(2) The assessment of optimism bias is specific to the current site and the current design. It would not be directly relevant even in the entirely implausible case that the Government abandoned the current proposal but brought forward a new one for the same site (para 25.i), as a new assessment would be required. Para 25.ii assumes that I have requested the whole business case, which is not correct. (3) There can be no doubt that site selection is not currently a live issue. I continue to maintain that it is highly unlikely that it will become so, and can enlarge upon this if necessary. As argued above, the information requested does not relate to site selection anyway. (4) Most of the Department’s wording here is generic, and it assumes that the whole of the business case has been requested, which is incorrect. There is nothing in the Department’s response explaining how releasing the information actually requested would impinge on any ‘safe space’ needed. Instead, in para 31, the Department expresses a more general view that ‘if every single decision in relation to [the project] was open to challenge, requiring the need to constantly defend decisions, the project would likely be stalled’. In reality the Department has constantly been challenged but has virtually never (except in the public inquiry) felt it necessary to defend its decisions on the project. The suggestion that, if it had to, the project would be stalled is absurd. The concept of a safe space must involve a balance. Too much of a safe space allows badly planned projects to proceed without adequate scrutiny, as in the present case. (5) The Department has from the start been far from transparent over this project, especially as regards costs. There could hardly be a stronger argument for transparency than the fact that, since the NAO reported in March 2022, the estimated cost of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre has increased by 35%, to £138.9 million plus contingencies. 11