Government plans to build a Holocaust memorial and learning centre in a public park adjacent to the Palace of Westminster will come under scrutiny by a committee of MPs this morning. Five backbenchers have now been appointed to the committee: three Conservatives and two from the Labour party.
It’s nearly 11 months since the communities secretary Michael Gove introduced a bill in parliament that would allow ministers to get round a requirement that the site chosen for the memorial — Victoria Tower Gardens — must be maintained as a “garden open to the public”. That restriction was imposed by parliament in 1900.
Gove’s bill was found to be hybrid, which meant objectors could submit petitions to the committee of MPs considering it. The objectors include campaigners who wish to keep the gardens in their present form as well as members of the Jewish community who believe that that this is the wrong place for a memorial to the Holocaust.
I share that view. Recent events in London have demonstrated that a memorial in a public park will need even greater protection than had previously been thought.
This morning, the MPs will hear witnesses from Gove’s Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Christopher Katkowski KC, the department’s counsel, is expected to tell the committee that it cannot consider objections to whether there should be a memorial and associated learning centre. Nor can the MPs consider whether planning permission and other consents should be given for its construction.
That’s because the committee is not allowed to consider the principle of the bill. But other objections may be lodged.
The government announced in January 2016 that it had chosen Victoria Tower Gardens for the memorial and learning centre. Looking back at the decision some years later, I observed that the memorial would already have been completed by then if the government had chosen instead to locate it in the grounds of the Imperial War Museum. And that was 18 months ago.
Whatever happens in the Commons, the government will still need to get its legislation through the House of Lords in what may be the closing weeks of this parliament. Though the bill has cross-party support, there can be no guarantee it will be passed before the general election. And no construction work can begin before it becomes law.
I dare to wonder if there is some deeply entrenched obstinacy behind the resolve to carry on with this- as I agree- wholly unsuitable site without heeding the manifold and well articulated objections to it from a number of responsible quarters.