Thank you, Dame Eleanor. I wish to speak to amendment 1 and new clause 1 and take the opportunity to speak to some of the other amendments. I pay tribute to my hon.
Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) for his contribution and his dogged determination, and for covering many of the issues that are relevant to this discussion.
Before making my other remarks, I would also like to say that I fully support the idea and concept of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre; indeed, I voted for it on Second Reading. I recognise that this is an incredibly important project, and one that is probably as important now as it ever has been in the past. The idea of a specific memorial is entirely appropriate, but the concept and idea of a learning centre is in many respects vital and, in my view, the most significant part of the project. It is coming up to 80 years since the end of world war two and there are fewer people who have a direct link with that time or indeed with what happened during the second world war. Therefore, it is even more important we do not forget and that we ensure that we learn from what happened then and educate for the future.
Please be in no doubt, therefore, of my support for an appropriate memorial and a worthwhile learning centre—something that I am sure the whole House will support. However, having had the privilege and responsibility of being part of the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, I have concluded that there are some serious issues that need to be properly addressed before this specific scheme potentially proceeds—if it does at all. My advice to Government would be to take a step back and pause. Is this really the right scheme? Is it really the right location? What about the appropriate costs involved?
We all want to see a successful scheme. We want to see it constructed in a timely fashion, and arguably too long has already passed. We want it to be built in the right location, and at a cost that is realistic and fair. If I may be so bold, I would suggest that such a scheme could be built quite quickly at the Imperial War Museum and fulfil all the ambitions and wishes of the original Committee and everybody in this House.
4.30 pm
Let me turn to the Bill and the various amendments. Four key issues arise, but I will touch first on planning, on which I am sure the Minister will respond. Time has passed and circumstances have changed. What are the issues relating to air quality and flooding, the changes to the area in traffic management terms, and the prospect of thousands of visitors to such a site? Is a new planning application now required, to go back to the proposal’s origins, or should we just consider updating the current version, and, if so, what are the requirements for that? The planning application touched on security, but circumstances have fundamentally changed. I will come back to that point in due course, as it relates to my new clause 1.
Secondly, there is consultation, which new clause 2 touches on. It is something that the Select Committee picked up on very early. The original Committee had instructed consultants to seek an appropriate site. Recommendations were made and sites were located and considered. The Holocaust Commission itself came up with Victoria Tower Gardens. I understand that it has been said—allegedly, at least—that that was a lightbulb moment. What I find extraordinary, however, is that no further consultation on that particular site was taken. Had such a consultation taken place, it may have revealed the issue relating to the London County Council
(Improvements) Act 1900—the reason for our deliberations today—and because that issue was missed, the amount of time spent on this whole project has been extended.
That consultation may or may not have shown that that was the correct site, but at least there would have been proper consultation, people would have had the opportunity to consider the merits of the site and, perhaps, whether it was inappropriate, and it could have been compared with other locations. It was very telling that the counsel for the promoter and the Government all but acknowledged that a consultation should have taken place, and that it would have been better if one had. In my view, that was a serious error of judgment. I appreciate that the Government will argue that there was a consultation during the planning application, but I would dispute that it was the one that should have been carried out.
Let me turn to my two amendments. Amendment 1 would address the overall cost: the original amount set aside by the Government to kick-start an endowment fund was £50 million, as set out in 2015 by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron. By 2017, the figure quoted was still £50 million, but then the costs started to increase. In 2018, they had risen to an estimated £102 million, of which the Government would fund £75 million, and private donations the rest. We now have a cost estimate of around £138 million, but are we really suggesting that when the digging starts in Victoria Tower Gardens, the costs will remain anywhere near that? I suspect that they will escalate considerably to a much higher figure.
It does not end there. In 2021, the then Minister announced that entry to the site would be free. The estimated annual running costs were, at that time, £6 million per year. In 2024, they have risen to somewhere between £6.5 million and £8.5 million—and, indeed, they could go higher. Of course, we have still not considered the potential security costs, which are, in many respects, a complete unknown. Amendment 1 would restrict the funding to the original amount, which could be increased by substantial private donations. Might the Minister advise the House on the estimated private donations to date, and on what they are likely to be in future, so that we have some indication of the private contributions that could be made to the overall project?
New clause 1 is probably the most important of my two amendments. Security will become a huge issue in the future—we are already acutely aware of it, given the circumstances of what is going on in Gaza. I appreciate that some thought was given to security during the planning process, and would be again, but circumstances have completely changed. If the project goes ahead and we build the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, we do not want to see them being closed most of the time because of security considerations.