Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-30)
ADAM WILKINSON
AND DR
KATHRYN FERRY
17 APRIL 2007
Q20 Chairman: How long will it be
before the justices demand curtains to protect their privacy while
they are getting on with their work?
Dr Ferry: That is a good point.
Adam Wilkinson: It is a really
important point. We do not know what the functions of the Supreme
Court are going to be and how it will work out. We do not know
their precise needs so no doubt in five years they will have vandalised
a beautiful building in the most pointless way and find they have
got completely different needs and need a new building anyway,
so it could all be a horrendous waste.
Q21 Chairman: The need which was
most often expressed, and indeed expressed to this Committee at
earlier stages when we were discussing it before the building
itself was the issue, what the Supreme Court would be like, there
was a strong emphasis by the Law Lords, which may have been reflected
in your correspondence, on the desire to preserve the seminar-like
atmosphere in which the Law Lords currently sit in a committee
room not unlike this in its shape but, of course, very different
in style within the House of Lords itself. I do not know whether
that is clear from the correspondence you have received but it
was an input into the discussions. Do you think that need could
have been satisfied to some extent without the degree of vandalism,
as you would call it, to the building that is now contemplated?
Adam Wilkinson: It is difficult.
Court number three, which is the old council chamber, is a very
dramatic space. It has got this massive ceiling with hammer beam
roof, there is wonderful woodwork and a well.
Q22 Chairman: There are high ceilings
in the House of Lords' committee rooms as well so that in itself
is not a problem, is it?
Adam Wilkinson: It is not a problem
there but it is the well which they want to level out to create
their seminar-like atmosphere.
Dr Ferry: The floor is raked so
this has implications for DDA (Disability Discrimination Act)
and I suppose the size of the council chamber as it was initially
set out was for 103 councillors and this is presumably too large
for the seminar feel they are trying to create. That being the
case perhaps it is not the right building.
Adam Wilkinson: That is the point
straight away, it being entirely the wrong choice of building.
You can create a seminar-like atmosphere in any building, whether
it is old, new, 1960s or whatever, it does not particularly matter
what the building is like.
Q23 Mr Tyrie: Can I just ask you,
do you happen to know what the cost of prime new construction
is in Central London at the moment, per square foot? You have
said this is a 30,000 square foot building and could be done more
cheaply elsewhere.
Adam Wilkinson: I can not give
you an indication. I can get back to you with that if that would
help.
Q24 Mr Tyrie: The other thing is
I would be very grateful if I could have Lord Hoffmann's speech.
Adam Wilkinson: Absolutely.
Q25 Mr Tyrie: If you have that with
you that would be handy.
Adam Wilkinson: I can email it
across to you later on.
Mr Tyrie: We have the Lord Chancellor
in a few moments.
Q26 Chairman: Is there any further
point you want to make to us to clarify what you have made very
clear to us, the reasons why more account should be taken of the
loss involved in such substantial changes to the building?
Dr Ferry: I would like to say
that part of the justification that is being given for this is
that there will be greater public access to the building. It is
not at all clear who this public is who are going to be using
the building in the future who do not use it at the moment as
a crown court. I think crown court use probably led to a larger
cross section of people entering the building than there will
be the case when it is a Supreme Court. The idea of having a museum
in the basement, who is this for? Who is going to come into this
museum and look at these pieces of furniture? If they know about
the building and are interested in the furniture then presumably
they would rather see it as it is in situ as it was meant to be
in its original state. This idea of enlarged public access does
not really add up.
Q27 Bob Neill: One assumes the security
will be every bit as tight as the ground floor if not more so?
Dr Ferry: Indeed, there is already
public access.
Adam Wilkinson: That is right,
you can go in any time and sit in the public galleries and appreciate
the remarkable furniture.
Q28 Bob Neill: Do you think enough
attention has been given also to the other aspect of its role
not just as a court but of course as a historic part of London's
local government heritage, as the previous home of Middlesex County
Council. I remember when my own party, wrongly in my judgment
I might say, abolished the GLC with some fuss about preserving
at least the council chamber and the first floor, the listed rooms
of County Hall; in fact, the council chamber was not -sad it is
not—used very much but at least it was not pulled around.
Is there a similar comparison that we should look at?
Adam Wilkinson: Nothing has been
mentioned in any of the correspondence we have come across about
preserving the heritage of Middlesex within the building.
Q29 Chairman: I think you cited a
very specific example of the plan to efface a memorial.
Adam Wilkinson: And also internally
as well. You have lots of shields around on the woodwork which
presumably have got to be cleared away or sanded down, undoing
some wonderful craftsmanship. It is all pointless, frankly. This
is not just about the aesthetics, there are practical alternatives
to this, there are other things that could be done. The question
was asked about money, if we are going to build a new institution
it is going to cost you a lot of money, it is not going to cost
the same amount as a B&Q shed or a new Tescos. If the Government
is committed to this idea, it should put its money where its mouth
is rather than destroying a good historic building and really,
as far as we feel, overriding the law and acting in a way which
is completely arrogant and which no individual would be allowed
to get away with.
Dr Ferry: It does seem that this
will end up being a compromise which will satisfy nobody because
the Law Lords will not get the modern building that they want
and the heritage lobby who are trying to fight to save the building
will get a shell with nothing in it. It just seems the compromise
is not worth making.
Q30 Chairman: We will put your views
to the Lord Chancellor shortly. Thank you very much for bringing
them to us.
| 
