HC Deb 19 July 1965 vol 716 cc1117-22

3.31 p.m.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Charles Pannell)

Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Colin Buchanan were appointed in the spring of 1964 as consultants to advise on the redevelop- ment of the Whitehall area. Their reports are published today and are available in the Vote Office.

The Government welcome these reports and regard them as the broad framework within which future development of building in Whitehall and Parliament Square areas should take place. They are in sympathy with the concept of a precinct in and around Parliament Square from which traffic not serving the area should be gradually withdrawn.

The Government take the view that plans for removing traffic from Parliament Square must be looked at in the context of London traffic as a whole. They are inviting the Greater London Council, in its study of London traffic problems, to give urgent consideration to the proposed riverside road tunnel between the Victoria Embankment and Lambeth Bridge and also to the Horse-ferry Road route; and then to examine the proposal for a primary road network in Central London.

The Government accept in principle the proposal for a new building for Parliamentary purposes on the Bridge Street site and recognise the need to develop the remainder of the site for Government offices as a necessary part of the redevelopment of the Foreign Office site. Planning will be set in hand as soon as possible. In general, Government building in Whitehall will be planned in accord with the general principles set out by Sir Leslie Martin. Arrangements for execution will be made in the light of the Government's policy of restricting the growth of office employment in London.

Further study will be given to the remaining building proposals in the report.

Implementation of Sir Leslie Martin's plan will not increase the number of civil servants in London. The Government are determined to maintain a policy of dispersing civil servants from London. But economy and efficiency demand that those who must remain in London should be concentrated in Government-owned buildings around Whitehall and ultimately removed from expensive leasehold property scattered in various parts of Central London.

On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I thank Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Buchanan for their imaginative proposals. The redevelopment of this area, which is the heart of the Commonwealth, may not be completed in our generation. It must be governed by economic priorities. But we must now lay down the disciplines within which the development may be carried out.

Mr. Ramsden

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House would wish to be associated with the thanks which he has expressed to Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Buchanan? As the Minister said, they were appointed by Mr. Rippon.

Is the Minister aware that the House as a whole will wish to study this Report before making any further detailed comments on it? In the meantime, I have two short questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman. First, he referred to removing traffic from Parliament Square. Would he care to amplify what is in his mind as to where it should go, and, in particular, his reference to the riverside road tunnel? Secondly, what exactly does he mean by his reference to the redevelopment of the Foreign Office? Is it the Government's intention to demolish the Foreign Office altogether, or to reconstruct it within the present facade?

Mr. Pannell

As the right hon. Gentleman said, it will be necessary to study the Report, and I expect that Parliament will wish to come back to it. If it were possible to build the riverside tunnel it would take 40 per cent. of the traffic off Parliament Square now. It is worth remembering that since 1947 traffic around Parliament Square has increased by 175 per cent., and that if the present rate continues it will double again by 1977, which is a position we cannot tolerate. If I do not say more than that, I hope that we can come back to it. As regards the Foreign Office, a decision on this was taken by the last Government, and we stand by that decision.

Mr. Strauss

I agree that it is impossible to question the Minister on the details of the Report until we have had time to study it. Can he say what opportunity he will give Members who are interested in the subject to question him, and perhaps Sir Leslie Martin, on the details of the Report and to discuss it with them?

Mr. Pannell

I appreciate that this puts the Press in a difficulty, because there has been no pre-release to the Press. It will not be released until four o'clock, because I thought that this being a matter in which Parliament was so intimately interested, and on which at least three Select Committees had been appointed in advance, Members should be informed about it first. But there will be a fairly heavy Press conference this afternoon across the road at Vickers Building, and for Members themselves we are convening a meeting in Westminster Hall at 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday week to which Members of both Houses will be invited. Sir Leslie Martin, and a representative of Professor Buchanan, who is out of the country at the moment, will be present, and we hope that with slides and films we can give the whole subject a thorough going over then.

Mr. Lubbock

Is the Minister aware that we, too, wish to be associated with the thanks which he has expressed to Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Colin Buchanan.

Does this Report mean that the Gothic plans which we saw earlier have been interred? Secondly, is the Scotland Yard building included in the redevelopment of the Bridge Street site to which the Minister referred? Thirdly, as office accommodation in Whitehall will be concentrated into a smaller area by the redevelopment of these unsuitable old buildings, will it be possible to provide any residential accommodation in the redevelopment of Whitehall as a whole, and, in particular, residential accommodation for Members?

Mr. Pannell

I should have thought that the last matter was a suitable subject for consideration by a Select Committee of the House, because I have no doubt that a Select Committee will have to consider certain aspects of this Report.

With regard to the second point about Scotland Yard, perhaps I might tell the hon. Gentleman that Sir Leslie Martin considers that this is a building of some worth and should be retained.

As for the question of the Gothic style, I was a member of the Committee which recommended that previously, and perhaps I should make an apologia. The Gothic style was considered when we recommended a building contiguous to this place, but I do not think it was ever envisaged that if we built across the road we would have another Gothic building. I would only say—and this is a trifle off the beat—that in dealing with the residents of the Palace of Westminster Members should come first. We are building over Star Chamber Court, and trying all we can to increase accommodation for Members near the Chamber. There will come a time when we will have to decide who else goes out of this building.

Mr. Carol Johnson

As my right hon. Friend has indicated a rather lengthy time scale for this massive redevelopment, can he say whether any priority is to be given to the provision of additional accommodation for Members of this House on the Bridge Street site?

Mr. Pannell

My hon. Friend will understand that the Bridge Street site is a prestige site, in the heart of the Commonwealth. If he studies the plan he will see that it is the keystone on which all the rest of the plan escalates—to use a fashionable word. We have to create the sort of accommodation there for which we start bringing people over from the Foreign Office and such places. We have to have an architectural appraisal of the Bridge Street site. As to what can be done for Parliamentary building, and with regard to offices, I am not in a position to go further than what I have said about that site at the moment, except to say that it has priority over everything else in the plan.

Sir R. Thompson

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the buildings which will fall within this Parliamentary precinct, as I understand it is to be, will all have to conform to a certain central architectural discipline in order to be rebuilt at all, whether or not they are in Government ownership? Is that the intention?

Mr. Pannell

No. They will fall into the general disciplines of a plan but I assume that different architects will be appointed from time to time and that there will be some sort of glory and magnificence in variety.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot do any more building now.