Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
RT HON
LORD FALCONER
OF THOROTON
QC AND ALEX
ALLAN
17 APRIL 2007
Q40 Chairman: We are interested,
of course, in your view both as a Minister and as a Department
because it is not merely on the basis of external decision that
you decide what to do with the building, you yourself will have
a view about to what extent you want to safeguard what has been
described as "very valuable" in the course of making
it suitable for the Supreme Court.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes.
Considerable steps have been taken to try to do that. We have
been as sensitive as we possibly can be. If you look at this photograph,
in practice what happens is the thing shifts around in 90 degrees
and is put on a flat level and a dock is removed, because it is
not suitable in a Supreme Court to have a dock. There are very
considerable and attractive bench ends which will be preserved,
those are these bits there. That throne, which presumably
the Chairman of Middlesex County Council sat on appropriately
there, is to be kept in the exhibition centre. There are other
bits of the furniture that the Planning Committee of Westminster
have said as a matter of condition should be placed in another
court, and we have found another court, namely Snaresbrook, to
do that. Snaresbrook is a most eminent court and it is an appropriate
place—
Q41 Bob Neill: Court 13 of Snaresbrook,
Lord Chancellor.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: A most
appropriate place for it. We are completely aware of the sensitivity.
A balance has to be struck.
Q42 Mrs James: The Victorian Society
has reminded us that the Guildhall is a grade II listed building.
I am sure you are aware that means that it is designated one of
the top 8% buildings in the country. I was very interested in
the special historic and cultural significance of the building.
How does one justify stripping or separating those two integral
parts, those wonderful interiors which were designed for the building,
and just taking them out and putting them somewhere else?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Because
the best will be preserved. The panelling is being preserved.
Those bits that cannot be used will either be in the exhibition
centre or in Snaresbrook, I am not sure whether it is going to
be court 13, and you have a long term, entirely appropriate, sustainable
use for Middlesex Guildhall, namely as the Supreme Court of the
United Kingdom. Yes, there is a balance to be struck. I am not
in any way seeking to understate the importance of the building
but I think it is a very appropriate and sensitive way of dealing
with the interior and I think it is a wholly appropriate way of
dealing with Middlesex Guildhall for the long-term future.
Q43 Mrs James: I have to add at this
point as an ex-public affairs manager for the National Trust it
would have been a braver person than I who would have been taking
that on with one of the National Trust properties because of the
"specialness" of that interior.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes,
and I accept that but, again, English Heritage supported the proposals
that we made. You will be, I am sure, impressed by the plans you
have seen for court three. You have seen this glossy brochure
that the charity has produced and you will see what it looks like.
You will see it is much lighter than it was before, in part because
light wells on both sides have been reopened so the light will
be natural light in the future rather than what is artificial
light there at the moment. I hope you will go and have a chance
to see what it looks like.
Chairman: I know the building. Mr Neill
also knows the building.
Q44 Bob Neill: Yes, indeed, I know
the building and, as you have probably gathered, Lord Chancellor,
I have also made a point of looking at the plans that the Department
has. I understand the point about the light wells but a couple
of points strike me. You say that the planning authority is the
one that strikes the balance, well surely at the end of the day
the Government is in effect the owner of not just a grade II but
a grade II* listed building, one of the top 8%. Ultimately, is
it not down to the Government to strike the right balance rather
than hide behind Westminster City Council?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes,
I completely agree with that. If we have struck the wrong balance
in relation to it then the planning authority will say so, but
I completely accept responsibility for the fact that the Government
made the decision that this should be used as the Supreme Court.
If we have got that wrong then it is the responsibility not of
the planning authority but us, but I pray in aid the planning
authority because one of the things they have got to do is to
strike that balance between what happens to a grade II listed
building and what is going to happen to it in the future.
Q45 Bob Neill: One of the key points
about its grade II list status is the holistic nature of the interior.
It is not simply that the exterior is of particular merit but
the fact that the panelling, as you rightly refer to, Lord Chancellor,
and all the court furniture are designed of a piece by the same
people.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes.
Q46 Bob Neill: How can you possibly
say that you have kept the best bits and been sensitive when you
are ripping apart bits?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I completely
accept the point that has been made about the holistic nature
of it but there are individual bits that we think should be preserved
and I am glad that the Planning Committee has made the conditions
that we should preserve them.
Q47 Chairman: Let us leave the Planning
Committee alone.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Sorry,
I apologise. I am sure I am not prejudicing the result by saying
these things. You are right, I am not seeking in any way to downplay
the fact that this is a significant intervention but I come back
to the fact that a balance has to be struck and that balance,
I think, involves two things. One, what is it like now, and it
is impressive, I completely accept that; two, what are we going
to do with it, both in terms of the architectural changes and
the use to which it is going to be put.
Q48 Bob Neill: Can I just make two
short points. One is you referred to Snaresbrook, I know you have
been to Snaresbrook at various times, Lord Chancellor, as well
as I.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Many
times.
Q49 Bob Neill: The whole point about
Snaresbrook is that although it has got its mock Jacobean exterior,
the whole of the interior was gutted and effectively it has a
1960s/1970s modernist interior. There is not a single bit of 19th
century style furniture in the building, it is going to be a complete
fish out of water.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have
to mention this, I apologise, the condition was it should be put
in an appropriate court setting.
Q50 Bob Neill: Snaresbrook.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes.
Q51 Bob Neill: The final point I
want to make, the worry many of us have, is this, that taking
responsibility for the balance, Lord Chancellor, having seen the
comments that were made by, for example, people like Lord Nicholls
of Birkenhead in the House of Lords and so on, are we not going
to get a balance which satisfies absolutely no-one? You will have
the Law Lords sitting and saying, "Look, we do not really
like this building. This doesn't suit our purpose" and at
some point they are going to say, "We want more and more
changes". On the other hand, those who think the heritage
is valuable saying, "Well, you have wrecked a building for
something which will only be a short term fix"?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Absolutely
not because, as you know, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 required
that before the Lord Chancellor certified the building as appropriate
he had to consult the Law Lords. There was detailed consultation
with the Law Lords about the detail of the architectural changes
inside Middlesex Guildhall and they were involved and they, although
some of them would have preferred there not to be a Supreme Court
at all, indicated as a group that they were satisfied with the
appropriateness of the changes that we have made as a Supreme
Court. No, I think you are wrong in relation to that.
Q52 Chairman: Did they want a glass
wall so everyone could look into their library while they were
sitting there?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: They
were consulted on all of the detail. A significant number of changes
were made to meet their particular requests.
Q53 Chairman: Were those changes
in a conservation direction or in a further intervention direction?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think
they varied.
Q54 Mr Tyrie: Could we go to the
cost of the building for a moment. What is the total cost of this
change if we take account of the move to Isleworth as well and
add those two together?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In
relation to Isleworth, the total cost of the building of the Isleworth
courts turned out to be in the region of £20 million. The
capital construction cost was estimated at £30 million which
has been increased to £35 million because you have to inflate
it because some years have gone by since the original £30
million capital cost was given. In addition, there will be some
costs for professional fees, work done inside the DCA and furniture
and fit out costs. My Department has not yet signed the final
contract with the contractor, the contractor is called Kier. We
would envisage doing that in May of this year, which is in the
next few weeks.
Q55 Mr Tyrie: Could you give me a
ball park figure?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The
capital construction costs will not, I believe, exceed the £35
million which is the original estimate plus inflation. I have
spelt this out to Parliament in a number of written statements.
Q56 Mr Tyrie: I have one here.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In
the last one I say that when I have signed the final contract
with Keir I will come straight to Parliament to say what the final
figures are—because, plainly, there are negotiations going
on with Keir.
Q57 Mr Tyrie: We have had the impression
that the cost was going to be around £30 million plus a bit
of relocation and the relocation was going to be £15 million
which now appears to have become £20 million.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There
is an element of betterment in that. Yes, that bit has gone up.
Q58 Mr Tyrie: What does betterment
mean?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Meaning
that there are things that we have put into the additional courts
in Isleworth that are better than could properly be described
as replacement courts for the seven courts in Middlesex Guildhall.
Q59 Mr Tyrie: Can we concentrate
for a moment on the capital costs of what are now £35 million.
Did you work out what it would cost to construct a new building
from scratch?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I did
not. We looked at the possibility of a new build. There were two
new-build sites that were possible. We could not persuade a developer
to develop a new build for us, because the square footage for
a supreme court was so small that we were not a big enough client
for the development.[2]
2 Note by witness: In 2004, Land Securities
approached the Department with two options for a new build: Fetter
Lane (near the Royal Courts of Justice) and Buckingham Gate. Fetter
Lane was deemed too large for use as the Supreme Court and was
taken up by HCMS. After detailed analysis Buckingham Gate was
eventually ruled out because it offered a much less prestigious
location at a higher cost. Back
| 
