Former Liverpool Lord Mayor Stands by Auschwitz Comparison Amid Calls for Suspension

A former Lord Mayor of Liverpool has refused to withdraw or apologise for controversial comments in which he compared the matchday queuing arrangements at Sandhills railway station to Auschwitz. Councillor Richard Kemp has defended his remarks despite strong criticism from political leaders and members of the community, insisting that his description reflected his concerns about how football supporters are being treated.

The controversy began during a meeting of Liverpool City Council’s planning committee, where councillors were discussing proposals to enlarge the queuing area at Sandhills station. The station is heavily used by Everton supporters travelling to and from the club’s Hill Dickinson Stadium, particularly on matchdays when large crowds pass through the area.

Councillors were considering plans intended to improve crowd management and increase the amount of space available for passengers waiting to use the station. However, Cllr Kemp strongly criticised the existing system, arguing that supporters were effectively being treated in an undignified way.

During the debate, the Liberal Democrat councillor objected to the terminology and design of the queuing arrangements. He claimed that supporters risked being handled “like cattle” and made the highly controversial comparison between the current lanes and the arrival areas at Auschwitz.

Kemp also expressed anger over what he described as the slow progress in preparing transport infrastructure around Everton’s new stadium. He argued that the relevant transport authorities had known for many years that a new football stadium was being developed and therefore should have had enough time to create a safer and more efficient system for passengers.

According to Kemp, officials had approximately nine years to prepare for the additional transport demands linked to the stadium. He criticised a previous arrangement that had been described as “pens,” saying he considered the entire system unacceptable and poorly designed.

Another Liberal Democrat councillor, Pat Moloney, also made remarks referring to Nazi concentration camps during the same discussion. Moloney criticised the language being used by transport officials to describe the planned arrangements, particularly terms such as “corralling area” and “sterile zone.”

He argued that such terminology sounded dehumanising when applied to ordinary passengers and football supporters. Moloney said he was disturbed by the way the proposals were being discussed and compared the plans to something that might be associated with a Nazi death camp.

The comments from both councillors quickly attracted condemnation.

Liverpool City Region Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram and Liverpool City Council Labour leader Cllr Liam Robinson wrote to Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey calling for Kemp and Moloney to be suspended while the matter is investigated.

In their letter, Rotheram and Robinson questioned how two elected councillors could make such comparisons during the same planning meeting. They stressed that Auschwitz was the site of unimaginable suffering and mass murder during the Holocaust and argued that it was deeply inappropriate to compare that history with the experience of football fans waiting to board trains after a match.

The two Labour politicians also noted that Sir Ed Davey had personally visited Auschwitz and would therefore understand the historical significance of the site and why such comparisons can cause serious offence.

They reportedly included planning documents showing the proposed Sandhills arrangements and encouraged the Liberal Democrat leader to judge whether the councillors’ comparisons were remotely reasonable.

Rotheram and Robinson said members of Liverpool’s Jewish community had contacted them following Moloney’s remarks and expressed significant distress. They argued that reports of Kemp making a similar comparison during the same discussion were likely to increase that upset.

The Labour figures described the remarks as an unacceptable use of extreme historical comparisons in political debate. They emphasised that the victims of Auschwitz included men, women and children who were murdered as part of one of the darkest crimes in human history.

In their view, there could be no meaningful equivalence between the suffering experienced by Holocaust victims and temporary queuing arrangements faced by football supporters travelling home from a stadium.

They also suggested that the fact that two councillors made similar comments during the same meeting made the situation more concerning. Rather than appearing to be a single poorly chosen comment, they argued, the incident raised broader questions about the standards of language being used in the committee.

Kemp, however, has refused to back down.

Responding to the criticism, he accused Rotheram and Robinson of attempting to distract attention from what he considers serious failures in transport and stadium planning. He claimed both politicians were using the controversy to avoid scrutiny of their own performance.

Kemp argued that officials had been given years to ensure safe and practical travel arrangements around the new Everton stadium but had failed to deliver sufficient improvements.

He said his concerns extended beyond Sandhills station and included other transport-related issues around the stadium, such as parking, taxi access and arrangements for disabled supporters trying to reach the venue.

According to Kemp, there are numerous unresolved problems that should have been anticipated well before supporters began regularly travelling to the new stadium.

He also suggested that the latest proposed improvements to Sandhills could be delayed to the point that they would not be fully operational until Everton’s third season at Hill Dickinson Stadium.

When directly asked whether he would retract his Auschwitz comparison or apologise for making it, Kemp refused.

He maintained that the way Merseyrail officials had discussed Everton supporters was unacceptable and argued that his controversial description remained appropriate. He again accused Rotheram and Robinson of focusing on his language in order to distract from what he viewed as administrative failures.

Moloney adopted a somewhat different position.

He explained that his remarks had followed Kemp’s comments during the committee discussion and said he remained concerned about the terminology being used to describe football supporters.

Moloney argued that words such as “corralling” suggested an attitude that reduced people to objects or groups to be controlled rather than treating them with respect.

He also said he was disappointed that officials had not acknowledged concerns about the language used in the proposals.

However, unlike Kemp, Moloney indicated that he was prepared to apologise if his words had caused offence. He said that if his comparison had gone too far or upset people, he regretted that impact.

At the same time, he continued to defend the central point behind his comments, arguing that the language and attitude surrounding crowd-control measures remained problematic.

The dispute has therefore developed into two separate but connected arguments.

One centres on the practical arrangements at Sandhills and whether transport authorities have done enough to safely manage thousands of Everton supporters on matchdays. Kemp and Moloney both believe the current system and the language surrounding it are unacceptable.

The other concerns the limits of political rhetoric and whether comparisons with Auschwitz or Nazi death camps can ever be justified in a debate about public transport infrastructure.

For critics, the answer is clear. They believe invoking the Holocaust in this context trivialises the suffering of millions of victims and causes unnecessary distress, particularly to Jewish communities.

Kemp, however, continues to insist that his comments were justified by the seriousness with which he views the treatment of supporters and the failures surrounding transport planning.

With calls now being made for both Liberal Democrat councillors to face suspension and investigation, the controversy is likely to remain a significant political issue in Liverpool. While Moloney has offered a conditional apology to anyone offended by his remarks, Kemp has so far shown no intention of withdrawing his comparison.