HC Deb 17 December 1963 vol 686 cc1016-22
3. Mr. C. Pannell

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he proposes that work shall start on the new Government buildings in Whitehall to rehouse the Foreign Office and other Departments; and what is the estimated cost.

13. Mr. Driberg

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the approximate estimated cost of the proposed rebuilding of the Foreign Office block; and if he will secure an estimate related to advanced methods of work study and in consultation with leading industrial designers and decorative artists, of the cost of modernising the interior of the existing building, including in such modernisation the roofing and adaptation of the smaller interior courtyards and the provision of proper air conditioning and heating.

Mr. Rippon

There is a great deal of preparatory work to be done and it will necessarily be some years before work can start. It is too early to give an estimate of cost.

Over the last year or two the possibilities of modernisation have been thoroughly investigated, but it is clear that no modernisation scheme would overcome certain defects which are inherent in the present building, such as the height of the rooms on the principal floor and the fenestration of rooms on the upper floors. Several million pounds could therefore be spent on producing accommodation which would still be unsatisfactory in character and insufficient for the needs of the occupants, and would not make the best use of this important site.

Mr. Pannell

It is obvious from the Minister's reply that his mind seems to be fairly made up about the external structure of the building. Will he bear in mind that the Foreign Office, from the point of view of staff accommodation, is a tawdry slum, which would hardly be tolerated outside? How does he propose to set about this? There will be changes of Government, and such things. Does he propose to set up a Standing Committee of interested Members to plan this modernisation of Whitehall, which may extend through two or three Parliaments?

Mr. Rippon

I certainly share the hon. Member's views about the working conditions in the Foreign Office. They are very bad indeed. It must also be borne in mind that many of the staff of the Foreign Office are now scattered in about nine separate buildings in the Central London area, where accommodation is perhaps even worse. I did not have in mind the setting up of a Committee of this House, and it would not be for me to do so. I appreciate the need to have regard to the area as a whole when we are making these plans for putting up new buildings.

Mr. Driberg

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that although for many of the staff the working conditions are admittedly appalling, some of those conditions could be improved without total demolition and rebuilding? For instance, the windows of which he spoke, under the name "fenestration", could easily be adapted. Has he also con- sidered that the building itself is an extremely interesting example of its period?

Mr. Rippon

I agree that the building is an extremely interesting example of its period. The Illustrated London News at the time described it as being "essentially Palmerstonian," which is perhaps an adequate description. But it is not of such outstanding architectural importance as to warrant, the expenditure of the very large sums of money which would be necessary to modernise it. Further, having carried out the modernisation, we should be left with a building which was in many ways still unsatisfactory, and we should not be making the best use of this important site.

Mr. Driberg

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of using some of the new Bridge Street block for the Foreign Office?

Mr. Rippon

Certainly some part of the Bridge Street block will be Government offices, in fact the larger proportion of it.

Sir J. Duncan

Are not we in danger of making an extremely big mess of Whitehall unless we get the Institution of Chartered Surveyors' building, the new Bridge Street block, the Foreign Office and eventually, probably, the Home Office, in one overall architectural plan? Will my right hon. Friend consider the overall picture, including the premises of the Institution of Chartered Surveyors?

Mr. Rippon

I will certainly do that. It arises in the Answer which I hope to give to Question No. 12.

Sir H. Oakshott

Will my right hon. Friend realise that, though one recognises the difficulties and inconvenience of working conditions in the present Foreign Office, this is an argument which can be pushed too far? What, for example, may happen to the Horse Guards—what may happen to the Houses of Parliament—if one talks about inconvenience? Will he realise that those of us who are reluctant to see this building demolished are not necessarily old-fashioned fuddy-duddies?

Mr. Rippon

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have no present plans to demolish the Houses of Parliament. We did consider how we could carry out a scheme which would be satisfactory. There was a proposal for an additional 40,000 square feet, mainly of attic space, but it was not good enough.

Mr. Pannell

The Minister will be aware of the very great interest of all hon. Members in this matter. Will he consider two things? One is whether we might have a debate some time after the Christmas Recess and go into the whole question of Government building, the new Bridge Street site and possibly—I am not going to use the word "demolition"—the Foreign Office, and all the proposals concerning Whitehall? In the meantime, will the Minister consider afresh—bearing in mind that his tenure of office may not be long—whether it might be a good idea to set up a long-term Committee of hon. Members of this House so as to have a continuing view of the sort of thing which we have in mind?

Mr. Rippon

Whether or not there is a debate is not a matter for me. It is a matter which must be dealt with through the usual channels, or by Questions to the Leader of the House. As I have said, I do not think that it is for me to express a view about what Committees the House should establish.

5. Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will consult the Historic Buildings Council for their views on whether the Foreign Office building, Whitehall, is of outstanding historic or architectural interest.

16. Mr. Worsley

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what discussions he had with the Royal Fine Art Commission before announcing his intention to demolish the Foreign Office building.

Mr. Rippon

I do not consider it would be appropriate to consult the Historic Buildings Council on this matter but I will, in due course, be seeking the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission on the design.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan

Why does my right hon. Friend decline to take the advice of the Historic Buildings Council when he realises that this is the body to give advice about buildings which it thinks should be preserved? Why does not that apply to him and his acitivities?

Mr. Rippon

It is not quite correct to say that I decline to accept its advice. The position is that the Historic Buildings Council is set up primarily to advise me on the exercise of my powers under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, particularly about the making of grants. That does not arise here.

Mr. Worsley

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my Question asked whether he had discussions with the Royal Fine Art Commission before announcing his decision? Would not it have been better to have had discussions before making this drastic decision? Is he aware that the manner in which he announced it has given the impression, rightly or wrongly, that he is not interested in the architectural value of the buildings under his care?

Mr. Rippon

I do not agree with the last observation of my hon. Friend. The Royal Fine Art Commission's main function is to inquire into matters referred to it by Government Departments. The proper time to consult the Commission is when there is a design to put before it.

Sir G. Nicholson

Is not my right hon. Friend running into very heavy weather quite unnecessarily? He referred just now to Palmerston. Is not he imitating Palmerston in his methods? Is he aware that an increasing number of those people who love London and its architectural beauty feel that it is likely to be severely damaged by the hastily pronounced ipsi dixit of Government Departments and that there will be increasing resentment? Is my right hon. Friend aware—he referred to fenestration—that there is such a thing as defenestration and that he should be careful?

Mr. Rippon

I would rather be compared with Palmerston than some other people who were defenestrated. This will not be done hastily, as I have tried to explain. We have indicated that we think it is necessary to demolish the Foreign Office. There will have to be the appointment of an architect and the preparation of a design. There will come the moment when there will be a design to compare with the existing buildings. It may well be that then the Royal Fine Art Commission will express its view.

Mr. C. Pannell

Is the Minister seized of the point that it may be that he will not be Minister at that time? Is he laying an obligation upon any Minister of Works to be the arbiter?

Mr. Rippon

The responsibility has to lie somewhere and it should be with the appropriate Minister of the Crown. He must consult as widely as he thinks fit. There will come a moment when whoever is Minister of Public Building and Works will have to come forward with a design. At that moment the Royal Fine Art Commission should—I think almost certainly will—express its view on the design.

7. Mr. K. Robinson

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works by what criteria he intends to select an architect for the redevelopment of the Foreign Office and Home Office site.

Mr. Rippon

The architect selected must be capable of designing a building which is an original work of art as well as being functionally adequate and in harmony with the surrounding scene. I intend to satisfy myself of his capabilities by discussion and consultation and from the evidence of his previous work.

Mr. Robinson

Is the Minister aware that on this occasion I agree with him that there is no satisfactory alternative to the demolition and reconstruction on this site, and that at any rate some hon. Members feel that there are contemporary architects who could be trusted to design a building which would at least be as worthy of this important site as the existing Foreign Office? Will the right hon. Gentleman please consider this as part of the comprehensive redevelopment of the western half of Whitehall?

Mr. Rippon

I am grateful for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I think that the second part will be answered in the Answer which I give to Question No. 12 and I do not wish to anticipate.

Mr. C. Pannell

When the Minister selects the architect will he bear in mind the work which the man already has in the pipeline, for surely we do not want someone who probably has £100 million worth of work in the pipeline, a university professorship and the rest, doing this on a sort of part-time basis? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in appointing this architect he is probably appointing a man for a life's work?

Mr. Rippon

I do not think that a university professorship in this sphere is necessarily a disqualification, but I do think that one of the factors which I must bear in mind is the kind of work an architect is at present carrying out, as well, of course, as the work he has done in the past.