bill. 98
4.5

Committee of the whole house

The bill was considered in a committee of the whole house on 22 May 2024 and passed
unamended. There was wide cross-party support for the memorial. However, several
members again raised concerns about the costs, location and security of the proposed
memorial and learning centre. Amendments discussed included proposals to: 99

96•

expand clause 1 to include expenditure on educational purposes and activities
related to the memorial and the centre for learning•

restrict expenditure to £50mn•

specify that restrictions on planning would be removed only in relation to the
Holocaust memorial•

limit the total area of Victoria Tower Gardens for which restrictions werelifted•specify that no other memorials would have harm caused to themHouse of Commons Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, ‘First special report of the Holocaust
Memorial Bill Select Committee’, 26 April 2024, HC 121 of session 2023–24, pp 15–18.
97
As above, pp 3–4 .
98
House of Commons, ‘MPs’ guide to procedure’, January 2024, p 208.
99
House of Commons, ‘Holocaust Memorial Bill: Committee stage decisions’, 22 May 2024.

21

None of the amendments were pushed to a division. 100 In addition, John Stevenson (thenConservative MP for Carlisle), Nickie Aiken and Sir Peter Bottomley jointly proposed a newclause to the bill. The clause would have required a review of proposed security
arrangements for the memorial and learning centre to be carried out prior to theirconstruction and a report made to Parliament. Regulations relating to the security
arrangements would then be subject to the affirmative procedure. 101
Speaking to the new clause, John Stevenson argued that while some consideration was given
to security during the planning process, “circumstances have fundamentally changed”. 102
Nickie Aiken called a security review “not only financially prudent, but necessary from anational security perspective”. 103 Bob Blackman (Conservative MP for Harrow East and cochair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Holocaust Memorial) argued that security
threats were not an argument against the memorial; “rather, they are an argument for why
the memorial is needed in the first place”. 104
The then shadow housing minister, Matthew Pennycook, did not support any amendment tothe bill, stating that it should complete its stages as “speedily as possible”. 105 Mr Pennycook
also recognised what he described as the “valid criticisms” about the historical lack ofconsultation. However, he argued that security considerations would form part of any
inquiry by the planning inspectorate when a new planning application was considered for the
memorial.
Simon Hoare, then parliamentary under-secretary of state for levelling up, housing andcommunities, argued that security for a memorial to the Holocaust would always be an issue,
regardless of the location. 106 However, he stated that if a fear of those who seek to disrupt
such a memorial becomes “a trump card”, then “the mob will have won”. 107 Mr Hoare also
said that there had been reviews of alternative sites. In relation to costs, he conceded costs
had gone up but argued “costs will go up still further the longer that we delay”. 108

100

House of Commons, ‘Holocaust Memorial Bill: Committee stage decisions’, 22 May 2024.
As above.
102
HC Hansard, 22 May 2024, col 940.
103
HC Hansard, 22 May 2024, col 949.
104
HC Hansard, 22 May 2024, col 954.
105
HC Hansard, 22 May 2024, col 968.
106
HC Hansard, 22 May 2024, col 972.
107
HC Hansard, 22 May 2024, col 972.
108
HC Hansard, 22 May 2024, col 974.
101

22

Winding up the debate, Sir Peter Bottomley again raised the costs of the project, the amountof Victoria Tower Gardens that was being used and issues about security. Pushing his newclause to a vote he stated:[…] the government should compare the present proposal with the bestalternatives from the consultants and then have a proper consultation on thealternatives before the planning process starts again. 109
The proposed new clause was negatived on division and, and the bill passed unamended. 110
As the bill had been considered by a committee of the whole house and passed unamended
there was no report stage and the bill went straight to third reading. 111
4.6

Third reading

Opening third reading for the government, Simon Hoare thanked opposition MPs for theirsupport, but acknowledged concerns about the location of the memorial. However, hecontended “while many of the concerns are totally legitimate, they are germane to theplanning process, not the progress of the bill”. 112
For the opposition, the then shadow housing minister Matthew Pennycook reiterated his
support for the bill. He noted that “whatever differences might exist about precisely how we
do so, we are united as a House in our commitment to remembering and learning from the
Holocaust”. 113
Sir Peter Bottomley raised concerns with the design, size and location of the memorial. He
urged the House of Lords, to look at early day motion 711, which he said spelt out a numberof the issues with the bill. 114

109

HC Hansard, 22 May 2024, col 977.
HC Hansard, 22 May 2024, cols 978–9
111
UK Parliament, ‘MP’s guide to procedure’, accessed 20 August 2024.
112
HC Hansard, 22 May 2024, col 981.
113
HC Hansard, 22 May 2024, col 983.
114
HC Hansard, 22 May 2024, col 984; and UK Parliament, ‘Early day motion 711: Holocaust memorial
proposals’, tabled 1 May 2024.
110

23

The bill was read a third time and passed. 115 Directly afterwards, the House of Commons
agreed a carry-over motion to the bill. 116 The bill was introduced into the House of Lords on
23 May 2024. Following the general election, the bill was presented in the House ofCommons on 18 July 2024 and deemed to have been read a first, second and third time. 117
4.7

House of Lords stages

The Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee in the House of Lords received petitions
between 23 May 2024 and 17 July 2024. 118 As at 23 July 2024, 18 petitions had been received
by the select committee; these are published on the committee’s website and will beconsidered after second reading. 119 The bill is scheduled to receive its second reading in theHouse of Lords on 4 September 2024.
Once a hybrid bill is considered by a select committee in the House of Lords it is sent to a
grand committee or committee of the whole house and thereafter follows the usual courseof a public bill. 120

115

HC Hansard, 22 May 2024, col 990.
HC Hansard, 22 May 2024, cols 992–3.
117
HC Hansard, 18 July 2024, col 212.
118
UK Parliament, ‘Holocaust Memorial Bill’, 18 July 2024.
119
UK Parliament, ‘Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee’, accessed 23 July 2024.
120
House of Lords, ‘Companion to the standing orders and guide to the proceedings of the House of Lords’,
24 February 2024, paras 8.222–8.230, pp 168–9.
116About the Library
A full list of Lords Library briefings is available on the Library’s website.
The Library publishes briefings for all major items of business debated in the House of Lords.
The Library also publishes briefings on the House of Lords itself and other subjects that may
be of interest to members.
Library briefings are produced for the benefit of Members of the House of Lords. They
provide impartial, authoritative, politically balanced information in support of members’
parliamentary duties. They are intended as a general briefing only and should not be relied on
as a substitute for specific advice.
Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in Lords Library briefings iscorrect at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are notnecessarily updated or otherwise amended to reflect subsequent changes.
Disclaimer
The House of Lords or the authors(s) shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for
any loss or damage of any kind arising from its use, and may remove, vary or amend any
information at any time without prior notice. The House of Lords accepts no responsibility
for any references or links to, or the content of, information maintained by third parties.
This information is provided subject to the conditions of the Open Parliament Licence.
Authors are available to discuss the contents of the briefings with Members of the House ofLords and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public.
Any comments on Library briefings should be sent to the Head of ResearchServices, House of Lords Library, London SW1A 0PW or emailed tohlresearchservices@parliament.uk.