Before I begin my brief remarks about the amendments, let me restate the Opposition’s support for the construction of a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.
Given that this simple three-clause Bill does nothing more than remove pre-existing legislative impediments to the siting of such a memorial and centre in that location and make provision for, and in connection with, expenditure related to its establishment, we have not felt the need to table any amendments to it today. We sincerely hope—not least in view of the amount of time that has now passed since the idea was first proposed in 2015—that the Bill completes its remaining stages and receives Royal Assent as speedily as possible, so that the necessary planning application can be considered.
I turn now to the amendments, starting with new clause 2, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). We fully appreciate that, although we are united as a House in our commitment to establish a national Holocaust memorial and a world-class learning centre, there are differing and sincerely held views about the appropriateness of Victoria Tower Gardens as the location for them. In some cases, the objection extends only to the siting of the learning centre in that location; in others, it extends to both the centre and the memorial itself.
6.30 pm
Let me be clear: we believe that there are valid criticisms to be made about the adequacy of historical consultation. The Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee is right to highlight that a full consultation at the site selection stage would have not only leant more legitimacy to the final site decision, but identified the constraint that clause 2 seeks to remove much earlier, thereby potentially avoiding much of the delay that has occurred as a result of its late identification—a point well made by the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson).
That said, we do not believe it would be appropriate to amend the Bill—which, as the House knows, does not mandate the use of any particular location—with a view to using it as a means of reconsidering the location determined by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation and confirmed by the Government in 2016. Hon. Members from across the House may disagree with the decision, but Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as the preferred location eight years ago. That decision has been the subject of considerable scrutiny through the planning process and, in our view, any attempt to reopen it risks significant further delay to the construction of the memorial. That would be unacceptable.
The Bill itself will obviously not authorise the construction of the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens; such authorisation must come via the planning process. It is through the submission of a new planning application to Westminster City Council—it is my understanding that it must be a new permission, given the various policy changes that have happened in the five years since the initial application was submitted—that the appropriateness of the preferred site for the scheme will be tested again, and the arguments for and against any development revisited. In the event that the new application were to be called in by the Secretary of State for a decision, the Planning Inspectorate would have to undertake another public inquiry to consider all representations of support or opposition, as well as the relevant local plan, Government policy and guidance, and any other matters that it judges to be material to the case, in order to make a recommendation.
We do not believe that this Bill should be used to reopen the final site decision and hinder the ability of the promoter to submit a new planning application to Westminster City Council for consideration, which would be the effect of new clause 2. For that reason, we would not support it if it were pressed to a vote. The scrutiny provided for by the planning process will likewise apply to the precise plans that will be submitted to the local authority, and to any specific conditions that might be required, including those touched on by amendments 3 and 5—namely, the footprint of the memorial and learning centre, and their impact on other memorials in the gardens. We therefore do not believe that either amendment is necessary.
The planning process will necessarily have to consider security arrangements. The Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee’s report was right to raise site security as a concern, and there is no question but that security measures need to be re-examined in the light of how the threat picture has changed since the previous planning application was considered five years ago. However, we do not believe that new clause 1, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle, is either appropriate or necessary. First, we have concerns about the implications of putting details of sensitive security measures relating to the site in the public domain and specifying them in regulations, as new clause 1 proposes—a concern echoed by the Planning Inspectorate in its April 2021 report. Secondly, we fear that the effect of new clause 1 would be to duplicate processes that have been, and will be, undertaken by the local authority, or by the Planning Inspectorate in the event that the application were to be called in. For these reasons, we will not be able to support new clause 1 if it is pressed to a Division.