I know that everybody is glued to their mobile phones about the announcement of the general election, but this debate is important, because we are commemorating the greatest crime in history. I thought my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) spoke movingly about antisemitism, and I start my speech by saying that I agree with every single thing he said. He said it so well. It was a brilliant speech.
This Bill is tremendously important, but I want to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and her amendment 2. Time is short so I cannot expand on the crimes of the Holocaust, but I want to talk about the detail of what we are debating. Amendment 2, tabled by
my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, sums up what I have long been campaigning for. I declare an interest, as a worker here for 41 years. I live about a mile away, as we all do—we all live locally and work here, so we all take an interest.
6.15 pm
I have been arguing, as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Father of the House, that we could have sorted this out eight years ago by having a fantastic memorial in the gardens of a similar size to the slavery memorial—also an incredibly important issue. I have never been in favour of the underground learning centre. Because this is such a vital issue and we have a duty to the Jewish community, the local community and everyone else, we must proceed by consensus. We should not cause divisions on this. I make one last plea to the Government to proceed by consensus, as my hon. Friend the Father of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster are trying to do.
The Jewish community is not homogeneous, but it is concerned. In a 2018 letter to The Times signed by eight Jewish peers, they expressed deep reservations about the project as it is currently proposed, and they knew what they were talking about. I know that Lord Cameron, as Prime Minister, was working with the best of intentions, and I understand the whole argument about the proximity to the Palace and recognising the importance of what we are talking about, but the decision was made without any proper consultation or investigation. Any further consideration shows numerous flaws in this particular site.
We need to get into the detail. The design calls for a significant underground portion, even though it is located next to a river. In June 2016, 50 local properties flooded from underneath after a heavy downpour. It is built on Thorney Island, the original settlement of London, surrounded by ancient marshland in which the water table can rise alarmingly after sudden rainfall. Victoria Tower Gardens is maintained by the Royal Parks, which has never supported the memorial in that location. Its chairman Lord Grossman, himself Jewish, said that there are
“concerns about the potential risk of such a building on the intrinsic qualities of a well-used public park in an area of the city with a limited number of open spaces.”
This is such a built-up area and such a well-loved park, specifically made for the people of London as a tiny oasis of green.
There is a fear, which the Minister tried to deal with, that this could be used as a precedent. The park was protected specifically by an Act of Parliament in 1900, and those statutory protections are being undermined. This small garden—one of the smallest parks in London in one of the most built-up areas—can only really accommodate a smaller memorial without damaging its characteristics. I do not think that anyone has made the point so far that the design introduces an 18-metre ramp. A wide moat would split the park, and much of the existing broad swathes of grass will be replaced by paving.
We want as many people as possible, especially schoolchildren and young people, to visit the national Holocaust memorial. Existing pressures on Millbank will only be compounded by traffic seeking to access it. There are no plans to deal with the expected coach traffic
and halting—I am sorry to go into such detail, but it is central to what we are talking about. No parking spaces or drop-off zones are proposed. The local area’s Thorney Island Society has objected. Many other people have made fantastic arguments, which have been dismissed, not dealt with and not answered. For most local residents, this useful park and open space would cease to function as such. Many ordinary uses of this neighbourhood park, especially those related to dogs, would be inappropriate if a Holocaust memorial were the focal point.
The restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster —I am on the board with you, Mr Chairman—is an ongoing project that we are still debating. Victoria Tower Gardens could play an essential role in works related to the Palace. Undoubtedly, some part of the park will have to be taken for that. We need more flexibility. The costs have risen exponentially. Taking up a large space for the Holocaust memorial will limit the range of action for renovating the Palace. We are now talking, on the Restoration and Renewal Programme Board, about having a new visitor entrance from the park. Again, that is not being considered.
The most impactful Holocaust memorials in the world, such as those in Washington, Berlin and Israel, all of which are visited, are enormous. They take up a space far bigger than this Chamber, on many levels. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made clear, we have to tell the story bit by bit. You move from room to room, and you understand how hate built up. We need to have a proper museum, a proper Holocaust memorial, similar to those in Berlin and Washington where the whole story can be told. I do not think that this small underground learning centre will in any way address that point.
I will end on this point, because I know that time is very precious. In his closing remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the Father of the House, really summed it up. This proposal is too big for this small park, but it is too small for the gravity of the issues we are addressing.