First Special Report of the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee – Report Summary

Summary

The Holocaust Memorial Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 23 February 2023 by the Government, and was considered to be prima facie hybrid in the opinion of the Clerk of Legislation. The Bill was subsequently referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and they reported the Bill to be hybrid, which would therefore require a select committee stage to hear petitions against the Bill. The Bill was referred to us by the House of Commons following the Second Reading debate on 28 June. The House agreed an Instruction, which set out those matters that the Select Committee can consider.

The building of a Holocaust Memorial is an important and sensitive matter. It is of great personal significance to many people, and a matter of national importance. We are also aware of the meaning that this project holds for the Jewish community in particular, and we are particularly grateful to the Holocaust survivors who explained their perspectives to us, whilst taking on the role of witnesses.

We are of the opinion that the Promoter’s decision not to challenge the right to be heard of petitioners should not be used as a precedent for future hybrid or private bills. This put the Committee in a difficult position in judging to what extent discussion ought to be permitted on matters that did not directly and specially affect the petitioners.

Having listened to the objections made by petitioners, and considered the options that appear to be available to us, we have decided not to amend the Bill. Our primary reason is that the suggestions put forward 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 a course of action out of scope of this Committee.

Whilst we do not wish to amend the Bill, there are certain matters of concern which we wish to raise, having considered the content of the hearings. These are:

• A full consultation at the site selection stage would have lent more legitimacy to the final site decision, and it is quite possible that the Government would have found out about the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 at an earlier stage. It seems odd that the views of the property consultants were not sought, and a full appraisal and consultation not carried out.
• It seems to us that the true cost of this project has not been established. We note that it is not unusual for the costs of major projects to increase with time, due to unforeseen building issues, the ambition of the project, and increases in inflation. The longer that building works go on, the more expensive this project will become. On this basis, we urge the Government to consider how ongoing costs are likely to be paid for and whether it offers appropriate use of public money.
• Clear proposals should be published which show what steps the Government intends to take around the security of any memorial and learning centre. Such considerations ought to be undertaken expeditiously before any planning application is progressed.