THE CHAIR: Good morning, everybody. This is the fourth public meeting of the Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill. The purpose of today is to continue to hear from both sides about the position of the promoter and the petitioner in relation to standing only, not anything in relation to scope.
Currently, it is our intention that the committee will, after hearing all the challenges to standing, make its decision on standing tomorrow afternoon. We will give you a more precise timetable probably at the end of today.
I need to repeat, I am afraid, for those who may not have been here before to have heard it, something about the arrangements in case of fire. In the case of fire, bells are not used in the Parliamentary Estate. Instead, a two-toned siren followed by a series of taped messages is broadcast. If evacuation is necessary, please follow the instructions of the clerk. Anyone not in the committee room itself should find the nearest security officer.
Please remember that the proceedings are being broadcast, and there is a full transcript being taken.
BARONESS BOTTOMLEY OF NETTLESTONE: My Lord, I am really sorry. People are finding it very hard to hear you at the back, because a lot of us are quite old and losing our hearing. It is only about the fire; I have told them about the fire.
THE CHAIR: I will speak up. The current intention is to inform the parties, after all the challenges to standing, of its decision on standing for each of the petitioners tomorrow afternoon, but we will probably have a more precise timing for that by the end of today.
I made my statement about the alarm system, and I wanted to remind the parties that the proceedings are being broadcast and that a full transcript is taken.
The first petitioners whose case is being heard this morning on standing are Sir Peter Bottomley and the right honourable Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone. The way we have done it in the past is, Mr Katkowski, you start off with any general comments you want, apart from the ones you gave initially.

Opening Statement by Mr Katkowski KC

MR KATKOWSKI KC: Thank you very much indeed, my Lord. Good morning. In very brief summary, there are three things I need to do: first, to refer to the index of documents that has been submitted, requested by Baroness Scott the other day; secondly, to refer to some further research that we have submitted—it is our paper 008, which I will come to; thirdly and finally, just to say a few words in brief summary of our position in relation to the petitioners that you are about to hear from.
Since we were last here, we have submitted, as requested, an index of the documents that are before you.
THE CHAIR: Yes, we are very grateful for that. Thank you.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Thank you. That is the first point. The second point is that there is a paper that we submitted—and is on your web page—on Friday. It is paper PRO 008, so document 8 in our set, and it just briefly sets out some results and some further research that we have carried out in relation to the position of inhabitants or residents in Standing Order 118. Would it assist my Lord if I briefly—with the emphasis on the word “briefly”—went through that paper?
THE CHAIR: Thank you very much indeed. We have read the paper and I hope I am correct in saying that the general principles in the paper are not new—you have made them before—about the qualification of an inhabitant in Standing Order 118. What is new are the precedents that you have attached, which are 19th-century cases on the convention that then applied.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Indeed, and some more recent ones as well, as in the last century. I hear to my right “19th century”. That is because, my Lord, there is at least 150 years of established practice in relation to this very point that I have addressed you on in various submissions that I have made before.
The purpose of the note is simply to draw to your attention the various precedents and texts on the subject, which, in my submission, all support the submission I have already made, which, in very brief terms, is that, for an inhabitant or resident to be within the remit, so to speak, of Standing Order 118, that resident or inhabitant needs to be properly and sufficiently representative of the inhabitants or residents of the area. That principle is enshrined and is at least 150 years old in terms of its learning, and is repeatedly in these various precedents—the ones in this new note and the ones in our previous note—relied on, both in this House and, indeed, in the House of Commons at this stage of the hybrid Bill’s progress. My Lord, that is the second point.
The note also covers the question that was put to me by Lord Hope last week as to whether, outside the terms of the Standing Orders, there is some form of residual or general discretion in the committee. To cut a not very long story even shorter, the answer to that question is no. There is the ability for the House, as a body, to direct that there be some relaxation, if you like, of the Standing Orders for the sake of a particular Bill, and we give some examples of that in paragraph 6 of note 008. That has not happened here. That is the second of the three points.
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD: You would not want us to go that course, would you? That would delay the whole proceedings very much if we had to go back to the House and ask for further directions.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Yes, it would, and you will understand that, as far as the promoter is concerned, although it seems a bit of a forlorn hope, to be frank, we are keen not to spend time needlessly, hence our position in the other House that we did not challenge the right or the discretion in relation to petitioners. Plainly, in the Commons, the committee was not very happy with that, and so here we are with the position that we have adopted here.
Thirdly and finally, in brief summary, in relation to petition number 17—Sir Peter and Baroness Bottomley—you will understand from the submissions I have already made that, in relation to the right to be heard—that is to say in relation to Standing Order 114—I have submitted that, in order for a petitioner to have the right to be heard, they need to have some ability to bring an action in private law to enforce some right which they would otherwise have were it not for the provisions in the Bill in question. Plainly, these petitioners—and I will be saying the same for all the petitioners you will be hearing from today—do not have a right to be heard in that sense.
That leaves the two discretionary Standing Orders—Standing Order 117, which relates to associations and similar. Patently, the petitioners you are about to hear from are not an association or a society. Finally, Standing Order 118, the discretion in relation to a local authority—plainly, neither of the petitioners are the local authority for the area. That then leaves, finally, within Standing Order 118, the issue of whether they are inhabitants or residents, and I have made my submission just now that the established practice and precedent is that, for a local resident or inhabitant to fall within the scope or remit of Standing Order 118, they need to be properly and sufficiently representative of the inhabitants of the wider area. That is our position in very brief summary.
THE CHAIR: That is very helpful. Thank you very much indeed. This is your opportunity, Sir Peter and Baroness Bottomley, to say why you have standing. We do not want to start now on the question of the scope of the Bill, planning issues and so on. We just want to deal with the question of standing. We have obviously read your petition. Please feel free, if you wish to do so, to highlight any particular points that you would like to, providing some emphasis. If you wish to qualify or change anything, we would like to know that too.

Sir Peter Bottomley and Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone

Submissions by Sir Peter Bottomley and Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone

SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Thank you, sir. I was a Member of Parliament from 1975 until July. I would say to people that my cousin, Thomas Vardon, employed Erskine May. Erskine May is better known now for his book of precedents—every paragraph on every page, because something was either forbidden for the first time or done for the first time or allowed for the first time.
The second preliminary remark I want to make is that I did take a private Bill—in effect, a hybrid Bill—for the Dartford-Thurrock crossing through Parliament and had experience of who should be allowed and who was not, in effect, in the role of the promoter and their advocates. The view that I took, rather than going to decisions made or comments written in 1870, was that people who had a clear, common-sense interest should be allowed to be heard, in case what they said should affect what decision the committee would make in reporting to the House.
I also, in my last week in the House of Commons, spoke about this Bill, and I had the experience of giving evidence and calling witnesses, including councillors from the City of Westminster—the corporation, in effect, that the promoter’s advocate has been referring to just now.
I would like just to make a personal remark. I first learnt about the Holocaust when I was about 14. I think I probably should have waited until I was about 16, because the horrors of it were not known to me. I very strongly support the recommendation of the Holocaust Commission and the Holocaust foundation that most of the money should be spent on education, so that people know what is going on.
My father’s first cousin was one of the medical students who went to Bergen-Belsen and helped save as many lives as possible. Through education, since this process started in 2015, I now know the names of over 100 of my grandfather’s cousins who died in the Holocaust. I feel very strongly about this, and I am very keen that there should be a good memorial and an effective learning process that can build on the Wiener library and the Holocaust galleries in the Imperial War Museum.
I also know more about the history than most people, but not as much as the promoter’s advocates, who are the people who suggested that the previous planning application, taken over by the Government, was effective and, when judged by a judge, was found not to be. I also know that, when the Bill, as now presented, came forward, the Government or their advocates said it was not hybrid, and the examiners examining it decided that they were wrong.
How long have we lived locally?
BARONESS BOTTOMLEY OF NETTLESTONE: Since 1990.
SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: What have we used the park for?
BARONESS BOTTOMLEY OF NETTLESTONE: I am your witness, my Lord—perambulation; relaxation and getting over the stress and the strain of Parliament; even keep fit for a moment or two when I had a trainer, who used to take me out there; watching other people walk their dogs; taking our children and grandchildren to the park. It is just a lovely place to look at the river, look at the Buxton gallery and look at the Pankhurst gallery. It is like a sculpture park. It is a lovely place.
Just quickly, I used to be responsible for the Royal Parks as Secretary of State for Culture. I thought that the Royal Parks were essentially, like the National Trust, inviolable. It is deeply shocking that people want to build, excavate and create a structure in a Royal Park, to me, when they have the Imperial War Museum so close.
SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: The point of us being here is that we are close enough to know, and more frequent users than most. We want to contribute to a process which leads to an improvement in the Bill, if possible, with the result of having an improvement to the memorial and an improvement to the learning centre, wherever it might be. We want to make things better, not worse, and we believe that our interventions up to now have been part of that trajectory.
We also believe that the committee not being persuaded by the promoter’s advocate’s suggestion that we should not be heard, because we do not have standing—I believe they fear that what we might say and our witnesses might say could help Government to vary what they are proposing or have this committee make recommendations to the House of Lords of what might be done to improve the Bill and to improve the outcome.
If I may just trouble you briefly with some words from an executive summary of the Hansard Society’s 2010 publication, Making Better Law: Reform of the Legislative Process from Policy to Act, by Ruth Fox and Matt Korris, “The executive has a right to implement the legislative programme. Parliament has an obligation to ensure the laws that are passed are of the highest possible quality, having been subject to appropriate levels of consultation, preparation and scrutiny. Government and Parliament should recognise that they do not have a monopoly on expertise, particularly in highly technical fields of law, and the scrutiny of such legislation would, therefore, benefit by external support”.
I could go on a bit more, but I will not trouble you with that. What I am trying to say is that, if we are not ruled out on standing, within the limited scope that we and our witnesses would ask for, we believe that we could help this committee be in a position to make recommendations or decisions, or give conclusions, on the clauses in the Bill in front of it.
If the examiners believe that hybridity means that people should be heard—it is not just being able to petition, but to be heard, and our witnesses should be heard; I am not going into the scope now, because you have asked us not to—I believe that would be helpful to the committee and could be helpful to the House, even if, having heard us, the committee decided that our points were not persuasive.
It might be helpful if I stop now, rather than digging myself into a hole, but, essentially, if the examiners say people are qualified to be heard, we should be heard.
THE CHAIR: Baroness Bottomley, do you want to add anything?
BARONESS BOTTOMLEY OF NETTLESTONE: No more, thank you. I affirm everything that my husband has said.
THE CHAIR: Mr Katkowski, do you want to say anything further?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Only to do no more than remind the committee—I am sure that you do not need me to—that the examiners, in finding the Bill to be hybrid, explicitly stated in their decision and their report that hybridity was distinct from the right to be heard or from standing. They made the point explicitly, so that one does not muddle the two. Otherwise, I would simply be repeating my submissions from earlier on, so I have nothing to add. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Thank you.
SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Could I just add, sir, that I have provided to Pinsent and to the advocate a copy of Dorian Gerhold’s history of Victoria Tower Gardens, and I have provided enough to the clerk so that members of the committee can have it as well. It is a very good history, and I want to make sure that I had given it to them too. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Yes. Thank you very much. We have received this from our clerk. We are very grateful to you for it. Thank you very much for coming.
Viscount Eccles, I think it is your turn, but again, first, I am going to call on Mr Katkowski, for the promoters, to introduce his comments about your petition and your right to standing. We are only dealing with standing. Is there anything you want to say on this?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Thank you, my Lord, and forgive me for being so repetitious, but, as you will know, the promoter’s position is that the petitioner in question does not have the right to be heard, because there is no actionable interest in private law that is held by the petitioner. As for discretion, not a society or association under Standing Order 117. As for Standing Order 118, again a discretionary power in this committee. Not the local authority, plainly, and I have made my submissions that, in order to qualify as an inhabitant, the petitioner in question needs to be properly and sufficiently representative of the inhabitants of the area, which we say this petitioner does not fall within.
In those very brief terms, and more elaborately set out in our various written submissions to this committee, we do, indeed, challenge the right of the petitioner to be heard and, indeed, the question as to whether he falls within either of the discretionary standing orders.
THE CHAIR: Why do you say that he is not sufficiently representative of other residents?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: My Lord, merely being a resident—I say “merely”; sorry, I do not mean that in any derogatory sense—as this petitioner is in Smith Square and frequently visiting the gardens does not mark the petitioner out from a number of other petitioners or, indeed, from the many other residents of the closer area who have not petitioned. There is no evidence whatever that this particular petitioner in any way speaks in a representative capacity for a body of residents in the area. If we needed to go through the precedents, you would have seen, my Lord, that, in a number of them, there are discussions about how many hundreds of people the petitioner needs to be, in effect, speaking for to begin to be considered within the scope of what is Standing Order 118.
THE CHAIR: I just want you to clarify one thing about this particular submission, because it is a matter for us, obviously, to judge whether these petitioners, including the previous petitioners, Sir Peter and Baroness Bottomley, are like other residents. In that sense, when I say they represent them, there is nothing to suggest that they do not have the similar concerns to other residents in the area, but then you go on and say, “But there is nothing to make them stand out as different”. It is quite difficult to grasp the requirement that they have to be representative but be different.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: My Lord, forgive me; it is entirely my fault. Representative in the sense, my Lord, that, as I was submitting a few moments ago—and I will be saying the same for those that you have already heard from and those that you are yet to hear from—there is absolutely no evidence whatever that they are representative of the views, if you like, of a sufficient body of residents. Plainly, the whole nature of petitioning is that these are petitions from those who object, but there is no evidence whatever that local residents in the area—
THE CHAIR: Are you suggesting that, in order to qualify, there has to be some sort of resolution by residents generally in an area?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: A number of the precedents are to that effect, yes.
THE CHAIR: Are you saying it is necessary, in order to be an inhabitant within 118, that there is some formal process of appointment of the petitioner to represent everybody?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: The short answer to that question, my Lord, is no, but there needs to be evidence—and I would suggest clear evidence—that they are, indeed, representative. Plainly, if there were some form of resolution, then that would provide that evidence, but it cannot be beyond the wit of man, if you like, to think of other ways in which someone could demonstrate, could prove or could substantiate that they are speaking on behalf of local residents more generally in the area in question. If that is through some route other than a meeting and a resolution, then so be it, but, my Lord, there needs to be something to demonstrate that that capacity is being exercised.
THE CHAIR: What about this other qualification that you have mentioned before about standing, as it were, apart from the others? They have to be both representative and to stand apart.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: My Lord, that is an inelegant shorthand on my part, in effect making the same point. I would say, my Lord, that the point of the submission was that, to stand apart, they need to have some form of representative capacity, so it is one and the same, my Lord. It is inelegant language on my part. I am perfectly content to stand by the point as it is put crisply in our paper 8, paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2, because that is drawing together all the 150 years and more of practice and precedent in this House and, indeed, in the other House as well.
THE CHAIR: Yes. Thank you very much. You have clarified that for me. Does any member of the committee want to ask any further questions on that point? Can we then move over to Viscount Eccles?

Viscount Eccles

Submissions by Viscount Eccles

VISCOUNT ECCLES: Chairman, can I start by making an apology? When I put my petition in, I am afraid I did not realise that, at the same time, I should have put in my case for the right to be heard, and I did not do that. I put in a very shorthand petition to which, of course, counsel has referred, and so I am engaged today in filling up the hole that I left on 11 July.
Can I just also make a very brief comment on the last exchanges? I think it is true to say that Victoria Tower Gardens is a very social place, and that the community that lives close to Victoria Tower Gardens is a pretty close community. Of course, I do not understand the legal meaning of “representative”, but I think there is a lot of discourse in the gardens which is social, but also, in some sense, representative of opinions. There is the Thorney Island Society, which we all know about, and so on and so forth.
Now, please can I tell the story of the way I have got here? On 4 July, there was an election. On 11 July, only a week later, with a change in government, I put in my petition. Just before that, on 8 July, Lord Khan of Burnley had been appointed the Minister in the House of Lords. On 18 July, he approved the printing of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, and I would like to read out from those Explanatory Notes just a very short section.
THE CHAIR: Could you make it very short? We have read the Explanatory Notes several times.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I beg your pardon.
THE CHAIR: If there is something you want to highlight, that is fine, but please remember we have read your petition, we have read the Bill and we have read the Explanatory Notes. If there is a particular point you want to just highlight, that is fine.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: Thank you, Chairman. Indeed, I did write to the clerk, Mike Wright, and set out which documents I was going to rely on. Indeed, I will not take the committee’s time reading anything out unless you specifically ask me to do so.
THE CHAIR: You could just summarise the points you want to make. That would be helpful.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I think it is difficult without quoting from that.
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD: Could you just give the paragraph number?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: Yes. It is paragraph 9. The examiners considered that private or local interests are affected by the Bill, and particularly mentioned residents living close to the park. That is really all the point I want to make. At that time, it certainly seemed to me that it was pretty straightforward to demonstrate a right to be heard. However, on 2 October, of course, we received from Pinsent Masons its very long submission, and that certainly went in a different direction.
I just want to refer to one paragraph in the letter to Mike Wright, which was part of that bundle. It is on page 3, and it does say in that “property or personal interests”. From then onwards, I recognised that the challenge was going to be, “What about property and what about personal interests?”
If I could come to the first issue, which is connected to property, it is this inhabitant interest. In 1949, if I get the date right, my parents acquired a lease on 6 Barton Street, which is about 300 yards—we worked in yards at that time—from the park. Between my parents having a lease and then my wife, who is also a petitioner, she and I acquired the freehold of 6 Barton Street. We lived, on and off—and I must admit on and off, because we travelled a lot and worked in other places—in that house for 50 years, as my parents and my wife and I.
When we sold that house, which we did in 2000, we acquired an interest in St John’s House, which is a private company. Its only asset is St John’s House. It has flats and it is a shared freehold, so the residents in the flats are also tenants and shareholders. We are the tenants and shareholders in St John’s House who hold a lease on number 5 in that property. Since we gave up our second home in Yorkshire some five years ago, that is our sole residence. We are there more or less all the time, and we are registered voters in Westminster.
When I read the 118 note in the promoter’s submission of 16 October, it did not, at that time, contain all the qualifications which we have heard about this morning, and so I am basing my submission on footnote 3 in 118, which seems to make it quite clear that I qualify as an inhabitant and have a sort of prima facie right to be heard, although, of course, the substance of that right is for the committee to decide.
From there on, I would like to follow the scheme of the proposer’s submission, which is in the very thick Pinsent Masons document. In the first comment, where I said that I was a resident in 30 Smith Square, it says, “Not applicable”. I absolutely submit that I did not give any detailed information of my status in 30 Smith Square, but it seemed to me at the time to be—what shall I say?—a bit extreme to say that it was not applicable. I pulled myself together and thought, “You have got something to contend with here, and you had better do it properly”.
I also refer to frequent visits. If I may, I will come back to that on private interests, because my connection with the gardens is not a formal connection.
Going down the page, the proposer says, “In addition, the practical reality of this submission is that it is seeking to defeat the principle of the Bill”.
THE CHAIR: Can we leave that aside? I do not really want to go into the question of the principle of the Bill. That is the next stage for those petitioners who we acknowledge have standing.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: Am I correct, then, in concluding that, when the proposer says that your committee should not consider the principles of the Bill, that does not have any bearing on my right to be heard that I accept?
THE CHAIR: That is correct.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: Just as an aside, if I may, I do fully accept 4.1, 4.2 and 5 in the note put to you on the principle and scope of the Bill.
If I may come to my private interests, I have a very long-standing interest in Holocaust education. I was 14 on the day that the British troops went into Bergen-Belsen, and it was a shattering piece of news. It was the year when I took my school certificate. My housemaster at Winchester was an Anglican priest, and he had to deal with what he should say to his boys. I remember very clearly he said that, on this very difficult matter, we should take time; we should think it through; it was going to be with us for many years—all the things that I think you might expect from an Anglican priest who had had a considerable amount of time in Germany, before the war, with Protestant colleagues. That is where it started from, and I have been extremely interested all the way through.
May I come to the end? I have just recently had a granddaughter who went to Exeter University. One of her modules was Holocaust studies, and so I have had an opportunity to catch up with the way one of the younger generation has received the information and been taught. She has a great admiration for the professor who taught her.
When it comes to this Bill, which, of course, talks about a centre of learning, I think the whole aspect of education and Holocaust education, which is a very complicated matter which has moved on a very great distance since 1945, is a deeply held interest.
Can I come to the use of the park? Sometimes at the weekend, my wife says to me, “It is high time you went out”, and I say, “I will go and take a walk around the gardens”, and that is what I do. When I say I am a frequent visitor, it is not just for the purpose, for example, of coming here and going back home to Smith Square, although, of course, I do walk through the park. The park, to me, is a very important amenity. I am a country mouse, to quite a large degree, and it is a wonderful garden, whether you look at it from the narrow end or whether you look at it backwards from the broad end.
Can I also say that, just recently—and I do not want to make too much of this—two of our great-grandchildren have been to the playground, and it is a very fine playground.
That is my interest. I could go on with interests because, looking at the Bill, there is going to come a stage when whoever is in control of affairs will be handing it over to some semi-independent non-departmental public body. I have done that because I was the first chairman of Kew Gardens when it had its legislation and I had to handle the business of creating a new relationship between Kew and the ministry. I have great knowledge of how that works and what you have to think about, but I am not at all clear whether that would qualify under what I have been able to find. As a relevant private interest in the process of this—
THE CHAIR: I think that really falls under the second part, which is the scope of the Bill, because you are talking about what arrangements are going to take place once the building is erected, as between the running of the Holocaust museum and learning centre, on the one hand, and the rest of the park for the benefit of those who want to just use the park, on the other hand.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: Yes. Thank you, Chairman. I fully understand that. May I just say, on the point about an actionable situation, which has been raised by the proposer this morning, it is difficult to say whether the freehold interest in St John’s House will be affected? I would not like to claim that I have sufficient knowledge to judge that, and of course the property market goes up and down and behaves in its own way, but I think it is incontrovertible, because this whole scheme is so marred in controversy, that, if the Sir David Adjaye building were to be built, then one has to say, with some hesitation, that it might affect the properties which are very close to the gardens.
It certainly would change the lifestyle of the people who live very close to the gardens. Smith Square is pretty empty at the weekends. It does not have lots of parked cars. If the memorial and learning centre or, should I say, memorial and centre of learning—I am not quite sure which I should say—were there, if it was very popular, obviously, the circumstances in the area very close to the gardens would be completely changed.
Now, how much a house agent would have to say to a prospective buyer or how much St John’s House Ltd would have to say I do not know, but it seems to me what is true is that it will not make the property more valuable. I think, if you are being prudent, you would consider that the chances are it would make it less valuable.
Thank you, Chairman. I think that is it.
THE CHAIR: Thank you very much. Mr Katkowski, do you want to come back on any particular point?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Briefly, my Lord, yes. Thank you. In relation to property values, the petitioners are a property owner close to the land in question. In relation to property values and the ability to bring an action in private law but for the provisions of the Bill, one needs to recall, of course, that the Bill does not authorise the construction of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The Bill simply seeks to remove a statutory obstruction from whatever part of the garden is required in due course, should planning permission be granted for the project, so one just needs to bear that in mind. One fully understands why there has been this short-circuiting, if you like, and a great deal of discussion and submissions made about the project itself, but the Bill does not authorise the project, as the committee well knows.
Secondly, in summary, our position is that the petitioner has presented no evidence to demonstrate that he speaks on behalf of a substantial proportion of local inhabitants or local residents.
Finally, it is just worth reiterating that, as I previously mentioned in earlier submissions in relation to other petitioners whose right to be heard we have challenged, this committee has exercised its discretion to allow a number of societies and associations to address you in due course, those societies and associations representing amenity interests in relation to the gardens. That is a point which I would say is worth bearing in mind.
My Lord, those are, in very brief summary, the submissions I wish to make.
THE CHAIR: Thank you very much. Thank you, Viscount Eccles. We are very grateful. I will just ask the members of the committee if they have any questions. No, we do not have any further questions for you.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I just wanted to make one very short, if I might, answer to that.
THE CHAIR: Yes.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: It seems to me that, if you have a long-running situation such as we have got, if you slice what you want to do up into small slices and then seek to restrict what can be discussed, that is a way of going on.
I would like just to refer to clause 1. I just find it very difficult to accept that clause 1 does not open the door to all sorts of discussion about this because it has got practically everything in it that you would ever want. It has got “memorial”; it has got “centre for learning”; it has got “use, operation, maintenance or improvement”. Although it is in the Bill, apparently we are not allowed to talk about it. It seems to me quite odd, if I might put it that way.
THE CHAIR: Thank you very much. Very well. The next petitioner we are going to hear is Lord Sassoon. One moment while we gather everything together here. Yes, Mr Katkowski. What do you want to say by way of an opening statement or submission?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: My Lord, the same as above, the same as the submissions I have made this morning in relation to the two previous petitioners. My Lord, if it would assist for me to say it again, then I will say it again, but I suspect—
THE CHAIR: I think that Lord Sassoon has been here all morning so he has heard it twice.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Exactly, my Lord.
THE CHAIR: Unless Lord Sassoon, you would like him to say it a third time.
LORD SASSOON: No.
THE CHAIR: The position is no.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: I have reached the point of really not wanting to keep repeating myself, my Lord. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Very well. Then we will go straight to Lord Sassoon.

Lord Sassoon

Submissions by Lord Sassoon

LORD SASSOON: Thank you very much to the committee for inviting me to be here this morning. I am sorry that I had not seen paper 008 before I put my petition in. Obviously it was only submitted very recently, but, if I had seen the analysis in paper 008, I think the promoter would concede—and will, I am sure, after I have put my full evidence in front of you—but I did not put in my original petition a case that fits within paper 008 so I shall endeavour to do so now.
I am not a lawyer, but, just looking in a common-sense way at the areas of discretion which the committee has, first of all there is this question of being an inhabitant of the area. I note it is “inhabitant” for this purpose, not “resident”. The Oxford English Dictionary talks about an inhabitant as being somebody who lives in or occupies a place in the area. To be clear, I have lived for many years, as set out in my petition, in the City of Westminster. I do not currently live in the City of Westminster, but I live much closer to the Victoria Tower Gardens than many parts of the City of Westminster. The City of Westminster extends six miles. I live about two miles from the gardens. I can be in the gardens within 10 minutes.
I do, though, occupy an office in the South Front of the Palace of Westminster with a desk facing the window. Every time I look up from my desk, I look directly on to the site of the proposed memorial. The memorial will be a few tens of feet from my office and I will see it every day that I am in the Palace. I should also say that I hold a position in an organisation whose offices are on the corner of Smith Square and Dean Stanley Street. That is just to expand, I think, on what I say in my petition, as having worked for many years in different positions as well as having lived in the borough.
Not only do I look out over the monument site but, when coming from Dean Stanley Street, where I do part of my business life, as the committee will know, there is a gate into Victoria Tower Gardens straight opposite Dean Stanley Street. Why would anybody, unless you are in a desperate hurry, walk down the road, if actually you can snake around the gardens as you walk up to the Palace? I regard the view of the south façade of the Palace as one of the most glorious views in London. You see, as I am sure members of the committee know, the extraordinary array of towers and turrets of the Palace which rise above the façade. I probably should not say “which would be substantially blocked out by the memorial”, but I do. It is a glorious view. It is an opportunity to have a few minutes of calm in a place of beauty, which is very much going to be changed if this Bill goes through. I know there are other processes as well, but this Bill will enable a fundamental change to that.
I like to snake across the grass. Again, your Lordships know this, but it is incredible how the view of the Palace of Westminster changes as one zigzags across the grass and the perspective of the towers changes. It is a quiet environment not only for contemplation but actually to do some very practical things. Rather than disturb my colleagues with whom I share an office in this Palace, I often use the park as a place to quietly make telephone calls or look at papers. Of course, that would fundamentally change if this proposal goes ahead.
I would contend, my Lords, that I am, within the definition that the promoters are setting out in paper 008, an inhabitant of the area. Then there is the question, I think, about whether I am capable of representing views of inhabitants of the area. I note that the promoters’ counsel has said, if I understood it correctly, that you do not have to be some form of elected or formally appointed representative of residents of the area in order to come within the remit of the committee that is set out in that paper.
I would simply say that I believe, as a Member of this House, I am quite used to representing views of all sorts of interests where I am not formally represented or mandated to do it. As I have set out in what I believe defines me as an inhabitant of the area, I can bring perspectives of professionals, of people who live in the area, of people who work in the area, of people who use the gardens and—perhaps a relatively small constituency—of people who actually look out from either their houses or offices on to the Victoria Tower Gardens unobstructed by trees or any other impediment. I do believe, my Lords, that I might be capable of representing some views which the committee might find helpful.
I would just finally say that in my remarks I have tried to keep to a very narrow definition of what I understood by the issues of standing, but I have summarised my personal and family’s connection with the Holocaust in my petition. Unless the committee wants to ask me more about that, I would just refer it to my petition. That is all I have to say.
THE CHAIR: Mr Katkowski, anything to say?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Thank you, my Lord. Simply that you will know that it is our submission that the petitioner is not an inhabitant of the type referred to in the long‑established and consistently applied practice and precedent.
THE CHAIR: For the record, Lord Sassoon, which borough do you live in?
LORD SASSOON: I live in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I am happy to supply my address if that would be helpful to the committee.
THE CHAIR: No, that is not necessary. Committee members, do you have any questions? Thank you very much for attending this morning. I am very grateful. As I said right at the outset, we will notify everyone of our decision on standing—those who do and those who do not have standing—tomorrow afternoon.
LORD SASSOON: May I leave the committee now, if that is not discourteous?
THE CHAIR: Yes. It is a public session. You can stay or go.
LORD SASSOON: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Thank you very much. The next petitioner we are going to hear is Jardentome Ltd, and I understand that Lord Howard will be speaking in connection with this petition.
LORD HOWARD OF RISING: Good morning, my Lord. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Mr Katkowski, do you have anything to say first?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: My Lord, it will all be the same as I have previously submitted. Thank you, though, for the opportunity.
THE CHAIR: Yes, we are just dealing with standing, Lord Howard.

Jardentome Ltd

Submissions by Lord Howard of Rising

LORD HOWARD OF RISING: I speak for 11 Lord North Street. As I understand it, this morning’s meeting is about a right to be heard in due course. This, of course, ties in with the constitutional duty of this committee to be fully informed. That means that those who are affected should have the right to be heard.
The property will be very badly affected. As has been said by others, Victoria Tower Gardens is a very special place. It is a place of peace and tranquillity, which is approximately two minutes’ walk from 11 Lord North Street. It is a considerable asset to the house to be able to get to somewhere where you can pause for thought in a way that you cannot in your own house, where telephones ring and things like that happen.
During demonstrations and state occasions, roads are closed. If the Holocaust memorial comes to be built, there will be more demonstrations and more streets closed. On occasions, Lord North Street can be accessed with a vehicle only from Marsham Street on the west because the whole area is closed off. There are forecast to be a million visitors to the Holocaust memorial. Inevitably, there will be demonstrations of people who are against the memorial. There is the whole issue, at that stage, of personal safety, of you trying to get to the gardens or indeed trying to get to this House to speak in a debate or address a committee. I think that is a potential issue.
The street will go from being a quiet listed street with its original gas lamps to becoming a thoroughfare by the volume of people and traffic that will be going through. It will become something quite different, and the houses in that street, the residents and the inhabitants will be materially affected.
Parking will become an issue because there are forecast to be 11 large buses daily to visit the Holocaust memorial—where will they go? You have Smith Square, with the beautiful St John’s Church in the middle, which will simply become a parking spot unless they have somewhere a long way away. I do not know if those of you who know this area at all can think of where they might be able to pause. What will they do when Parliament Square is closed?
These things all happen frequently and the impact is already bad enough, but the impact, if you have a million visitors a year streaming through the area, will be very considerable on all the inhabitants of the area and indeed all those who work there. I will not waste the committee’s time by repeating things which I have heard others say, so I will leave my case there.
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD: Could I ask you just one question, if I might? If there is a big demonstration in Parliament Square, does that give rise to traffic of people through Lord North Street? Do they go in and out that route, or what?
LORD HOWARD OF RISING: Yes, it depends on the demonstration and how many streets are closed off. Sometimes it does not because they close off the first bit of Great Peter Street. When they do not, you do get traffic going through there. As you probably know, you have got those great steel barriers go up and people, like anywhere, filter through; they find different routes.
BARONESS SCOTT OF NEEDHAM MARKET: Thank you. I think you suggested that you split your working day between the office in Lord North Street and being here in the House. Is that right?
LORD HOWARD OF RISING: Yes.
BARONESS SCOTT OF NEEDHAM MARKET: How many other people work at Jardentome offices in Lord North Street?
LORD HOWARD OF RISING: It is highly variable. It is used for meetings. For example, this afternoon I have two separate meetings with different people there today. There is a resident housekeeper for security. On a busy day, you might get a dozen; on a non-busy day, nobody. On a very busy day, you could get 20 or 30.
BARONESS SCOTT OF NEEDHAM MARKET: Thank you.
LORD FAULKNER OF WORCESTER: Lord Howard, do you speak for other residents in Lord North Street? Have you got together and said, “I am going to be a petitioner and I will express your views”, or are you speaking for yourself and your own company?
LORD HOWARD OF RISING: I have not done so formally. I have spoken to other residents in the street and said to them, “Are you aware of what is happening?” When I have explained and said, “I am going to speak at this myself”, they said, “Oh, good. You can express our views as well at the same time”, so nothing formal, but, if you would like me to, I can go out and get you as many names as you like.
LORD FAULKNER OF WORCESTER: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: First of all, on the question of the impact on the property that is being occupied at 11 Lord North Street, is it your suggestion that its value will be affected by all of this?
LORD HOWARD OF RISING: Unquestionably. I have to tell you that is my opinion. It is not a formal thing, but inevitably it will be.
THE CHAIR: What about the use made of the gardens that you have enjoyed and those who work in or have visited the property?
LORD HOWARD OF RISING: Sorry, I missed the last couple of words.
THE CHAIR: I am interested to know what use you personally have made of Victoria Tower Gardens and the use of it made by others who may be employed by you in Lord North Street or who visit you.
LORD HOWARD OF RISING: I personally go there most days unless it is raining. Occasionally, if I am having a rather difficult time with other people, I say, “Let us go for a stroll in the gardens”, which we do. It has a wonderfully calming effect on people who are getting slightly crusty. I go there; my wife comes with me. It is a haven. You can go and lean on the parapet and look down at the Thames and clarify your mind on what you are thinking about, if you have got a knotty problem.
If they build it, you will inevitably get not only the people going there, but there is bound to be massive security. Inevitably, the whole atmosphere of the place will change, quite apart from any impact of the building itself.
THE CHAIR: Yes, thank you. Mr Katkowski, do you want to say anything further?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Just very briefly, my Lord. In relation to the question of property value and effect on property value, my Lord, just to reiterate the point about the ability to bring an action in private law, were it not for the provisions of the Bill. The last few words are important. The question is not and cannot be, “Would the construction of the project, which the Bill does not authorise, affect the property value of 11 Lord North Street or any other property in the area?” The question rather is whether or not there is any evidence to substantiate or to make good the proposition, which has not been made, that the provisions of the Bill would have some effect on property value, bearing in mind that the provisions of the Bill, in clause 2, simply seek to remove a statutory obstruction.
There is no link that has been made, let alone evidenced, between the Bill and a loss of property value. There would then be a whole wider question as to whether, even if such a link had been made, that would actually found a right to be heard, but I need not go there because the proposition fails at a much earlier point.
I am not being critical at all—I suspect it is entirely understandable—but it is all to do with this confusion between what the Bill seeks to do and what other processes in due course, once they are reactivated, seek to do; that is, the distinction between the Bill, which does not authorise the construction of a memorial and learning centre in the gardens, and the planning process in due course, which might or might not give such authorisation.
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD: Are we not entitled to have regard to the context in whichClause 1 is being put into the Bill? It is there because of what happened about the planning permission. The permission was given; it was set aside because of the clause in the 1900 Act. Had it not been for that, we would not be here, I do not suppose.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Indeed.
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD: At the very beginning of our proceedings, I think you were asked about the planning permission and I think we were invited, if my recollection is correct, to be aware of what the permission was asking for because that gives us a feel for the whole idea of what lies ahead.
We have read the report for that reason: to be informed about what is being discussed. Personally, I find it extremely helpful. That is why I say that the context of Clause 1 surely has to be taken into account.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Plainly my Lord means Clause 2. Clause 1 is in relation to expenditure on a memorial or learning centre anywhere in England. It is not restricted to Victoria Tower Gardens. Clause 2 relates to Victoria Tower Gardens.
My Lord, the context is relevant in the sense that I addressed it on the opening morning of these proceedings in my opening submissions, but, my Lord, this is a rather different point, which is whether or not there is a right to be heard. I do not accept that, in relation to the right to be heard, that wider context bears on whether there would be some actionable interference with private rights were it not for the provisions of the Bill, because one needs to focus on what the Bill is actually doing.
The wider context is relevant in a wider way because, my Lord, as you will recall, we had that discussion, or rather I made submissions and I was asked questions, about whether a Holocaust memorial and learning centre embraces the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre, and you will know that it is very much at the forefront of my submissions that the whole point of the Bill is to clear the way, so to speak, in terms of the Victorian statutory obstruction, in due course for a planning decision to be made, which has not got that issue to deal with because it would have been removed by the legislation.
My Lord, I do not accept that any of that bears upon the question as to whether or not there is a sufficient private interest here.
THE CHAIR: There are a lot of matters that you are combining in those phrases. Can we try to deconstruct them to an extent?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Yes, certainly, my Lord.
THE CHAIR: First of all, the convention in Erskine May as to the right of standing is that the property or interests of the petitioner must be directly and specially affected. You seem to be eliding now everything to do with this idea of a cause of action and property. That really, from our former discussions, is to do with what is an interest, but here what is being said is that the petitioner’s property itself—it is nothing to do with the interest—may well be devalued.
Now, leaving aside the question, “Is the evidence sufficient?” that goes to the first part of Erskine May’s description of what is required for a right of standing. That is the evidence in support of it. I do not see what a cause of action has got to do with that point. It is a separate point on what is a qualifying interest.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: My Lord, with respect, as you will know, right from the outset I am relying on the way in which the committee and Lord Walker described the proposition in relation to the right to be heard in the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill Select Committee. My Lord will recall it is in our bundle of precedents. It is page 12, paragraph 8. If I may, my Lord, the very last few words of paragraph 8 are, in my submission, the key words: there needs to be “some interference which would be actionable if not authorised by Parliament”. That formulation is wide enough and, as I understand it, deliberately wide enough to cover not only interests based on property holdings but whatever other interests there might be not related to property but which even so would be actionable—that is in private law—if not authorised by Parliament.
My Lord, frankly, all that I am doing is sticking fast to the way in which Lord Walker summarised and set out the position in paragraph 8 of the rulings of that committee, which, with great respect, seems to be entirely consistent with a great deal of learning on the subject over the centuries.
THE CHAIR: I see. The short answer to me is that you are relying upon Lord Walker.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: That is the short answer, my Lord, yes.
BARONESS SCOTT OF NEEDHAM MARKET: Can I just ask? As you know, I am not a lawyer, but, if I understood you correctly, you have said that the question of property devaluation is not a matter because it is not the Bill itself which would cause, but rather—
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Yes.
BARONESS SCOTT OF NEEDHAM MARKET: The last clause of paragraph 1 in the Explanatory Notes says, “the removal of restrictions to the siting of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre on certain land”. The Explanatory Note is making a clear link between this piece of land and the building of the site, so how could it be said that it is not the Bill that would be reducing the cost, if that is what the Explanatory Note says?
MR KATKOWSKI KC: My Lady, the Explanatory Note is simply explaining Clause 2. Clause 2 is geographically specific to Victoria Tower Gardens, but the question is, “What does Clause 2 seek to do?” What Clause 2 seeks to do is to remove the statutory obstruction in the 1900 Act, which, it has been held, prohibits the building of anything, really, in the gardens. My Lady, the Bill does not authorise the construction of this or indeed any Holocaust memorial or learning centre in the gardens. It removes the obstruction. That is the point. Perhaps it is a fine—
THE CHAIR: You are making a very, very fine distinction.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: It is a fine distinction, but it is correct, my Lord.
THE CHAIR: Basically, what it does is it opens the door. The Bill opens the door to the construction.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: My Lord, it removes an obstruction which the courts have held stands in the way of, in fact, building anything, let alone the proposed memorial and learning centre. What it would do in reality is if, as and when the planning process is reactivated, the next time round it will not be a material consideration in the next planning decision that there is a provision in a Victorian piece of legislation that says, “The gardens should be kept as gardens”. That is it. That is the net effect of it. It will not tell you whether planning permission should be granted or not because planning permission obviously rests on the consideration of a huge range of issues, not least the various considerations which many of the petitioners draw attention to.
THE CHAIR: We are veering into the second part.
LORD JAMIESON: Just flipping the conversation slightly, it is removing a protection that the park has enjoyed and, linking-wise, property owners in the area have enjoyed. That protection will be lost as part of this Bill.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: My Lord, it is a fair enough formulation to say that the statutory obstruction amounts to a protection; that is, in the sense that the gardens, the courts have held, are gardens where things should not be built.
LORD JAMIESON: That is a protection that residents, property owners, have enjoyed in the sense of that park is a protected park.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: It has been in place since 1900, yes. Whether that works through to any proven effect on property values, removing that protection, is another matter. That is the point I have made. That is the submission I have made. Asserting something is not proving it, my Lord, to put it briefly.
THE CHAIR: Right, I think we have got all that. Is there anything else anybody wants to ask from the committee? No. I do not know whether, Lord Howard, you want to come back on any of that. We have got all your points very clearly.
LORD HOWARD OF RISING: It is probably not what I should be saying, but, having listened to the very clever gentleman on my left—an artist at splitting hairs, in my view—I would say I think it is absolutely shocking, when somebody gives something to the nation, to this town, to Westminster, to remove it like that. That is my own view and probably not relevant. My apologies.
THE CHAIR: Anyway, we are extremely grateful for you coming today. Thank you very much.
LORD HOWARD OF RISING: May I be excused as well?
THE CHAIR: Of course, certainly. You may all go as you please. Very well. We have now finished the hearings we were to have this morning. We will continue with those at 2 pm, unless any of the remaining petitioners are here.
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD: No, they are not.
THE CHAIR: Very well. I think we are just dealing with Lord Strathclyde at 2 pm, who is representing himself, of course, and Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Russell of Liverpool, plus all the co-petitioners specified in his petition.
MR KATKOWSKI KC: Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Thank you very much indeed.