Examination of Witnesses (Questions 31-39)
RT HON
LORD FALCONER
OF THOROTON
QC AND ALEX
ALLAN
17 APRIL 2007
Adam Wilkinson: Thank you for
the chance to speak.
Q31 Chairman: Lord Chancellor, welcome
back, with more powers than you had last time we saw you.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Not
quite.
Q32 Chairman: Not quite, because
you do not get them until 9 May. We will not ask you precisely
how you are going to sort out the crisis in the prisons because
you are not yet responsible for it, but we want to ask you, shortly,
about these major changes in the position of the Department. Before
that we want to ask you some questions about Middlesex Guildhall.
You missed a very interesting short session in which we had two
witnesses telling us their concerns about the changes that you
are making there and I am sure you will want to read that afterwards.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I will,
yes.
Q33 Chairman: You may want to come
back to us afterwards with things you would have said if you had
realised what had been said earlier.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: They
are grinning at me from behind.
Q34 Chairman: Perhaps I will simply
ask you first just to reiterate briefly why you chose Middlesex
Guildhall and when you made that choice were you aware that there
would be very strong arguments that if you did go ahead and use
it you would have to be very sensitive to the quality of the building
and its fittings in particular?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We
conducted an extensive search that boiled down to a shortlist
ultimately of six, one of which was Middlesex Guildhall. We were
aware before we made the choice of selecting Middlesex Guildhall
that there were very, very significant parts in particular of
the interior that had to be handled extremely sensitively. It
was a Grade II listed building. Detailed plans were drawn up as
to what was going to be done. Even bearing in mind all of that,
we decided very clearly that Middlesex Guildhall was the right
place for the Supreme Court for two reasons. The building is right,
subject to the amendments that have been proposed in detail, and
also because of its position right in the heart of Parliament
Square, opposite Parliament, beside the Treasury, not that that
is remotely relevant, and opposite Westminster Abbey as well.
I am very aware of what the most impressive Council Chamber, now
courtroom, looks like. It has been operating as a crown court
for a very considerable period of time although it could have
continued as a crown court, it could not have continued forever
as a crown court; there were considerable amendments which would
have been required under the Disability Discrimination Act. It
would also have been the only crown court in London that would
not have had a secure loading dock because you cannot get secure
access to Middlesex Guildhall. A question would eventually have
arisen some time in the future as to whether or not Middlesex
Guildhall could have survived as a crown court. Before we went
ahead, detailed plans were drawn up and they were approved initially
by English Heritage, who have got considerable concerns about
this, and then Westminster City Council.
Q35 Chairman: Can I briefly stop
you at that point because, of course, you were not present when
I made a ruling earlier which is that notice of appeal having
been lodged in the case brought by SAVE against Westminster City
Council in relation to the planning application, I have decided
in consultation with Mr Speaker to waive the sub judice
rules so far as it applies to the question of accommodation for
the new Supreme Court to allow this session to proceed, but reference
should not be made to the court proceedings which are the subject
of the appeal or the planning processes. If I could steer you
away from anything that might be related to the court proceedings
as such or the planning process you had to go through, but that
does not in any way prevent you from continuing to present the
case you were presenting about what you intend to do to the court.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: You
are obviously ahead of the game as far as I am concerned. At the
beginning of today SAVE had not lodged notice of appeal against
the rejection of their application for judicial review by Mr Justice
Collins who at the end of his case had said to them "I would
advise you as a charity not to throw any more good money after
bad".
Q36 Chairman: I am advised the appeal
has been lodged. I had not heard that at the beginning of the
day they had done that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Have
they appealed?
Q37 Chairman: I am advised the appeal
has been lodged. I have therefore ruled with the Speaker's guidance
on that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Are
you referring to the judicial review or an appeal against the
rejection of the judicial review?
Q38 Chairman: I understand the latter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It
was lodged today, the very last day for appeal? I do not know
what piece of litigation you are referring to.[1]
Q39 Chairman: I am acting on advice I
have been given. The implications of it, for what you and we say
are simply that we keep off the legal and planning proceedings
but you can continue with the substance.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Ultimately,
a balance has to be struck and the people who strike the balance
is the planning authority and the planning authority said, "We
are very aware of the interior sensitivity here. We have looked
at the proposals which are going to be made and we believe in
striking the balance between the intervention, which is significant,
inside Middlesex Guildhall and the appropriate use of this building
we come down unequivocally in favour of there being the Supreme
Court there".
They were weighing that very balance that you
are referring to. I do not know if I have gone too far in the
light of the sub judice warning that you have given me
but I would imagine if it is being appealed it is by the Court
of Appeal and they will not be that interested by what I say.
1 Note by witness: Save Britain's Heritage
had not, at the time of the hearing or subsequently, lodged an
appeal against 23 March 2007 Judicial Review judgement. The 21-day
period to appeal expired on 16 April 2007. Back
| 
