Jewish peer accused of ‘parading’ his family’s suffering during debate over Holocaust memorial

“My worry is the design as put forward for this learning centre and where it is – in a limited space, with the potential for danger that would bring it into deep disrepute, very rapidly, in the event of an incident.

She added: “We know what happened when Novichok was used in Salisbury. I cannot see how any security screening system will adequately detect somebody with serious malintent trying to destroy the whole essence of this learning centre by creating a terrorist-type attack”, she added.

Conservative Peer and JC columnist Lord Finkelstein, a patron of the Wiener Holocaust Library whose mother is a Holocaust survivor, dismissed these objections as sensationalist.

He told peers: “In this debate, we have heard almost every argument and its opposite: I want a learning centre and a Holocaust memorial; I want only a Holocaust memorial; I want either of them but both of them somewhere else; no one will come; everyone will come; the garden is too tranquil; the garden is too full.

“That was followed by a series of arguments in which, in short order, we heard that no children will ever go safely by this memorial, and that we do not need to worry about all the people going there because anyone who goes to the learning centre will end up drowning, as the waters will rise and we will have to flee for our lives. These are all points that were seriously made. It was further argued that Parliament will have to be adjourned; the people in it will be burned to death; that they will be rendered unconscious by terrorists hiding gas in their rectum; and that people will be trampled underfoot.”

Asked if he was being flippant in his dismissal of criticism, Finkelstein replied some of the suggestions peers had made in opposition to the memorial were “alarmist ideas that will not come to pass”.

He added: “This is an extremely simple proposal for a very fitting memorial. I can understand why people might not want it, particularly if they live nearby, but it is a fitting response to the Holocaust and it is in the right place.”

Baroness Finlay then objected to Finkelstein’s and said that: “I think it is completely inappropriate to suggest that those of us who have raised concern over this design and the place of it are somehow opposed to having an appropriate memorial.

"Many of us have relatives who had deeply traumatic experiences. We have not paraded them here. We are dealing with what it is suggested is to be constructed and with how we move forward.”

Later in the debate, Finlay was rebuked by Lord Austin, who criticised her for claiming Finkelstein “paraded his victimhood”.

She responded by saying that had she caused offence to anyone, “I will duly apologise, because there was no intention whatever to cause any offence to anyone alive or deceased.”

Last year, Jewish groups welcomed the government’s commitment to build a Holocaust Memorial Learning Centre at Victoria Tower Gardens, adjacent to the Houses of Parliament.

The Holocaust Memorial Bill was introduced in the last parliament by the previous Conservative government.

However, it did not progress through Parliament before this month’s general election. The bill was one of the few items of legislation allowed to be “carried over” into the new Parliament.

In previous debates in the House of Lords, some peers have objected to the memorial, fearing it would become a lightning rod for anti-Israel protests.

Responding to the debate on behalf of the government, faith minister Lord Khan told peers that the planning process “requires extensive consultation, detailed scrutiny by technical experts and consideration of an extensive range of statutory provisions, regulations and planning policies”.

He cautioned them against acting as a de-facto “planning committee”, adding: “I suspect that few of us here will have read all 6,000-plus pages of evidence submitted with the planning application, or the many detailed responses from experts, supporters and opponents of the programme.”