MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before the

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL BILL COMMITTEE

PETITIONS AGAINST THE BILL

Tuesday, 23 January 2024 (Afternoon)

In Committee Room 15

A video of the proceedings can be found here.

PRESENT:

John Stevenson (Chair)

Keir Mather

Lia Nici

Angela Richardson

Karl Turner

_____________

FOR THE PROMOTER:

Christopher Katkowski KC, Counsel, DLUHC

Richard Turney KC, Counsel, DLUHC

Robbie Owen, Parliamentary Agent

_____________

FOR THE PETITIONER:

Buxton Family and Thomas Fowell Buxton Society

Brian Doctor KC
Richard Buxton
Dr John Fannon

Exhibits referred to by the petitioner during the hearing can be found here.

INDEX

Subject Page

Buxton Family and Thomas Fowell Buxton Society

Submissions by Mr Doctor

Evidence of Mr Buxton

Evidence of Dr Fannon

Response by Mr Katkowski

(At 2.15 p.m.)

THE CHAIR: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is the fifth public meeting of the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee. The Committee, as I’ve said before, is bound by the instruction from the House, which is as follows: that the Committee treats the principle of the Bill, as determined by the House on the Bill’s Second Reading, as comprising the matters mentioned in paragraph 2 and those matters shall, accordingly, not be at issue during proceedings of the Committee. The matters referred to in paragraph 1 are: (a) the Secretary of State may incur expenditure for or in connection with (i) a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, and (ii) a centre for learning relating to the memorial; and (b) section 8(1) and 8 of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 are not to prevent, restrict or otherwise affect the construction, use, operation, maintenance or improvement of such a memorial and centre for learning at Victoria Tower Gardens in the City of Westminster.
As the Bill does not remove the need for planning permission and all other necessary consents being obtained in the usual way for the construction, use, operation, maintenance and improvement of the memorial and centre for learning, the Committee shall not hear any petition against the Bill to the extent that the petition relates to (a) the question of whether or not there should be a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust or a centre for learning relating to the memorial, whether at Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere; or (b) whether or not planning permission and all other necessary consents should be given for the memorial and centre for learning or the terms and conditions on which they should be given.
We will now hear from the counsel representing the petitioner, Mr Doctor, and that will be followed by the petitioner, Mr Richard Buxton. Mr Doctor?

Buxton Family and Thomas Fowell Buxton Society

Submissions by Mr Doctor

MR DOCTOR KC: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and good afternoon to all the members of the Select Committee and to its staff. I am Brian Doctor KC and I appear here on behalf of four groups of petitioners, whom I will name and describe in a moment. I am instructed by Matthew McFeeley of Richard Buxton Solicitors, and of course a partner of his is Mr Richard Buxton, who is one of the petitioners and is sitting next to me.
Before I turned to the matter at hand, and before I turn to Mr Katkowski’s arguments, I think he will not mind if I mention not him but his junior, immediately, Mr Turney who, it was announced on Friday, has been appointed King’s Counsel and so I congratulate him and I am sure that everyone in the room joins me in doing so and wishing him a successful career in his new role.
THE CHAIR: Congratulations from the Committee.
MR TURNEY KC: Thank you.
MR DOCTOR KC: Right. I asked for this opportunity to introduce the petitioners’ case and I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to do so. What I intend to do is to reply to Mr Katkowski’s arguments, which were made at the very start of the hearing, about two weeks ago, regarding the scope of this inquiry and what this inquiry is engaged in doing, before making a few introductory remarks about each of the petitioner groups whom I represent. I think it is important to do this to avoid the impression that we, on this side, accept Mr Katkowski’s arguments or agree with his characterisation of these hearings.
I begin, I hope, by fairly summarising his argument as it was put to you. He says, ‘What is this Bill about? It is to remove a statutory obstruction, which stands in the way of delivering the memorial and learning centre that the Secretary of State proposes in Victoria Tower Gardens’. I will give references to the paragraphs but there is no need to go to them now. If you look at the introductory – it is a transcript but it has got paragraphs – it is 54.
He says, ‘Any point made by a petitioner which would in any way lead to a result that the project that the Secretary of State proposes for a memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens would still be obstructed, could not happen, could not take place, obviously goes to the principle of the Bill and obviously, with great respect, is not a matter for the consideration of the Committee’. That is what he said.
He then set out his acid test. ‘To the extent that any of the petitioners either have or will propose any form of amendment to the Bill that is in front of you, if the result of any such amendments would mean that there would still be a statutory obstruction to building the proposed memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, obviously that would defeat the whole principle of the Bill’, he said.
The result is that everything mentioned in the petitions and by the witnesses is, effectively, outside the scope of the Bill and is a matter for the planning process, because they all go to whether or not planning permission should be granted and that, he says, is in the hands of the relevant Minister, for whom he does not act. He does say that there is a likelihood that the Minister will make his decision as to whether planning permission is granted or refused after the Bill has passed through Parliament, but he cannot add anything to that.
The result of this argument is not just that there is nothing in the petitions which are really within the scope of the permitted inquiry by this Committee; the effect of this approach is that there is nothing which the Committee could consider, nothing, because any suggestion for any amendment of the Bill would be out of scope. These proceedings would be reduced, essentially, to a charade or farce.
The Chair asked Mr Katkowski about this implication and he said, ‘Well, why doesn’t the Bill refer to building the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens?’ and Mr Katkowski said, ‘That is question which I had anticipated I would be asked and I would put it this way. To be quite frank, there is very little in the petitions which falls within scope’.
He then went on to describe what were plainly seen by him as concessions that he is prepared to make on behalf of the Secretary of State and he called them ‘territorial and temporal’. ‘Territorially’, he said, ‘the extent of the Bill could be drawn in’. He dealt with the construction period and he referred to a possible time limit. He would say there is obviously scope for a temporary lifting of the restrictions if the project, as planned, gets underway within a certain period of time and he said there is a wrinkle in all of this because it all assumes that the Secretary of State will proceed with the particular project which was the subject of the planning application and, of course, he might not.
So to sum up, there is nothing that can properly come within the scope of the principle of the Bill and as a sort of concession, the Committee could consider some spatial and time constraints on the project as envisaged, though not mentioned in the Bill, and that brings me to a key point. Mr Katkowski often refers to the principle of the Bill, or the instruction, by using the words, ‘the Holocaust memorial and learning centre’. So does his instructing solicitors’ recent letter and if I could refer you to that, because in a sense, it was sent as an answer to the Chair’s question last time, it is a letter of 15 January. I do not know if you have it but that does not matter because I will just read it to you, the relevant part.
This is the letter that was written to you, Chair. ‘We are writing to you on behalf of the promoter of the Bill to clarify two matters that were the subject of exchanges with the Committee at the end of its first public sitting on 8 January’. The heading is, ‘Approach taken by the Bill regarding Victoria Tower Gardens’. ‘You asked why Victoria Tower Gardens is not referred to on the face of the Bill. Mr Katkowski replied that the primary purpose of the Bill is to remove a legal obstruction’ – that is the argument he made – ‘to the building of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, which is done by clause 2, rather than to authorise its construction. That obstruction is specific to Victoria Tower Gardens rather than any other location. As further background, the reason the Bill is drafted like this is because if it were to authorise the construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre at Victoria Tower Gardens, that would replace the conventional planning process, which the promoter believes should be followed’.
So the argument of the instructing counsel, and of Mr Katkowski, is that what the Bill is concerned with is ‘the’ Holocaust memorial and learning centre, which the Secretary of State is promoting and which has been the subject of a planning application.
With that summary of the argument against us, we turn to the principle of the Bill itself and test, against the actual principle of the Bill and the meaning of the instruction, whether Mr Katkowski is right or wrong. So I would like to go to slide 4, which I have put up, or at least I think has been put up. Let me see if it is the same as mine. Yes. The place to start, of course, is the wording of section 1 of the Bill, with which I am sure you are extremely familiar, and the wording I just emphasise, and I will not read the whole thing because it is relevant to the point I am making. The title is, ‘Expenditure relating to a Holocaust memorial and learning centre’. ‘The Secretary of State may incur expenditure for or in connection with the construction on, over or under any land of (i) a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust; and (ii) a centre for learning relating to the memorial’, by carrying out work and so on, and the use and operation of the memorial and centre for learning. In that sentence, it means the one that the Bill authorises.
It seems clear enough from the plain English meaning of the words that what is authorised is not the Secretary of State’s Holocaust memorial and learning centre, which has been the subject of a planning application, but indeed, as you would expect, a Holocaust memorial and a learning centre that comes eventually to be built with public funds. Parliament is voting public funds for the construction of these two items and, just to be absolutely clear, I refer you – you do not need to look at it – that in Mr Katkowski’s slide number 14, he summarises clause 1 and it reads ‘authority for the Secretary of State to incur expenditure in connection with the Holocaust memorial and learning centre’. So we pause there to note, the Bill does not authorise any spending as such on a particular project but on the idea of a Holocaust memorial and a learning centre.
We then move to section 2, which is the next slide, slide 5. This is headed, ‘Removal of restrictions in relation to certain land’ and this says, section 8(1) and 8 of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900, which I will call the 1900 Act, does not prevent, restrict and so on, ‘any of the activities described in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 1, on, over or under or otherwise in relation to the land described in section 8(1) of that Act’. So this section certainly relates to the land which is the subject of the 1900 Act, and the land which is the subject of the 1900 Act is part or all of Victoria Tower Gardens, and what the section is aimed at doing is, as it says, it is aimed at saying that if a memorial or a learning centre is put or placed by the Secretary of State, or proposed to be built by the Secretary of State, in Victoria Tower Gardens, no one will be able to raise the fact that it is contrary to, or illegal under, the 1900 Act.
The Bill does not require the building to be built in Victoria Tower Gardens; it is simply providing for the possibility – it is no more than that at this moment – that it would be built. Either the memorial or the learning centre might be built in Victoria Tower Gardens and, if that goes ahead, then nobody will be troubled any longer, or the promoters will not be troubled any longer, by section 8(1) and 8 of the 1900 Act. That is what it does. But as Mr Katkowski was himself at pains to state, the Bill does not authorise the building of ‘a’ or even ‘the’ Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. In fact, the Bill just says, as its section 1 makes clear, the Secretary of State can spend money on a Holocaust memorial and a learning centre. And since the Act and section 3 says that ‘This Act applies to England and Wales only’, the clear meaning of this Act is that the money can be spent anywhere in England and Wales and, indeed, if by some chance something happened and it was decided to move it elsewhere, this authorisation would cover the Secretary of State if he decided that instead it should be built in Millbank or in Wales. It makes no difference. That is what the Bill says.
Now, I turn to the next slide and the instruction of the House to this Select Committee. This instruction, as the Chair has stated, is binding on the Select Committee and it is an instruction as to how to carry out these proceedings or these hearings. And it, in the first section, sets out how the Committee shall treat the principle of the Bill as determined by the House on the Bill’s second reading, as comprising the matters mentioned in paragraph 2 and those matters shall, accordingly, not be at issue during the proceedings of the Committee and we move to section 2, which deals with the principle as the House sees it and which they ask the Select Committee to respect.
The principles are not one principle. It is not about removing statutory instructions only. There are two principles in this Bill. That is obvious but the House makes it obvious, if it was not obvious to anyone else. ‘The Secretary of State’ – this is principle 1 – ‘may incur expenditure for or in connection with (i) a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, and (ii) a centre for learning relating to the memorial’. So the House understand its own Bill. It does not refer to ‘the’ memorial and it does not refer to Victoria Tower Gardens. It is voting public money for the purposes of enabling the Secretary of State to commission and construct a memorial to the Holocaust and a learning centre relating to it.
The second principle of the Bill, set out in paragraph 2(b), section 8(1) and 8 of the 1900 Act, ‘are not to prevent, restrict or otherwise affect the construction, use, operation’ and so on ‘of such a memorial and centre for learning at Victoria Tower Gardens in the City of Westminster’. So insofar as the Secretary of State decides eventually to build them, one or both, in the gardens, it is a principle of the Bill that section 1 and 8 will no longer be able to be used by anybody to argue that they are inconsistent with the aims of the 1900 Act. That is what the instruction says.
It then goes on in paragraph 3 to say, given paragraph 2, i.e. given the principles as we lay them down, and as the Bill does not remove the need for planning permission, the Committee shall not hear any petition against the Bill to the extent that the petition relates to, and this is what you should not consider, ‘the question of whether or not there should be a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust or a centre for learning relating to the memorial, whether at Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere’. In English, it means that what cannot be considered, or what cannot be challenged, is that Parliament is voting money, public money, in an unlimited amount, for the construction of ‘a’ memorial and ‘a’ learning centre, somewhere in England and Wales, and that is all that is the principle of the Bill.
And that is what the House means when it says, ‘You shall not consider the question whether or not there should be a memorial, whether at Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere’. No one can come here and say to you, ‘Generally, I think it is just a bad idea. There are better things to do with public money than spend it on a memorial and a learning centre, whether it be at Victoria Tower Gardens or anywhere else’. The House has added the words ‘or elsewhere’ because it is conscious of the fact that the Bill does not require it to be in Victoria Tower Gardens and, indeed, the Bill is worded in a way which enables ‘a’ memorial and ‘a’ learning centre to be built anywhere in England or Wales and that is why it says ‘or elsewhere.
It is not the location which cannot be questioned; it is the fact of construction, the fact that public money is going to be spent on these two ideas, these two memorials, these two items. That is what the Committee cannot consider and, on this, the petitioners I represent and, as far as I am aware, all the others, none of them challenge that principle. They do not tell you that this is a bad waste of money. They do not say that at all. They do say it is not a good idea, in the case of the four petitioners, that the learning centre should be squeezed under the memorial if a memorial is built there. That is what they do say but they are not prevented from saying that, as long as they do not say, ‘A learning centre shall not be built anywhere. We don’t need one’. A learning centre relating to the memorial has been authorised. Public money can be spent on it.
The second item which the House directs the Committee not to consider or hear petitions about is ‘whether or not planning permission, and all other necessary consents, should be given for the memorial and centre of learning or the terms and conditions on which they should be given’. Of course, by the time it comes to this part of the paragraph, ‘the’ memorial and centre for learning means the one that we have been referring to higher in the clause, which is ‘a’ memorial or learning centre, which the Secretary of State eventually decides to spend the money on. But all that you should not consider is whether or not planning permission and other consents should be given for the memorial or centre for learning or the terms and conditions on which they should be given.
Again, nobody who I represent is suggesting that you sit here as planning inspectors and that you should consider whether or not planning permission should be given or should not or should be subject to something or should not be subject to something. We make no such statements but Mr Katkowski says that the use of those words, ‘whether or not planning permission should be given or the terms and conditions on which it should be given’, means that nothing which a planning inspector could consider, which is literally everything, can be considered by you. That is not the meaning of these words and, if it is, it means the Select Committee’s proceedings are a farce. It means that you should not concern yourselves with questions of whether planning permission should be given or should not be given. That is not of your concern and no one should waste time arguing that. But that is a very different thing from petitioners telling the Committee what their interests are in the building of a memorial and learning centre, if it were to be built in Victoria Tower Gardens, and asking the Committee to either amend the Bill or recommend to the Secretary of State that he give assurances or undertakings to meet these petitions.
So turning to the next slide, slide 8, I think I have made these points so I don’t need to repeat them. I have made all of those points.
And then slide 9. Now, this is a suggestion that we are going to put forward. We are going to seek to persuade the Select Committee to amend the Bill by inserting a clause, which I have called 1(a), because it will come between 1 and 2, so ‘1(a) Any centre for learning relating to the memorial shall not be built in or at or under the Victoria Tower Gardens’. In other words, the petitioners I represent are not seeking to persuade you where the Holocaust memorial should be placed. They are seeking to persuade you to amend the Bill so that the Secretary of State does not have the option to place the learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, and I say this: such a clause would not clash with either of the two principles of the Bill.
Principle number 1, public money can be used for spending on ‘a’ memorial and ‘a’ learning centre. There is no reason at all why the Committee and the House itself should not restrict, in one small respect, the Secretary of State’s ability to use the money and decide where to spend it. That is not an attack on the principle of the Bill at all. It is a small restriction on where he can use the money. It is no bigger or smaller than the restrictions which, as I will show, Mr Katkowski says you could, in any event, suggest by way of the concession that he makes: you should not allow the money to be spent after a certain date and that sort of thing, or you might be able to suggest that part of the gardens should not be covered or subject to the restrictions in the Bill. All of that is perfectly legitimate and is in no way an attack on the principle of the Bill.
We say secondly, under the suggestion I have put forward, ‘any centre for learning relating to the memorial shall not be built in or at or under Victoria Tower Gardens’, I say the restrictions under the 1900 Act would still be removed, preventing anyone from relying on them. So if, for example, you were persuaded that the learning centre should not be in Victoria Tower Gardens but that you leave it to the Minister to decide where the memorial should go, including whether it should go in Victoria Tower Gardens, no one could come along and suggest later, ‘Well, it is true, Parliament’s own Act, this Act, does not prevent the building in Victoria Tower Gardens but the 1900 Act does. And so the 1900 Act has gone insofar as a Holocaust memorial or learning centre are built in Victoria Tower Gardens but, since the Act doesn’t prescribe where it is to be built, it is simply providing against any future use of the 1900 Act to defeat any decision by the Minister to place one or both of these items in Victoria Tower Gardens. So it is not contrary to any part of the Act.
If you go on to the next slide, I say this. The Committee can recommend to Parliament, and Parliament could impose its own limited restriction on the use of the public funds it is authorising to be spent, in the interests of both the public generally and those of the petitioners. So whether you think it is a good idea is a different matter. We can come to that. But what I am addressing at the moment is the submission on behalf of the promoter that you cannot even think about any of these ideas and, insofar as anybody raises any question about the location of the Holocaust memorial and the learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, that is a fait accompli; that is the principle of the Bill. Everything to do with it concerns planning and so really we should all go home. But I am putting it to you that there is absolutely no reason why Parliament would be offended if the Select Committee came back and said, ‘There is no opposition to the building of a learning centre; there is no opposition to the building of a memorial. But for reasons we have listened to and heard, it would not be a good idea to put the learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens’, and we will come to the reasons when we get to the evidence.
Now an important point is that not only is the argument I have put forward to you consistent with the plain wording of the Bill, consistent with the wording and meaning of the instruction; it is also completely consonant with the statements that the Secretary of State and the Minister made to the House before it came to give this instruction. I ask for the next slide to be put up. It is up already, I see. This is the Minister of – I think it is culture. I have forgotten exactly what she is the Minister of but anyway, I wrote it down somewhere but I have forgotten. So Edward Leigh asked the question during the debate, ‘It is accepted that there is a principle to memorial, so what about my point on having an overground memorial – like other memorials – but not an underground learning centre. Will the Committee still be able to consider such a detail?’ Ms Buchan was absolutely clear. The Committee can consider the extent and any conditions on the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens so, yes, that can be considered.
If that is not clear enough, here is the Secretary of State on the next slide. Sir Peter Bottomley asked him, ‘I ask this explicitly: can either the Secretary of State or the Minister stand up and tell me now that, if someone wants to argue in front of the Committee that it would be better to have the basement box somewhere else and just have the memorial, would that petition potentially be heard by the Committee?’ Mr Gove said, ‘I think it would be a matter for the Committee’, and that is what he said and there is no getting away from it. And it is what we are proposing and the meaning I have given to both the Bill and the instruction is fully consonant with that statement by both the Secretary of State and the Minister, and there is absolutely no reason to adopt a convoluted meaning of the instruction which, as it were, eliminates the entire function of this Committee, goes against what the Minister assured parliamentarians was in fact going to be the function of this Committee, and reduce the proceedings to simply a concession by the promoter that we can discuss certain thing. It would really be contrary to the principles but we will discuss that. That is not correct at all.
THE CHAIR: Can I just ask, you would take it, though, that, ultimately, the instruction of Parliament – I am not making on judgment on it – overrides anything that a Minister would say?
MR DOCTOR KC: I do accept that, yes.
THE CHAIR: That is fine.
MR DOCTOR KC: But I make only the point that the meaning would be informed by what the Minister has said on the basis that MPs heard and understood it.
Now, I can go to slide 14, because I think I have dealt with slide 13, and I ask some questions. Why does the Bill not specify that funding is provided for the Secretary of State to build ‘a’ or even ‘the’ Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens? Why does the instruction refer to ‘Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere’? All of these are points I have made and I just point out this. When the Chair did ask Mr Katkowski in the original hearing, Mr Katkowski suggested that it may have been some difficulty in drafting and I set out the passage there but, subsequent to that, we have had the letter of 15 January, which seeks to answer it, but does so by putting on a meaning which says that the Bill actually means that money has been voted for the construction of ‘the’ Holocaust memorial which the Secretary of State is promoting and, of course, that is not correct. It is much more general and the proceedings of this Select Committee must follow the meaning of that instruction and the meaning of the Bill.
Now, I would like to just move on, very briefly, to deal with one other aspect of the introduction – because it is important to bear this is mind – and this is on slide 16. I start there. Mr Katkowski dealt at some length with the history of this project, which has brought about the fact that Parliament and, indeed, yourselves are dealing with the question of a memorial and learning centre. He mentioned the Holocaust Commission, which was established in January 2014: what could Britain do to ensure the memory of the Holocaust is preserved? And it was reported in January 2015 and, as we go through the evidence, you will be taken to the actual recommendations of the commission but I have just included a prominent one here. It talked about a striking new memorial and they talked about, with regard to a learning centre, there is much more about it, but ‘a physical campus and an online hub that would bring together a network of the UK’s existing Holocaust education partners, seeking to advance Holocaust education in every part of the country’.
The learning centre that was to be part of the campus would include a lecture theatre, classrooms, the opportunity for those who want to locate their offices, or set up satellite offices there, within the wider physical campus. It recommended that the learning centre should include the Imperial War Museum’s Holocaust exhibition, upgraded and expanded.
And what then happened was that the Government appointed a foundation, called the Holocaust Foundation, to, as it were, carry out the vision of the commission, which had been unanimously accepted on all sides of the political sphere and indeed the House. And the foundation, set up in 2015 to implement that vision, started by laying down criteria for a site and that you will also see in due course and I have just included a short extract from that site location criteria document.
They understood perfectly what they had to do and they set out the criteria that they laid down to some property consultants and advisers who were tasked with identifying relevant sites, the criteria being a physical campus of at least 5,000 square metres, and you will see that various sites of between 5,000 and 10,000 square metres of built space over no more than three continuous floors would be considered. Apart from the usual reception, visitor orientation, restaurants, cloakroom and first aid, a physical campus, as envisaged by the commission, with facilities to host lectures and seminars and to run educational courses and workshops. It mentions permanent and temporary gallery spaces, four learning rooms, an auditorium with tiered seating for at least 150 people, two meeting rooms for events and hire. ‘The provision of office space for staff from the foundation and other Holocaust organisations, to locate offices or satellite offices’, the commission had specifically mentioned, ‘so as to bring together a network of Holocaust education bodies, a quiet contemplative space for reflection and commemoration or interfaith prayer room. The site must enable gatherings of up to 500 people for commemorative events’.
Well, we then get to what was actually chosen. As you heard from Dr Dorian Gerhold last week, the foundation’s property location advisers, CBRE, considered up to 50 sites – they were all supposed to be in central London – and they assessed 24 of them and recommended three. They did not identify or investigate Victoria Tower Gardens. This happened in October and November 2015. At the very first meeting of the board of the foundation, on 13 January 2016, to consider the question of the recommendations from its advisers, they decided to accept Victoria Tower Gardens, even though it was the subject of no report and no investigation by their advisers. As it later came to be described by Mr Balls MP, it was a ‘moment of genius’. Everyone suddenly realised that the right place was Victoria Tower Gardens. It was something that had just appeared.
And that was announced about 14 days later by the then Prime Minister in the House on 26 January. What he notably announced was that Victoria Tower Gardens was going to be the site for the memorial. The learning centre was going to be elsewhere. Sorry, that is wrong. The learning centre would be decided later and it would be, I think he said, ‘close by’, something of that kind.
You will hear in due course – you will see from Mr Buxton – the letter which started this hare running and that was a letter from Lord Feldman, who was then the chair of the Conservative Party, written I think on 17 October, in which he said it had occurred to him that Victoria Tower Gardens might be a good site for the memorial and, he added, ‘and that would work well because we have been offered premises in Millbank which would be close by for the learning centre’. And he wrote that to the then Secretary for Culture, Media and Sport, Mr Whittingdale, and Mr Whittingdale said, yes, that sounded like a good idea and it was such a good idea that it was accepted without further investigation on 13 January. A few months later, someone else had a bright idea that the learning centre should not be close by at Millbank but should be built under the memorial.
So if you will go to slide 19, the consequences of this precipitous choice. Of course, the vision of the commission and the criteria established by the foundation regarding the learning centre had been effectively abandoned. In its place is, effectively, an exhibition centre or visitor centre for the memorial. Very little is known about what is actually going to be there but it is a small space under the memorial, which you will walk into and I think we were told there was going to be a big screen with some words of Winston Churchill there and one or two other – there is going to be, I think, a total of four rooms – has nothing whatever to do with the original vision of the commission with regard to the learning centre.
Now, one of the consequences of this precipitous choice, the 2015 criteria had specified opening in 2020 but, of course, no planning application was made until December 2018. So that was when the Secretary of State commenced the planning application and there was no planning inquiry until October 2020. That is almost after the memorial had been envisaged as opening.
I should add this and you will see it from Mr Buxton’s evidence. In 2019, Mr Buxton wrote to the Secretary of State and said, ‘Hello, there is a slight problem. It is the 1900 Act. It is not lawful to build this in that garden’. And there is a response from the Secretary of State saying that he did not share that view and so we are now where we are. We are in 2024. In the meantime – the commission had originally referred to incorporating part of the Imperial War Museum exhibit on the Holocaust – the Imperial War Museum has expanded and improved its own Holocaust galleries. They have been opened to universal acclaim and they are less than one mile away from the new, as I call it, visitor centre under the proposed memorial.
No attempt – this is on my next slide – has been made to show what extra value would be contributed to the educational effect of the Holocaust galleries at the Imperial War Museum by an exhibition centre under the Holocaust memorial and I should also add this, because it is a point that will be made by some of the witnesses. The planning inspector placed considerable weight on ‘achieving a memorial within the lifetime of survivors, so seeking to honour the living as well as the dead, has a resounding moral importance that can legitimately, in my view, be considered a material consideration and a public benefit of great importance, meriting considerable weight in the planning balance in this case’.
Given the planned opening of the Secretary of State’s current plan in apparently 2028, this benefit, this material consideration, must be somewhat in doubt. And as before, of course, the timetable takes account of the question of the refurbishment of Parliament and of Victoria Tower itself, and the effect that that is going to have on the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Mr Katkowski was frank with the Committee in saying that the mere building of the memorial and learning centre underneath it is going to mean that much of the park will be used for the building. That being so, one can only imagine how much of the park would be used for the refurbishment of both Victoria Tower and Parliament itself.
Now, that concludes my opening remarks, which are really in reply to some of the points that Mr Katkowski made and, from here on, I am just going to refer you to my slides, which I will not read out at the moment, but they summarise the objections which each of the petitioners will make when we hear them. So, for example, the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust, which is on slide 22, we have set out the main points that their witnesses will be devoted to bringing to your attention.
And then next, in two weeks’ time, there is the Thorney Island Society. Its objections are summarised on slides 23 and 24. They will address those items.
On slide 25, I have set out the objections by Baroness Deech and the Holocaust survivors who join her as petitioners and you will hear from them tomorrow, as with the London Parks and Gardens, so there is no need to take up any time about that now.
Finally, we come to the fourth petitioner, who is due to testify today and to address you, and that is Mr Richard Buxton, sitting on my right, for the Buxton family, who have a particular interest in this matter, and also, after him, Mr John Fannon, who is from the Thomas Fowell Buxton Society. He will also give evidence.
I have briefly set out the principles that they are going to try and urge on you. Mr Fannon will tell you a little bit about the society to educate people about slavery and the importance of being able to appreciate the Buxton memorial. Of course, they will describe to you what is the Buxton memorial. It is the memorial which currently stands, and has stood for a long time, in the Victoria Tower Gardens and which will be completely overshadowed by the building of the Holocaust memorial close by it. And they of course take the view, both for themselves and on behalf of the general interests which they represent, that this will have a dominating effect, that it will, as it were, overshadow the efforts which are recorded in the Buxton memorial, which is not a memorial to one man. It is a memorial to the anti-slavery campaigners who eventually persuaded Parliament and the British public to abolish slavery all those years ago. This is an important memorial and tribute to their efforts and it is an important one which should not in any way be minimised, and that is what Mr Fannon will say and also what Mr Richard Buxton will say.
Those considerations, those interests, might well persuade you that something should be done about this, that some restriction on either the size or the existence of the learning centre would be appropriate to ensure that these existing memorials stand there and play their part in the public enjoyment and the public use of this park.
So if I can then move on to Mr Buxton, now, Mr Buxton is a petitioner but, in discussing this with some of your staff, they have suggested that it might be easier for him to sit over there as if he was a witness, but it is up to you if you are prepared to hear him here or over there.
THE CHAIR: It is entirely up to Mr Buxton where he would like to sit. He sits where he is or he could move to where the witnesses are.
MR DOCTOR KC: Would you like to move, sir?
MR BUXTON: It is up to you.
THE CHAIR: Well, I am guessing Mr Katkowski might want to ask some questions of you so you might find it easier looking across to him rather than sitting beside.
MR DOCTOR KC: Yes, okay. Mr Buxton has prepared some slides so can we have those ready and I am not going to, as it were, lead Mr Buxton. He is perfectly capable of telling you what he wants to tell you but I will just ask him to speak up and speak to the Committee. Begin when you are ready, but remember to introduce yourself and who you represent.

Evidence of Mr Buxton

MR BUXTON: Good afternoon, members of the Committee. My name is Richard Buxton. I am the person who has submitted the petition here on behalf of myself and other members of the Buxton family and also for the Thomas Fowell Buxton Society, of which Mr Fannon is secretary.
I have been involved, curiously, as a solicitor here in this matter for nearly five years with three of the other petitioners who Mr Doctor mentioned, and I would say that I endorse what those petitioners broadly say. But I am here today with the hat, as it were, to represent the Buxton petition and that is my raison d’etre today. But I wanted first, as part of my slides, to draw the Committee’s attention to three documents which may help the Committee appreciate the background to the proceedings before you. Mr Doctor, in fact, has mentioned these briefly and I would just like to put them formally before the Committee.
There are also a couple of background documents which I have handed out through your clerk and I may refer to but then I will not refer to in more than outline. I just wanted to have them on the record for you. They are not part of the slides.
I trust the Committee has had a chance to read our petition, including the references to the consultation about the current proposals, which clearly did not happen, as I will come to in a moment. I set out in my petition the clear expectation that Ministers had expected consultation on this matter to have happened but I think it is clear, as the cross-examination evidence which I will refer to shows, it did not happen.
So the choice of Victoria Tower Gardens was one that was made, effectively, without consultation. Just for the record, in the petition, I drew attention to an issue which we have with the Environment Act but I am not going to mention that further to this Committee.
You will hear from John Fannon who will describe the background to the T F Buxton Society and its role in basically educating people about slavery and the anti-slavery campaigners, including my three-greats grandfather. I am not going to try and add anything in advance to what he might say except my theme will be, in this presentation, that memorials need space and what is happening here is that the proposed Holocaust memorial with its learning centre is not enabling that to happen.
Now, can I first please turn to the documents I mentioned? Very briefly, and I apologise for the poor-quality presentation, but first is this exchange of letters that Mr Doctor mentioned, between Lord Feldman and the Minister, Mr Whittingdale MP, and basically you can see there highlighted – and I think you have got it in hard copy so I will not read it out – saying what Mr Doctor has already mentioned. Basically, he is suggesting a Holocaust memorial but not a learning centre. And the next page, please, the Government responded, Mr John Whittingdale responded, and you will note there that the learning centre should be ‘relatively close by’. So that is on the record, please.
And then next we have got the correspondence, which has been mentioned, that my firm wrote to the Government in 2019 – it is a long time ago now – saying, as Mr Doctor has said, ‘Do be careful because this Act will get in your way’. And the Government, as you can see, responded on slide – and I should say on slide 5, the one before it, that we are not in any way opposed to a Holocaust memorial and learning centre.
But then on slide 6, the Government effectively said that it thought it was doing something that would enhance – ‘and a sensitive proposal which would enhance Victoria Tower Gardens’ and, of course, what actually happened was that even the inspector found that it would be harmful to it and, in particular to the Buxton memorial.
So here we are. We put the matter to the Secretary of State fair and square and here we are, four and a half years later, arguing about it and it is very unfortunate that the memorial has not been put in place as intended.
Now thirdly, please, I want to draw your attention to what I believe is a very important piece of background information. This is critical to understanding where we are today and it fills the gap in about the lack of consultation I referred to – and is in fact what I have set out in the petition – was the ministerial, I suppose, confusion, which I picked up from the exchange in the House of Commons on 28 June, as to what had taken place when in fact it had not. It is the missing link. It is central to much of the argument before you. It unravels why we have a combined memorial and subterranean learning centre proposed.
The document on the screen – and there are a few pages following. I do apologise – I have highlighted bits which I think are the most relevant and I ask you, please, to read it in your own time. Could you move back to the first slide, please? It is a copy of a transcript of relevant extracts from the video of the public inquiry. It is of Ed Balls MP and Lord Pickles giving evidence and going quickly through these – now this is slide 7 – you will see that Mr Katkowski introduced the evidence saying, ‘How did we get there?’
And then the next slide, please, sets out Mr Balls describing how Victoria Tower Gardens was chosen. Now, Mr Doctor has gone through a little bit of that in his slides but you will see that they suddenly alighted, it is said, on Victoria Tower Gardens as the place to be.
And if we move on to the next slide, please, this slide here is Mr Balls saying – it might have been Mr Pickles himself, he says – who suggested, ‘Why don’t we investigate whether the learning centre could be co-located underneath the building?’ And he says, ‘As you can imagine, all the people with building experience said that was a challenge’. And then, I emphasise the words, ‘If this can be done, that’s what we want’, and so forth. And then very shortly afterwards, without apparently any further investigation, the Prime Minister announced that that was what was going to happen.
You will see, I think, in slide 10, the reference to the question of ‘moment of genius’ appearing, which Mr Doctor has referred to, and the reference to ‘opportunities’ offered, as mentioned by Mr Balls, but also he refers to ‘risks involved’. So they did appreciate there were risks here but they do not appear to have investigated what those risks might have been.
We then move on on slide 11. I am trying to skate over these because I do not think it is right to expect anybody to read these in detail on a screen at a presentation but I hope what I am outlining is helpful. The next one on slide 11, you will see that, on the cross-examination by Mr Meyric Lewis on behalf of people at the inquiry, I think TTIS, he started to ask about, ‘Well, what harm are these things going to cause to the gardens?’ And it appears, moving on to the next slide, please, that Lord Pickles said, ‘I suspect a lot of things weren’t considered, such as’ – and this is an extraordinary justification – ‘our happiness at the prospect of a memorial and learning centre on the site’.
Then if we move on to the next slide, Mr Lewis starts saying, ‘Where is this documentation? Where is the evidence justifying this?’ And then Lord Pickles said, ‘Well, I don’t recall such a document’. And then Mr Lewis says, ‘Well, let it be produced for the inquiry. And then Lord Pickles says, ‘Well, I’m not sure if it did exist at all’. And then on slide 14, you will see the note at the end saying that it was a collective ‘moment of genius’ and that no such document was ever provided to the inquiry. So we have no evidence at all.
So, Committee, the point coming out of this from the horse’s mouth, as it were, from he who conceived the idea of a memorial combined with an underground learning centre, whether it is Lord Pickles or Mr Balls, is that it was only an idea and it was put forward without any foundation whatsoever. It may have been an inspired idea; it may have been a clever idea; but it turns out, as you will hear from other petitioners and myself, to have been totally unacceptable. But for some reason, we do not know what, the Secretary of State has never stepped back and considered whether it was a sensible idea. Instead, he has persisted with something that just will not work and caused everyone to argue ever since. He could have so easily got on with this project without the co-location.
So, in summary, as I have said in our petition, it is clear there was not the consultation or analysis of the Victoria Tower Gardens site that the Minister thought there was.
Moving on to my family’s specific position, we have an unusual and direct interest in the matter because the proposals will directly affect the setting of the Buxton memorial fountain. It is called a fountain because it is supposed to have water in it but the water seems to have never been reconnected, unfortunately. As Mr Fannon has pointed out, this is not just to my ancestor but to other distinguished people, collectively, who campaigned for the abolition of the slave trade and, eventually, in 1883, the abolition of slavery and Buxton was the person who pushed that Bill through Parliament. It was commissioned by Thomas Buxton’s son, Charles Buxton, which is maybe why it is known as the Buxton memorial but, in effect, it was a memorial to the huge achievement of the abolition of slavery in the British colonies. And just as the Holocaust memorial seeks to remind us in relation to antisemitism, so too the Buxton memorial reminds us of slavery as an ever-present issue to be stamped out.
To be clear, we, that is the family, do not own the monument. It is the nation’s monument but we do regard it with a certain amount of reverence. Each year, towards the end of July, we gather for a family picnic followed by a service in Westminster Abbey to commemorate the abolition of slavery. But in any event, whatever the connection, we as a family are deeply concerned and disturbed at the way the proposed Holocaust memorial will overshadow the Buxton one.
But more important than the family interest, it will eclipse an important reminder to the evils of slavery and an example to others, including parliamentarians, to follow the brave people like Wilberforce, Clarkson and others in the late 18th century and early 19th century.
The memorial is a Grade II* listed building and it is common ground that the proposal will cause harm to its setting. To help you, the Committee, to be satisfied that what I say is correct, I have extracted materials setting out why it is a designated heritage asset and the conclusions of the inspector about it in the report following the public inquiry. I believe you have that as a full document but the relevant bits here are at paragraphs 15.64 to 15.69, then 15.85 and 15.86, and then his conclusions at 15.90 to 15.94. I have copied those to the Committee.
Now in 15.91, the inspector recognises ‘that safeguarding the setting of the existing structure while delivering the Holocaust memorial to its design brief is a difficult challenge’ and in 15.92 goes on to say, ‘and it is not achieved, effectively, convincingly. The space that such an expressive historic structure needs to be properly appreciated would be demonstrably curtailed. It would be impossible to escape the sense that the existing structure’s open setting would be materially compromised by the presence of the UK HMLC’.
So that is the inspector’s conclusion. He says there will be harm to the setting of the Buxton memorial. It is not suggested there will be physical harm or what is often in the planning jargon called ‘substantial harm’ to the building itself. It is harm to the setting and it is what I have referred to earlier on as ‘space’.
Now what I would like to do please now is quickly to refer to some slides to illustrate our particular perspective on this. The first slide is a plan showing the direct vista of the Buxton memorial from St John’s Smith Square and you can see that in the top leftish and then there is a line. I think it is Dean Street – I may be wrong about that; I apologise if I got that wrong – going straight down to what is outlined in red as the Holocaust memorial and the circle on the other side is the Buxton memorial itself. And you will see, and I will show it on another slide, how the Buxton memorial, that designed view, is going to be seriously affected.
Secondly, this shows the crowding, if you want, of it from above, although of course the trees in summer, I imagine, are arching over the path in that view. Sally Prothero is the specialist who you will hear from tomorrow and she has further details, and I have to say that I unashamedly borrowed this and the last slide from her.
Now, if we move on please, there are just a few montages that I think were provided to the inquiry by the Secretary of State. This slide, number 17, shows how the proposed mound will affect the view generally but also of the Buxton memorial from the north of the park. You will see the Buxton memorial half hidden there and I suppose, the more you go round to the right, as it were, the more you go around to the entrance to the park, the more it will be hidden. So as you come in anyway, it is going to be badly hidden.
The next one, please. The next slide shows the mound and the fin – I think this is nearest Millbank – and it is obscuring the Buxton memorial. Now this one, and the slides following, show how relatively huge it is. So this is slide 19, which shows this even more clearly, these huge bronze fins crowding things out. It is, I would submit to the Committee, vast and totally out of scale with the Buxton memorial or indeed any of the other memorials in the gardens.
Now slide 20, I think, shows the same. I do not find the montage very clear and I may have misunderstood it but I think that the path through into the gardens is obstructed immediately, roughly where the pavement changes colour, by the entrance to the Holocaust memorial. There is a sort of courtyard there. In fact, I wonder whether that montage really shows the true picture. Perhaps Mrs Prothero tomorrow will clarify that point. But anyhow, the point is that the current view of the Buxton memorial will be obstructed. In fact, I think there is a fence going to be put round it anyway, notwithstanding the courtyard to the memorial.
Then, if you can see from the next one, please, I think this one and the one before show the vast overarching‑ness of the memorial against the Buxton memorial, and indeed, everything else.
So to conclude on those slides and my presentation generally, I trust that the Committee will find it hardly surprising that I and other members of my family and the trust, which, as I said, helps keep the memory of our ancestor and the antislavery movement alive, object in the strongest terms to the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, as now conceived.
To re-emphasise, we don’t object to a memorial in principle but whatever there is, it must fit the location. The current proposals simply do not. Please recall that Lord Pickles himself referred in his moment of genius only to the possibility, and I emphasise again possibility, of it being built underground next to the memorial.
Anyway, from a Buxton point of view, and that sounds selfish, but I’m really referring to the fact that this is a Grade II listed building and that slavery continues to be a vast evil – and it’s a national issue, not just a Buxton issue, of course – if the memorial and learning centre really did have to be built together, they should be scaled down, or perhaps be moved northwards. That’s, as it were, looking at that picture to the left, substantially to the left, so that they don’t impinge on the setting of the Buxton memorial.
Now, I’m told that moving to far northwards could be problematic because there may be a sewer pipe in the way but that could mean some reduction in the size of the learning centre, or it spreading eastwards. No doubt, engineering solutions could be found to the sewer, to the building, whatever. Engineering has all sorts of ways round things.
I would say that, even as the learning centre stands, it’s going to be far, far too small to be meaningful, as is obvious from a visit to the Holocaust galleries at the IWM. As planned, it could be no more than a tiny token to the Holocaust. I trust that the Committee will be persuaded that a combined memorial and learning centre just won’t work.
I suppose another possibility – again speaking entirely selfishly from a Buxton point of view – would be to turn the whole thing round so that the view of the Buxton memorial would only be interrupted by the tapering of the mound over the learning centre. Indeed, Parliament would have a more direct view of the Holocaust memorial, which is often stated to be behind the idea of construction in Victoria Tower Gardens anyway.
The detail of alternatives isn’t a matter for me, obviously, but the Secretary of State must have alternative views with so many question marks hanging over the present one. I think I’m right in saying – I have to find the reference – Mr Katkowski, in his opening, effectively accepted that circumstances could arise where the Secretary of State would have to go back to the drawing board.
So whether the Select Committee recommends rejection of the underground learning centre combined with a memorial outright, as I and other petitioners believe that it should, I do urge it, please, at the very least, to insist that the Buxton memorial and Holocaust memorial are given more space so that they can each be properly appreciated.
There is no reason why an appropriate Holocaust memorial could not exist with a memorial to antislavery. Whether or not a learning centre could be is a matter for the engineers and not me but they, I think, under the current proposals, just won’t work. All those points would get even more emphasis if, as expected, there would be hordes of people visiting the Holocaust memorial along with the learning centre, effectively as a tourist destination.
And finally, can it be right that this construction project with its vast excavation should mean excluding people virtually entirely from Victoria Tower Gardens, including from appreciating the Buxton memorial, for several years?
Now, in terms of amendment to the Bill, if I were asked, I would suggest that clause 2 is actually unnecessary because a satisfactory memorial shouldn’t require any changes to the gardens as such. It would fit inside the confines of the 1900 Act as it stands.
However, if it is thought that a change is required, even as a safeguard, then I submit that the Bill should be amended so that it allows for the construction of a memorial and, I suppose, a learning centre, providing there will be no planning harm to the setting of the Buxton memorial, and of course, other memorials in the gardens.
I did put up a slide but it’s probably been taken down by now; I don’t know if it’s an old one or a new one, but it doesn’t matter. I was suggesting some form of wording which could slip somewhere in the Bill with reference to the activities proposed that such activities ‘shall not cause any degree of harm either actual or to the setting of any other memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens’.
Now, I would have thought that – and I am not a parliamentary draftsman so I can’t know the exacting wording or exactly how it would fit – planning harm is a well-known term of art which would work in a statute in my view as a constraint to what could be permitted in planning terms.
In my respectful submission, it doesn’t fall within the concept of a planning condition or a planning term, which is outside the scope of the Committee. It would represent an entirely proper framework within which planning permission could be considered without prejudice to the concept of a Holocaust memorial and a learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens if the Secretary of State does decide to press ahead with the idea.
I would repeat what Mr Doctor has said. I read and re-read the instruction to the Committee, and the instructions refer to a Holocaust memorial and a learning centre, and that is, in my view, the position, I also assume, of Mr Katkowski’s emphasis on ‘the’ project, which I respectfully suggest is not correct.
Sir, that’s all I have to say and if you have any questions, I’ll be happy to deal with them.
MR DOCTOR KC: Just before Mr Buxton finishes, I just wanted to describe one of the slides because it may not be entirely clear to everybody. It’s the first of the slides of the plans. It’s in fact a plan which has been produced by the Government but I just want him to make – so that everyone understands what is being talked about.
THE CHAIR: That’s slide 15.
MR DOCTOR KC: Yes. It’s the one that’s got a red and a green mark, boundary. It may not have been clear on the slide but anyway, at the top it says ‘3 Victoria Tower Gardens’. The green line is described, Mr Buxton, as that’s the overall perimeter of the park. The red line, as it says on the right-hand side, excludes the entrance pavilion but it includes the fins – you can see that on the right-hand side – the courtyard – that’s the courtyard you walk through to get into the underground centre – the security hedge, the entrance pavilion and NHM equipment. I just want you to make it clear which exactly is the Buxton memorial on that slide.
MR BUXTON: If you go to St John’s Smith Square and you draw a line straight down the street, you hit a round thing at the end on the other side of the red bit. Is the Committee fairly clear where that is?
MR DOCTOR KC: There is a kink in the red line at the bottom. Do you see that?
MR BUXTON: Unfortunately, my slide is in black and white because of my printer. May I have a quick look? Well, that’s an interesting point that Mr Doctor has raised, actually. There is indeed a kink in the red line, which I half drew attention to in my presentation, and that relates to the fact that, because of the Holocaust memorial, and it’s so close and so crowded with the Buxton memorial, that they are going to have to put a fence around the Buxton memorial to make it accessible at all, really. As I understand it, it’s a kink in the courtyard of the Holocaust memorial and I could have emphasised that and I’m sorry – in one of the later slides which showed that.
Mrs Prothero tomorrow, it’s one of her slides. I apologise, I purloined it, and she will no doubt be able to explain that and the details more carefully.
MR DOCTOR KC: I just wanted to you to identify that clearly. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Buxton. Mr Katkowski, would you like to ask any questions?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Yes. sir. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Buxton. You’ll appreciate this is a somewhat unique experience for me cross-examining someone who has instructed me in the past, although not for a number of years, I should say.
MR BUXTON: 35.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: It might be a few more. Anyway, Mr Buxton, good afternoon to you. I really just want to see where this is all going. So really, the key thing is to just work out what amendments are being proposed and I might then ask you a question or two about them. So, just to set the scene – I will reply to my learned friend Mr Doctor’s submissions about scope later on in the normal way once we’ve been through the witnesses for the petitioner.
So can I just ask you about amendments? We had Mr Doctor’s amendment, so to speak; I’m going to call it that, simply because it was within Mr Doctor’s slide deck. I won’t ask for it to be popped up on the screen again but it was that any learning centre should not be built at Victoria Tower Gardens. Now is that one that you, if you like, are proposing to the Committee as part of your petition?
MR BUXTON: I would support that amendment in the same way that I support the thrust of the other petitioners but I’ve come here, I hope, trying to be as proper as possible, with a Buxton hat on and so my hat says, ‘Please don’t affect the Buxton memorial’.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Yes, that’s fine. I understand that. So obviously, my difficulty is that Mr Doctor appears for a number of petitioners of whom you are one.
MR BUXTON: Yes.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: And I simply didn’t know – I’ve called it the Doctor amendment – that was one of yours or one of the other petitioners’.
MR BUXTON: No. The Doctor amendment, the one that you referred to earlier in the proceedings, is not personally one of mine although I support it.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Okay, so you support it. So you would wish the Committee to amend the Bill so that any learning centre shall not be built at Victoria Tower Gardens.
MR BUXTON: That would be my first preference but, as a second preference, I think another amendment would be appropriate.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: I’m doing them amendment by amendment; sorry to be such a plodder. If we start with that one, that’s to say that any learning centre shall not be built at Victoria Tower Gardens.
Now, it may be me and my stupidity, but I simply do not understand how that is not four square contrary to the instruction given to the Committee because, were you to prohibit any learning centre – any learning centre – being built at Victoria Tower Gardens, that patently would undermine the principle of the Bill, which is to clear an obstruction which stands in the way of building a learning centre at Victoria Tower Gardens. Do you see?
MR BUXTON: I understand; I’ve read the legal argument. I don’t think it’s for me to get into that legal argument but all I would say – and I emphasise again to the Committee – is that I think that Mr Katkowski emphasises, in all of his work, the preposition ‘the’ project.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Mr Buxton, I’m going to stop you there, sorry. The amendment suggested by Mr Doctor, which you have said, ‘Well, I’ll sort of align myself with that as well as the others’, was ‘any’ learning centre should not be built at Victoria Tower Gardens. You don’t have to argue the law with me. That’s just flat contrary to the instruction, obviously.
MR BUXTON: What’s your question?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: That is my question. It would be flat contrary to the instruction, wouldn’t it – if you’d like me to add the words, ‘wouldn’t it’ – for the Committee to seek to amend the Bill so that ‘any learning centre shall not be built at Victoria Tower Gardens’. It couldn’t be clearer.
MR DOCTOR KC: Mr Chair –
THE CHAIR: I’ll allow Mr Buxton to respond.
MR BUXTON: I don’t believe that that is the case; therefore, I think it’s best to leave that question there.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Jolly good. Thank you very much indeed. Let’s move on to the next amendment, which I think is you, if you like, as part of your petition. Now, I had a version of this at slide 21 but we never got to slide 21.
MR BUXTON: There is certain confusion about the slides, which is entirely my fault and my electronic skills late at night, and you got it and the Committee hasn’t.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Oh, I see. Okay.
MR BUXTON: But it’s something I could hand up in hard copy to Ms Kurt afterwards.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Yes. I’ll just read it out.
MR BUXTON: Yes, sure.
THE CHAIR: Sorry, what are we missing in the Committee?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Mr Buxton was very kind to send us, in advance of this afternoon, his slide deck and within that slide deck, the one that we received, there was a slide 21 which set out the amendment that he, Mr Buxton, wishes. Now, I don’t know whether you’ve got that or not. Mr Buxton suspects you haven’t.
THE CHAIR: We appear not to have.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Exactly. When the slide show was being run earlier on, we stopped a few short of 21, so I wondered how that had happened. It’s very short. I’m just going to read it out and I just want to understand whether this is what you’re seeking or whether it’s some variant of it.
So what you put on this slide originally was that there should be an amendment to clause 2 of the Bill which reads as follows, ‘Provided always that any such activity’, so that’s the memorial and/or the learning centre, ‘shall not cause any degree of harm either actual or to the setting of any other memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens’. So that was it, as it was yesterday, I think. Now today, you’ve referred to ‘no planning harm’. Which, if either, of those approaches do you advocate?
MR BUXTON: I’m sorry that it wasn’t clear. My wording is as set out in this wording here, which is printed. The word ‘planning’ was a –
THE CHAIR: The amendment you’re seeking is the one that you have set out in the slide, is what you’re saying.
MR BUXTON: My slide says, ‘Shall not cause any degree of harm either actual or to the setting of any memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens’.
THE CHAIR: So that is your proposed amendment, the amendment you’d like to seek; is that correct?
MR BUXTON: That was a suggested amendment but, as I said in my presentation, I’m not a parliamentary draftsman as to how it should be made, but the concept, which I would anticipate that Mr Katkowski would support, is that any memorial should not cause any harm to the setting of any other memorial. I can’t see that that cannot be entirely common ground to everyone here.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: I think you’re missing out a very big point there, Mr Buxton which I’ll come to in a few moments’ time. But anyway, basically, the concept that you are advocating – forget the exact wording – is that the proposed memorial/learning centre should not cause, to shorthand this, any heritage harm, any harm to the setting of, for example, the Buxton memorial. That’s the concept.
MR BUXTON: Yes.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Good. Alright. Now, let’s just understand the consequence of that so the Committee can understand where this is all leading to and why you’ve put this forward. As you well know, and the Committee might well know from, first of all, my opening and secondly, if they have glanced at the correspondence about the inspector’s findings in this matter, as you know, Mr Buxton, the inspector found that the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre would cause some harm to the setting of the Buxton memorial. That was one of his conclusions, wasn’t it?
MR BUXTON: Yes. I refer to that in my presentation.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Indeed so. And as you well know, in the planning world, any harm that is caused needs to be weighed against any benefits which might arise, and in this particular case, the inspector weighed the harm to the setting of the Buxton memorial against what he regarded as the benefits of the proposal, didn’t he?
MR BUXTON: Yes.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Yes, and as we know the inspector concluded that the benefits outweighed the harm, amongst other things, to the setting of the Buxton memorial, even though as he said several times over – and you’ve given the Committee the relevant quotes yourself – he attached considerable importance and weight to the harm to the setting of the Buxton memorial, didn’t he?
MR BUXTON: Yes.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Now, the effect of your amendment would be to block the building of the memorial and learning centre that the Secretary of State proposes, because it’s been found that it would cause some harm to the setting of the Buxton memorial. On your amendment, that could not be allowed to happen. That’s the consequence, isn’t it, of your proposal? You would, in effect, cheat the planning system of its ability to weigh harms against benefits, wouldn’t you?
MR BUXTON: This is not a planning inquiry, and as we know, the planning inspector or a planning decision maker, whether it’s a local authority, the planning inspector or the Secretary of State, has to work within the four corners of the statute. Under normal rules, the planning inspector does have certain discretion as to whether he can allow harm, for example, where there is some degree of benefit outweighing that harm and that can arise in all kinds of planning situation.
What I am suggesting here is that the statute could be such, as is perfectly possible, providing the Secretary of State rethinks his proposals, to put a Holocaust memorial and possibly a learning centre, but it would have to be some redesign. He’s got to have a rethink about it so that it doesn’t cause harm. So it is not blocking the proposal for a Holocaust memorial and even with a learning centre. It’s just saying that the Secretary of State’s got to put his thinking hat on and come up with some other designs.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: You’ll remember the question, Mr Buxton, forgive me. The consequence of your amendment would be to block the memorial and learning centre which the Secretary of State has been promoting for a number of years.
MR BUXTON: Yes, and I believe it should.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Right. Thank you very much indeed. That’s very clear. And a consequence, therefore, would be that you would render the planning process meaningless because it would be impossible for any planning permission for the memorial and learning centre that we propose – we, the Secretary of State propose – to be built in Victoria Tower Gardens.
MR BUXTON: As I have said, the Secretary of State could rethink his proposal so that it could be built in Victoria Tower Gardens. I have suggested a couple of ways that occurred to me that, with some clever thought, that might be able to happen.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Mr Buxton, I’m not going to go any further with this particular amendment, but that, of course, presupposes that you could build a completely harmless proposal in the gardens, without causing any harm, if you move away from the Buxton memorial for example, without causing any harm to any of the other memorial settings, without causing any harm to the gardens themselves, which are a registered, listed park and garden, without causing any harm to any of the other heritage-rich assets here on the site and in the area. That’s the presupposition; that’s what underpins your idea. You could have a completely harmless project.
MR BUXTON: I strongly believe that that is the case, that an appropriate memorial could be built in Victoria Tower Gardens which was harmless in the sense that I’m suggesting.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Right. Jolly good, excellent. Can I just then clarify with you, Mr Buxton? Your references to space or breathing room, if you like, for the Buxton memorial and other memorials, all relate to this amendment that we’ve just been discussing, don’t they? There isn’t some other amendment that will achieve your space point, give the Buxton memorial space. That relates to this amendment we’ve just been discussing, doesn’t it?
MR BUXTON: That’s the intention. From a selfish point of view, it is the intention to give the Buxton memorial – and indeed the Holocaust memorial – an ability to have some space for proper appreciation.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Jolly good. I was just checking to see that there wasn’t some other amendment that I need to deal with. Thank you very much indeed.
And then finally – well, penultimately, in relation to this – you mentioned I think almost as a throwaway line, that clause 2 of the Bill is unnecessary. You’re not asking the Committee to do that which they cannot do, which is to strike out clause 2, are you? Patently that is against their instructions so you’re not asking them to do that, are you?
MR BUXTON: That indeed would render the Bill unnecessary. The spending power wouldn’t be necessary. I am suggesting – because we’ve got many other memorials; we’ve got Pankhurst, we’ve got Burghers of Calais, we’ve got Buxton, Spicer – all sorts of memorials have been put there without the slightest difficulty because they do not infringe section 8.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Yes, I know what the argument is. I’m just always trying to where is this all going? We can argue about all sorts of things but unless there’s a consequence, there’s no point arguing about them. So your consequence in, I think, a throwaway line is that clause 2 is unnecessary. I’m just checking, are you or are you not saying to the Committee that they should amend the Bill by striking out clause 2? I laugh because it’s so obviously against the instruction given to them. You’re not asking them to do that.
MR BUXTON: Provided we have one of the other amendments, I wouldn’t ask for the striking out of clause 2, but I happen to think it is otiose.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Right, jolly good. That’s very interesting. And then my final question is are there any other amendments that you propose as part of your petition?
MR BUXTON: I’m not proposing any other amendments, Mr Katkowski, no.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Thank you very much indeed, good.
MR BUXTON: Thank you very much.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Those are my questions.
THE CHAIR: Mr Doctor, do you have any further questions?
MR DOCTOR KC: No, I don’t.
THE CHAIR: Does any member of the Committee have any questions?
MR MATHER: I have a brief one. Thank you, Mr Buxton. Could I just ask you quickly to explain how you believe there could be circumstances in which the construction of a memorial doesn’t contravene the 1900 Act, in that in some regard it would surely prevent access to the gardens for the public, to some extent, during its construction?
MR BUXTON: I see. Sorry, are we talking about as proposed or generally?
MR MATHER: Generally.
MR BUXTON: Well, I’d have thought if you put up a small memorial – sorry, not necessarily a small – but say you put up a memorial comparable in size to the Buxton memorial, yes of course, it would take up a couple of months of construction work, of building a plinth or something like that. I don’t think in terms of access anybody would complain. I think what people are complaining about, and I would say the same, is that you’re having this very, very precious park right next to – well, you know where it is, over there – and it’s going to be excluded to the public for many years as a result of this enormous excavation that is proposed for the learning centre.
The memorial – or a memorial – I would have thought would be very easily done. Now, others either have or will be talking about what appropriate memorials might be.
MR MATHER: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
THE CHAIR: Mr Buxton, you do accept that the remit of this Committee does not include planning issues.
MR BUXTON: I certainly do accept that, sir, and I’ve tried to be very careful in saying that the suggested amendment was nothing to do with planning. It is to give a framework for a planner to look to.
THE CHAIR: Do you accept that the instruction from the House of Commons is quite explicit on that point?
MR BUXTON: It is explicit in relation to planning conditions but that is not the same as –
THE CHAIR: That’s all I wanted to know. That’s fine. Thank you, Mr Buxton. Mr Doctor, do you want to call your next witness?
MR DOCTOR KC: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Evidence of Dr Fannon

MR DOCTOR KC: Is it Dr or Mr Fannon?
DR FANNON: Dr Fannon.
MR DOCTOR KC: You are a trustee of the Thomas Fowell Buxton Society.
DR FANNON: That’s right, yes.
MR DOCTOR KC: Mr Chair, I’m only asking, not insisting in any way, since he’s a witness, although he’s one of the petitioners as well.
MR BUXTON: He’s a witness.
MR DOCTOR KC: Okay. I don’t require for him to be sworn in or something.
MR BUXTON: He’s been sworn in.
THE CHAIR: He’s been sworn in.
MR DOCTOR KC: Oh, he has, okay. I beg your pardon.
THE CHAIR: That’s fine. All that was dealt with previously.
MR DOCTOR KC: Right. Can you just tell the Committee briefly what the society is, what it does and why you’re here today?
DR FANNON: Yes. Well first of all, good afternoon, members of the Committee. The Thomas Fowell Buxton Society was inaugurated in 2011 when we found that, although Thomas Fowell Buxton was the Member of Parliament for Weymouth and Melcombe Regis between 1818 and 1837, and he led the antislavery movement in Parliament and achieved Royal Assent, he’d been forgotten in Weymouth. So we felt that something must be done.
We’d been approached by people saying, ‘Oh, we need a monument of some sort’, and we therefore formed the society in 2011 with the aim of educating the public on the aims and celebrating the achievements of Thomas Fowell Buxton, and also later on we wanted to tell the public about the problem of modern slavery.
So the Thomas Fowell Buxton Society exists since 2011. It achieved its objective in 2017 when we built a very good monument on Bincleaves Green in Weymouth and it was dedicated by the great and the good, Bishop of Sherborne, lord lieutenant, high sheriff, and we had 100 guests, the not‑so‑great but just as good. It was a very good afternoon. We even got on BBC television.
In 2018, we approached the curator of Parliament, because this was the anniversary of Buxton entering Parliament, and they kindly put up a presentation of Buxton’s achievements on the glass screen in Portcullis House. That was followed a month later by a public presentation of Buxton’s life and achievements in Portcullis House and members of the public – about 60 people – attended, and that was a very successful thing.
2023, last year, was yet another bicentenary. This was when Buxton actually took up the challenge. Wilberforce was ageing by then. Buxton took up the challenge to do the last thing. The slave trade had been abolished in 1807; slavery still existed. Slavery, it now seemed, had to be abolished and Buxton took up the challenge. He was assisted in Parliament by people who are mentioned on the Buxton memorial fountain, people like Lushington, Brougham, Macaulay, and Daniel O’Connell was another one, Irish, and things like that.
So that was the start of a 10-year struggle to abolish slavery. Slavery finally got Royal Assent for the abolition in 1833. Wilberforce had just died and emancipation was on 1 August 1834.
We have an interest in the Buxton memorial fountain because I think it is probably the only memorial in this country which actually celebrates Britain’s role in the abolition of slavery. Not only in the British Empire but afterwards, the Government spent a lot of money, something like £20 million, to assist eradicating slavery around the world. They had the antislavery meeting in 1840 where Prince Albert spoke.
So this memorial is more than the people whose names are there. There are lots of people who actually worked to achieve the emancipation. Buxton’s team in Parliament were supported by the Anti-Slavery Society, and there are lots of people, people like Zachary MacAulay, for example, and more names come out as we do more research.
The Anti-Slavery Society was supported by countless local organisations around the country, both England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, who had anti-slavery meetings and they created petitions and presented them through the Anti‑Slavery Society into Parliament.
Remember, at that time, there was not a real franchise; it was the time of the rotten boroughs, that sort of thing, and the only way that the public could make their views felt was through petitions. They gave lots and lots of petitions. The final debate in Parliament, 1833, was a little bit of a – it would cause laughter because it took three strong men to carry in the petition from the women of the country against slavery.
So I look at the whole thing as a celebration of British people because British people, once they knew about slavery, they reacted, they made these petitions and they supported the antislavery movement and achieved success. So I think therefore that the Buxton memorial fountain is very important and should not be overshadowed by this proposed Holocaust memorial.
It’s been said that, ‘Oh, they will complement each other’ but that’s nonsense. It’s like an elephant complementing a mouse or something. They just don’t fit. They’re different styles. They’re different everything and there’s not enough space. Richard has talked about space. Yes, that’s a matter of judgment as to how much space you want but nevertheless, I’m sure the people of the Committee will understand that space is required.
So my case really is that this is very precious because it’s the only one, as far as I can see, in the country. Perhaps we need a learning centre with the Buxton memorial. What about that, Committee? Anyway, thank you very much.
MR DOCTOR KC: Thank you very much, Dr Fannon.
THE CHAIR: We’ve learnt a bit of history today as well so thank you for that.
MR DOCTOR KC: That’s right.
THE CHAIR: Mr Doctor?
MR DOCTOR KC: I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr Chair.
THE CHAIR: Mr Katkowski?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Good afternoon, Dr Fannon. Hello.
DR FANNON: Hello there.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: You are a petitioner in your own right as well as a witness; you are on the petition along with Mr Buxton. So, Dr Fannon, really just for the record, we’ve heard Mr Buxton just now as to which amendments he’s seeking. Are there any other amendments that you seek to the Bill different to those we’ve already heard about?
DR FANNON: No, I have listened carefully to what Mr Doctor and Richard have said this afternoon, yes, and no, I fully support what has been said.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Thank you. That’s grand, thank you. Well, I needn’t ask you anything about those because I will address the Committee on them in due course. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Thank you. Mr Doctor, do you have any questions?
MR DOCTOR KC: No, no further questions.
THE CHAIR: Any members of the Committee? Okay, thank you.
DR FANNON: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Just before we come to Mr Katkowski again, Mr Doctor, can you answer a question from the Committee?
MR DOCTOR KC: Yes, certainly.
THE CHAIR: Thank you.
MR MATHER: Thank you very much, Mr Doctor. I did just want to seek some clarity, and I’m sure that you’ll feel like you’ve explained it very comprehensively so it’s purely for my benefit, but just in regard to what you propose around the amendment of specifically not siting the Bill in Victoria Tower Gardens.
When the instruction in paragraph 3, subsection (a) says that the Committee shall not even hear a petition against the Bill to the extent that it relates to whether or not there should be a memorial relating to whether it’s in Victoria Gardens or elsewhere, could you just explain to me a little bit further how both of these things can be true at the same time, where we don’t hear a petition in relation to its situation in the gardens, and yet we specifically prescribe that it shan’t be in the gardens as a Committee?
MR DOCTOR KC: Yes, thank you. The point about the instruction, if you read it as a matter of just plain language, is that it says, ‘Shall not hear any petition against the Bill to the extent that the petition relates to the question of whether or not there should be a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust or a centre for learning whether at Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere’.
What it is saying is that you can’t challenge the principle of the Bill, which is that money will be voted for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a Holocaust memorial and a learning centre. All that this is saying is that you shall not query that proposition, that money is devoted towards those two purposes, and the use of the words, ‘whether at Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere’ brings in the idea, and indeed explicitly says, ‘no matter where it is located.
So it’s not saying you can’t challenge the particular location; that’s not what it means. It’s saying you can’t challenge the fact that money will be spent on a memorial and a learning centre commemorating the Holocaust. That’s what it’s saying. It’s not dealing with the question of whether or not it should be in a particular place.
In fact, it’s common cause. It doesn’t say that it’s got to be in Victoria Tower Gardens; the Bill just says the Minister can use the funds to build a memorial. It doesn’t say it has to be anywhere and all that this is saying that no one shall challenge that. You can’t challenge the fact that money will be spent on these two items, whether they be in Victoria Tower Gardens or anywhere else.
It doesn’t deal with the question of where it will be and so if I were to say, as I do propose, that the Committee should indicate that there should be a memorial anywhere the Minister choses, and there should be a learning centre but the learning centre should not be in Victoria Tower Gardens, that doesn’t mean there won’t be a learning centre. It means the Minister will spend the money on a learning centre elsewhere, probably close by as was originally envisaged by the commission and by the Foundation.
But there’s no challenge to the fact that there will be these two items. The Minister’s entitled to spend that money, and that is why I say it’s not in breach of that instruction. And that’s why the Minister himself confirmed that you could discuss the location. You can’t discuss whether there should be a learning centre.
MR MATHER: I see. I suppose the alternative interpretation of that could be that you can’t prescribe that it should be somewhere but also that it can’t not be in Victoria Tower Gardens; that could be another lens through which to view the instruction.
MR DOCTOR KC: That’s not what it’s saying. I mean, certainly the Bill doesn’t say that. The Bill doesn’t make any reference to where it should be; it just talks about a memorial and a learning centre. The instruction is not saying that you shall not discuss the location at all because that’s what it says. You just shall not – ‘whether or not there should be a memorial’. And then it says ‘whether that memorial be at Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere’. It’s not trying to limit the discussion about where it should be; it’s just saying wherever it is, you can’t challenge that.
MR MATHER: I see.
MR DOCTOR KC: My submission would be that the alternative interpretation that you’ve suggested to me is a strained one. It’s not the way in which it would have been written. If that meaning had been intended, it would have simply said, ‘The question of whether there should be a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust or a centre for learning and its location’. ‘And its location’ – it would have simply answered it.
If it was intended that it’s got to be in Victoria Tower Gardens, the Bill would have said money is to be devoted to the building of a memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, but the question of location is just not dealt with in the Bill.
Mr Katkowski’s point is that you get to this prohibition by looking at section 2, which is dealing with a specific Act, the 1900 Act, which we know why it’s been dealt with because it’s proven troublesome in the courts hitherto, and Parliament is doing what it often does. It’s repealing the effect of a previous Act which has been shown by a court case to be a problem and Parliament is repealing that.
But he makes a further leap from there. He says, ‘What it’s also preventing is that anybody should have any restriction; there must be no statutory restrictions. Because the Bill abolishes the effect of building a memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, therefore you leap from there to say, ‘The Bill can’t contain any statutory restrictions’.
So even if Parliament decided – or this Committee decided – that it should contain my restriction, which is that the money can be spent anywhere in England except a learning centre should not be built in Victoria Tower Gardens, he’s saying, ‘Well that would amount to a statutory restriction’. Well, it would, absolutely, but this instruction doesn’t say there shouldn’t be any statutory restrictions. It just says that the 1900 Act, which has proven troublesome and has proven to be a statutory restriction, will no longer have effect. It doesn’t say that the Committee shouldn’t discuss some other statutory restriction. Indeed, his very argument, which he gives as a concession, is that actually the Committee could put some statutory restriction, for example, temporal or spatial, as he has suggested.
So he, as it were, has to concede that because if he didn’t make that concession – which I say is not a concession; it’s actually the meaning of the Bill – we’d all be wasting our time because there is nothing you can decide. You have to accept that the Minister can put it anywhere and no one can discuss that. He can put it anywhere.
If the Bill said that, it’s the most peculiar Bill ever drawn up, which says that it has to be in Victoria Tower Gardens, even though it doesn’t say so, or wherever the Minister decides to have it, no one can discuss that. I’m saying that the removal of this restriction does not preclude the question of some other statutory restriction such as the one I’ve suggested.
MR MATHER: I see. Chair, conscious of time, may I ask one further question? Just in relation to the scope of the comments by the Secretary of State, I suppose we consider as a principle whether or not intentions or meaning of statements given by the Secretary of State should affect the considerations of this Committee irrespective of the content of the Bill, but when Michael Gove said, ‘I think it will be a matter for the Committee’, could it not be interpreted that he meant that it would be a matter for the Committee to consider whether it fell into scope as opposed to whether the specific instances that Sir Peter Bottomley raised in regard to the physical configuration of the memorial should be considered? Does that make sense?
MR DOCTOR KC: Well, no because the House specifically said that planning issues, which we are told – on the interpretation now being given – covers everything, that can’t be decided; nothing that could form the subject of a planning application can be discussed by the Select Committee.
When he says, ‘That would be a matter for the Committee’, in answer to the question, the question is – he says, ‘I ask this explicitly: if someone wants to argue in front of the Committee that it would be better to have the basement box somewhere else and just have the memorial, would that petition potentially be heard?’ and he says, ‘I think it would be a matter for the Committee’. It would have been very easy to say, ‘No, of course not, because nobody can discuss the location of the Holocaust memorial’.
MR MATHER: But with respect, surely he could have meant that it would be a matter for the Committee to consider whether to hear it.
MR DOCTOR KC: Well, if that’s the case then I concede that that is a possible meaning of his words. Ms Buchan was clearer; certainly I can see that, but if the Committee is given that, as it were, choice whether to consider the issue of location or not, essentially he’s conceding that it is a matter for the Committee to decide.
It would be, in respectful submission, unfortunate if the Committee just took a very, as it were, formalistic view of some words which are themselves not all that clear, because certainly there’s at least two meanings being offered to them, and took the view that, really, there’s nothing that can be discussed here, other than by way of concession.
Even if you take that view of the meaning of the instruction, we shouldn’t really be discussing concessions, and indeed, these concessions are something which presumably the Minister would decide, quite apart from the Committee, whether he’s prepared to make these concessions or not.
Because they’ve been made to you, I say that that’s an inherent acknowledgement that the Committee can deal with these matters – indeed on my argument, that’s one of the things the Committee will consider – and go ahead and consider them and not simply rule, ‘Oh, we can’t discuss any of these. Nothing was raised which deals with the local problems and, for example, the overshadowing of the Buxton memorial. We can’t discuss any of that because we can’t discuss location and we can’t discuss anything which could be the subject of a planning inquiry’.
MR MATHER: Okay. Thank you very much.
THE CHAIR: And you fully accept that this Committee’s remit does not include planning.
MR DOCTOR KC: Absolutely, we’ve said that.
THE CHAIR: Just going back to one of the things my colleague mentioned, effectively, your amendment, you’re trying to decouple the memorial from the learning centre.
MR DOCTOR KC: What I’m trying to do is to go back to what the commission and the foundation originally said, which was that there would be a memorial and there would be a related learning centre close by or co-located, or words to that effect. And indeed, the Feldman letter makes it absolutely clear because he says, ‘We’ve already been offered premises in Milbank’, which is obviously close by, ‘Which will house the learning centre and the memorial will be’ –
THE CHAIR: But the reality is, your amendment does decouple the memorial from the learning centre; that is the reality of your amendment.
MR DOCTOR KC: It might be very nearby; it doesn’t decouple it because it would certainly –
THE CHAIR: It decouples it from the purposes of Victoria Tower Gardens.
MR DOCTOR KC: Yes, because it would not be in Victoria Tower Gardens but it could still be related to it. That’s a perfectly ordinary meaning of the word ‘related to’. It doesn’t mean ‘on top of’. It would be the vision that the commission had for a learning centre which –
THE CHAIR: But by decoupling, you are interpreting the instruction from the House of Commons in a particular way.
MR DOCTOR KC: With respect, no because the House of Commons is saying that the money can be spent on both of them but it doesn’t say that they have to be in the same place. It doesn’t say that, nor does the instruction. It just says ‘wherever they are’. They could be one block away.
THE CHAIR: I’m just trying to get to the nub of what you’re trying to propose so the Committee has an understanding what you’re trying to achieve here.
MR DOCTOR KC: Yes, I’m grateful for you giving me the opportunity to make myself clear and so that you can consider what you’re going to do about this.
THE CHAIR: Thank you. No further questions from the Committee? Back to the promoter, Mr Katkowski.

Response by Mr Katkowski

MR KATKOWSKI KC: Thank you very much indeed, sir. If I can just respond to the submissions which have been made by my learned friend, Mr Doctor, on behalf of the petitioners this afternoon.
The first point really is just to say, for the record, you understand that the promoter’s position is that the amendments put forward this afternoon by the petitioners this afternoon are out of scope; they’re not amendments that you could take forward. And the reason that I say obviously relates to the instruction itself.
In my submission, the instruction is crystal clear and I want to add to that that, as you will very well understand, nothing that’s said during the course of the debate leading up to the instruction in any way changes the plain meaning and effect of the instruction itself. It's the instruction which binds you.
I agree, on behalf of the promoter, the interpretation that’s put on the Secretary of State my client’s comments during the course of the debate, but in any event, it is the instruction itself which counts.
I do want to add to all of this, though, that there is no need for an instruction to be given to a Committee of this nature, a Committee which is a Select Committee examining a hybrid Bill. Even without an instruction, the fundamental principle which applies to this very form of Committee is that the Committee cannot do anything which will be destructive of the public policy and principle which underpins the Bill in question. The instruction is explaining that in crystal clear terms, but even without an instruction, it would never have been within your scope to, in any way, undermine or destroy the public policy which underpins the Bill.
Now, in relation to both the instruction and that fundamental principle of parliamentary practice, if you look at the Bill and the two clauses which have been referred to, the first clause and the second clause are very different. The first clause would authorise the expenditure of money by the Secretary of State on a memorial and learning centre anywhere in England and Wales – anywhere, including Victoria Tower Gardens.
The second clause is quite different. The second clause is very, very geographically specific because the second clause seeks to remove an obstruction to building a – and ‘a’ obviously includes ‘the’ – memorial and learning centre in a particular place, and the particular place is Victoria Tower Gardens, so this is the only location which is subject to obstruction in the London Country Council (Improvements) Act 1900, section 8. So we have to be careful not to muddle up these two clauses because they’re doing different things.
As I said in my opening remarks to you and my opening submissions to you, anything which would lead by way of an amendment to continuing an obstruction on building the memorial and learning centre – ‘a’, including ‘the’, memorial and learning centre – in Victoria Tower Gardens would fundamentally run against the public policy and principle of clause 2.
Now here, I just want to draw to your attention something which I’m sure you have available to you, which is the explanatory notes for the Bill, which your House, the House of Commons, instructed to be published. At paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes, it says, ‘The Government intends to disapply the relevant sections of the 1900 Act so that they do not constitute an obstacle to construction and operation of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre’. I mean, it couldn’t be clearer.
With respect, you certainly know why you’re here, and one would like to think that everyone else does as well. As I discussed in my opening submissions, amongst the things you are here to do, you are not here to, in any way, undermine the very purpose of the Bill as set out in paragraph 8 of the explanatory notes.
That’s not to say that you don’t have a meaningful purpose and role. We’ve already discussed on the first day various matters which potentially are in scope. Whether we’ll come back to those or not on another day, we’ll wait and see.
As for any argument, as has been made by my learned friend, Mr Doctor, in effect on the basis of the promoter’s submissions to you, ‘These proceedings are a farce’, or, if you like, there’s some democratic deficit because petitioners can’t come along and ask you to fundamentally change the Bill so as to undermine its key principles, that, with respect, is simply based on a complete and entire misunderstanding, not only of this Committee’s role, but of the whole parliamentary process itself.
In subsequent stages of the parliamentary process, Parliament can amend the Bill in a much wider fashion than anything you can do here. You are looking simply at the hybrid aspects of this Bill. Should Parliament choose to do so, it can do whatever it pleases, but you can’t. I say that with great respect, but you cannot, because you have a very narrow and very focused remit. But that’s not to say that at some subsequent stage, if Parliament wished to do so, it couldn’t impose all sorts of amendments to the Bill. They’re just not a matter for this Committee.
So, with that said, and with those points made, I maintain the position of the promoter that the specific amendments which are put forward by these petitioners are patently outside the scope of the business of this Committee. Mr Doctor’s amendment, which was adopted by Mr Buxton and indeed by Dr Fannon, that any learning centre should not be built at Victoria Tower Gardens, I’d struggle to think of a clearer example of something which runs flat contrary to the instruction given to you. I struggle to think of a clearer example of something which patently would undermine the very principle of the Bill, the very principle being to remove an obstruction to building a – including ‘the’ – learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. So, patently, that’s out of scope.
And the amendment put forward by Mr Buxton, that is to say that you can have a memorial and learning centre, but it mustn’t cause any harm to the setting of it, or indeed any other memorial, again, the consequence of that would mean that the promoter could not build the particular memorial and learning centre which the Secretary of State and this Government, and previous Governments, have proposed for a number of years, because as we know from the record, it’s been found that the Holocaust memorial would cause some harm to the setting of the Buxton memorial.
So if you were to write into the Bill that you can’t cause such harm, then you would defeat the principle of the Bill and you would defeat and cheat the planning system, because it’s the planning system that has the role of weighing harms against benefits. So, again, that proposal is not within scope either.
So, those are my submissions that I wanted to make in response to the petitions, the petitioners this afternoon and the amendments they’ve made. I don’t intend to call a witness because you have our position. It’s not a matter for evidence; it’s a matter for submissions.
THE CHAIR: Thank you. Just for clarification, I presume from the promoter’s perspective, you see the memorial and the learning centre to be inextricably linked.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Indeed so, yes. And I should say, this whole debate, literally nothing that you’ve heard at this Committee is new because all of it, every single point has been made as an argument at the planning inquiry.
One of the key arguments made at the planning inquiry was, and I’m summarising very crudely, the memorial’s bad enough but adding the learning centre to it compounds the problems that were put against us at the planning inquiry. And the inspector independently came to his conclusions that the proposition that the Secretary of State puts forward does and would lead to some adverse consequences. A greater public good outweighed those adverse consequences.
THE CHAIR: One other issue which I think the Committee has had a degree of interest in is just on the consultation about the site in 2016 and the decision on 13 January.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Yes.
THE CHAIR: Could you let us know what consultation was held, if any, at around that time?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: I’m sure we can write to you in the usual way, but if I can just summarise, the position is, and again this was all dealt with at the planning inquiry – it was a major topic of discussion at the planning inquiry – ‘Well, how on earth did the proposers of the project land their project at Victoria Tower Gardens?’ And as I said in my opening submissions, and I want to be very straightforward with you about this, Victoria Tower Gardens came very late in the day, at the end of the process.
THE CHAIR: We accept that. All I wanted to know is what sort of consultation was had around that time and what evidence there is of such a consultation.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Thank you, sir. We will double check this, but to my memory and recollection, there wasn’t specific consultation at that stage, that is to say when it was decided by the foundation, and then the Government of the day adopted the proposal, that the location should be Victoria Tower Gardens. To my memory, there wasn’t a stage where the Government said, ‘We’re now going to consult the public about this particular location’. What happened was that that consultation, in effect, took place through the planning application process.
THE CHAIR: I guessed as much. Could you put that in writing?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Yes, of course.
THE CHAIR: And also define what that consultation during the planning process was.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Indeed, sir, we will do that, and just to give you a very, very brief response to that, planning application was made. It locates the project at Victoria Tower Gardens. Everyone who wishes to do so is entitled to object to that. Many people did.
THE CHAIR: The timelines and exactly the nature of that consultation would be grand.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Indeed so. Of course.
THE CHAIR: That’s fine. Any member of the Committee?
MS RICHARDSON: One question. Mr Katkowski, do you have a response to Mr Buxton’s suggestion of rotating the plan in order to reduce harm?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: I don’t off the cuff. Again, a large part of the evidence at the inquiry was to explain exactly why the memorial and learning centre are located exactly as they are, in other words not rotated. There are very deliberate reasons which underpin the choice of layout of the memorial and learning centre. So all of this was thought through at the time.
And in any event, the difficulty with the argument that’s made against us is it’s not as simple as just saying, ‘Rotate things. Move them somewhere else, even if within the gardens’. If you rotate things, move things and so on, you just bring yourself nearer to other monuments. And the argument would then be said, ‘Well, wait a minute, you’re harming the setting of some other memorial or monument in the gardens’. You’ll know from your own knowledge of course, there are several monuments and memorials in the gardens.
We’re fixated upon the Buxton memorial here today because of the nature of the petitioners and also because the closest memorial to the proposal is the Buxton memorial. But if you move things, turn things around, you just affect other things in a different way. And it would just be another different set of arguments made through the planning process about, ‘Well, you’re causing harm to this, that and something else’.
MS RICHARDSON: In your opening evidence to us, where you said that we had potentially the ability to amend territorially, you’re saying that that would be out of scope.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Yes. Rotating the project, if you like, would be because that’s quintessentially a matter for the planning process. My point about territorial, just to explain the point I made in response to the Chair’s question, is quite simply that I say we all know, frankly, that this is all about ensuring there isn’t a statutory obstacle to building the memorial and learning centre which the Government proposes should be built in Victoria Tower Gardens.
What you could do – we don’t encourage this; we don’t say it’s necessary, but if you thought it was necessary – would be to, on a plan, restrict the extent of the removal of the 1900 Act obstruction so that it related only to the extent of the project that we put forward.
But that is tied very much to the project that we’ve put forward over these last few years. It doesn’t relate to some other project which doesn’t exist. It relates to the project that we put forward, which is a different thing.
THE CHAIR: Very well. Thank you everyone for attending this afternoon. That concludes matters for today.