HC Deb 19 May 1966 vol 728 cc1729-40

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

11.3 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler (Wood Green)

On the first really spring-like day this year I was walking down Whitehall when I realised with a sudden shock that the incomparable vista of that street was to be completely destroyed by the Whitehall Plan of Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Buchanan, because the pleasant sweep of Whitehall depends on the right widths of the street, on the delightful facade of the buildings on either side, and on the opening out of the street into Parliament Square with its view of the Houses of Parliament and the other buildings on the other side of the Square.

This was a personal feeling which I still have about the plan. A great many experts—planners, architects, traffic engineers, and others with specialised knowledge—have expressed doubts about some aspects of the plan and have given very cogent arguments for a reappraisal of some of the aspects of the Whitehall Plan as a whole. There has been no opportunity, and so far we have been promised no opportunity, of any kind of public inquiry into the plan as a whole and the policies that lie behind it. One of the most important aspects of the plan about which there is a good deal of concern among the public and the experts is the fact that it will concentrate at the southern end of Whitehall an additional 10,000 civil servants working in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster.

It is right to ask whether this is good policy in the first place, or whether it would not be better to disperse civil servants further afield, or even to consider the suggestion which has been made many times—and I was one of the first to make it many years ago—of a new administrative centre right away from London, in the north of England or in some other part of the country.

These may be far-flung considerations, but they are very relevant to the Whitehall Plan and to this concept of making the area into an administrative centre, centring on this building. It is important that when the Government accept a plan which concentrates office development in this way it should be subject to some kind of public scrutiny. Otherwise, it would appear that the Government are riding roughshod over their own declared policy of dispersing office population from the centre of London. There is also the important question of the offices in other parts of London that are to be vacated by these incoming civil servants. We have had no indication of how their re-letting as offices is to be prevented, if it is to be prevented at all.

These are important policy considerations. The removal of traffic from the Parliament Square precinct, to make it into a pedestrian precinct, will have very serious repercussions on other parts of Central London. The Greater London Council has made it clear that it is concerned about the effect this may have on traffic south of the river. It will obviously have some very serious effects on traffic coming across Lambeth Bridge, and traffic to the west of the Parliament Square area. It has been recognised that it will affect traffic in Trafalgar Square, but the repercussions of this removal of traffic will be very widespread.

It will be very interesting to see how the Greater London Council's review of the traffic situation, and the road problem in Central London, lines up with the suggestions that have been made in the Whitehall Plan, and one would expect some opportunity for discussing this particular aspect of the plan. It is unwise to deal with these matters piecemeal, and it would seem that the present inquiry, which we welcome, that is being held into the Broad Sanctuary site is uncovering, as it goes on day by day, the difficulty of dealing with that part of the scheme before we deal with the scheme as a whole—and deal with it in public, with an opportunity for expert opinion to be expressed.

There is also the problem of the cost. When it is recognised that the riverside tunnel would cost at least £10 million; that the enlargement of the Lambeth Bridge would cost about £4 million; and that the cross route would cost from £40 million to £50 million; the estimate of the former Minister of an initial cost for the whole scheme of £100 million appears to be rather on the small side—large though it is.

Who is to be responsible for the financial side of this traffic re-arrangement? The Greater London Council has made it quite clear that it could not meet this enormous cost in relation to all its other roadworks. If it is to be the Government's responsibility, then this should be clearly stated, and there should be an opportunity for discussing it, for quite clearly there is so much involved in this plan.

I have mentioned just a few points of policy. I have indicated the enormous cost and, looking ahead to the future, one wonders whether all future possibilities have also been taken into consideration. Presumably before the scheme gets under way, it is possible that decisions will have been taken about the use of private motor cars in the Central London area as a whole which might completely change our concept of the traffic-free precinct in Parliament Square, because this might not be necessary.

There is also the possibility of a change in the method of transport. All kinds of transport changes are being proposed. Have these been taken into consideration? There is the cost of taking buses out of this area and rerouteing them. Many people think that in any event that is undesirable. There are many aspects that need decision.

Unfortunately, because this is a Government plan which the Government have accepted, they are above the normal planning processes. They will not be subject to public inquiry as any other planning authority would be. They did not need to consult, and they did not consult, the appropriate planning authorities, the Greater London Council and the Westminster City Council, before they decided to accept the plan.

Since the plan was first put before the public, however, and since it was welcomed, as I am sure we all welcome it, for its scope and imagination, some of these difficulties have been put forward and it has become increasingly clearer that a number of questions must be answered and a number of policy points need to be debated.

Since we have a new Minister and, one would hope, a new look at the Ministry, I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to this debate on behalf of the Minister, will be able to indicate that the Ministry has had second thoughts about this matter and will make arrangements for what I call a full public inquiry, which would be the forum to discuss the policy aspects of the whole Whitehall Plan before it proceeds further.

The area, the implications and the policies are of such great public importance that I very much hope that my hon. Friend will be able to indicate that the Ministry has had second thoughts and will do as I suggest, or, at least, will consider doing this and, emerging from the present limited inquiry, will proceed to something much larger where the whole country can see and hear the issues debated and the people can feel that they are part of the decisions which are being made.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

The Opposition regard the future of Whitehall as a matter of great national importance. That was why the Martin-Buchanan Report was commissioned in April, 1964. This is also a matter of tremendous national interest. Indeed, there was even a television programme entitled "A pity about the Abbey", which some hon. Members will have seen.

The limited public inquiry now taking place will, no doubt, be of considerable value, although we take the view that it would be as well to explore the whole matter in this House. The Opposition would like to have a full debate on the whole matter as soon as possible. I hope that the Government will be able to arrange this. Certainly, as a result of the present inquiry, there will be many points which we shall have to explore, and many hon. Members will wish to take part. My hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), who is present tonight, would, no doubt, have valuable views on this matter, which affects his constituency particularly, but he could hardly deploy them in the limited time available to us tonight.

Many vital aspects concerning the future of Whitehall are still matters for debate. Even though the prime consideration for the future of the Foreign Office must surely be the efficient working of a great Department of State, there may still be found to be ways by which the best of this group of buildings can be preserved for the future.

The Martin-Buchanan Report suggests that the Brydon Treasury buildings should be swept away, and this, surely, is a matter for debate. We would be interested to know the Government's view about this. The Middlesex Guildhall, another fine and interesting building in this area, has a doubtful future, and we should like a chance to debate this matter. At present we see the new House of Commons building across the road in Bridge Street to be the responsibility of a Commonwealth architect, the Government offices in Parliament Street and Bridge Street to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Works, and the Brydon building, its future hanging in the balance. None of this ties up with Martin-Buchanan, so there is plenty here to discuss and for the House to debate.

Then, surely, there is the question of the traffic which is probably of greater public interest than any of the debates over the future of the buildings. Here, surely, a start could be made straight away to get rid of some of the through traffic. We take the view that the suggestion of the road along the Embankment passing the river front of the Palace of Westminster is one of the best proposals of the Martin-Buchanan Report, although we should be slow to do damage to the appearance and amenities of this building. We should like to see an exploration into the possibilities of lowering this road well below the bed of the river so that the terrace of the House of Commons is not affected and the enjoyment of the public adversely disturbed.

Therefore, although we must be cautious in this matter, the fullest possible investigation will obviously produce the best results. We should like a debate in the House and the widest possible inquiry to be made outside.

11.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. James Boyden)

I appreciate very much indeed the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) gave me notice of the points that she intended to raise and the very pleasant manner in which she has raised them tonight.

One of the remarkable things about the Martin-Buchanan Plan for Whitehall is the very large consensus of agreement which exists about its general objectives. It is an imaginative concept. Perhaps what is not quite so well appreciated is the expertise which is being used and developed in working to achieve the general objectives. I think everybody in the House would agree with that.

I do not think Marston Moor for Parliament is on. The Prime Minister a few days ago gave a rather firm answer on that and, great as is my enthusiasm for the North, I do not think that in my present position I have any right to say anything about it. We must confine ourselves to the relatively narrow field of the Martin-Buchanan proposals.

I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend about the lack of opportunity for public discussion. There has been a great deal of discussion on the general objectives for some time. In the London Development Plan of 1962, which is now part of the initial development plan for Greater London, the area between Trafalgar Square, Smith Square, St. James's Park and the river is zoned as a Government and Commonwealth precinct. The written statement expresses the intention … to preserve the traditional character of the area and to secure, so far as development control permits, that development should be principally for Crown, Government and Commonwealth uses, ecclesiastical uses, clubs and uses ancillary to those uses. The G.L.C. in its observations, I think on 3rd May, gave a fairly strong endorsement to the general objectives. It said on page 3: The uses within this area"— that is, the area of Parliament Square and Whitehall— and the immediate surroundings are associated with three main activities—State occasions, Government use and public and tourist use. The intention of establishing this area as a precinct free from through vehicular traffic is clearly welcomed on planning and civic design grounds alone"— and here comes the slight dissent; I say it is slight, although I do not know whether the G.L.C. thinks it is slight— although in a later section of this report we express doubts about the road proposals to secure this end. I do not disguise the fact that there are a number of detailed proposals involved, but I should have thought that the G.L.C., the Press and the many other interested parties would have thoroughly approved the general objectives. I do not think [...] can be said that there has not been plenty of opportunity for discussing the proposals leading up to the plan and the Martin-Buchanan Plan itself. One can take examples from some of the most important aspects. The question of the new building for Parliament has been discussed on several occasions at length in the House, and some decisions have been taken. Of course, as the House knows, there are discussions going on in the appropriate Committee of the House and with the Ministry of Public Building and Works to work out what we, the clients—if I may put myself in that position—want in relation to a Parliamentary building. This is one of the good and new things—

Mr. Robert Cooke

The hon. Gentleman will recall that the House turned down the Holford scheme and the Gothic scheme, if I may so call it. There are doubts about the present scheme, and it does conflict with Martin-Buchanan.

Mr. Boyden

It is questions of that sort which are being and will be resolved by co-operative discussion. They will be discussed democratically in the Committee which will work in conjunction with the Ministry or Public Building and Works. Our rôle in the matter will be to assist the Committee. We have more facilities for technical consideration than, perhaps, the Committee itself has, in ascertaining what is wanted by Parliament. Obviously, this will be a matter of interest here in the House of Commons, and I think that this particular aspect is an example of something better discussed—I hope that my hon. Friend will agree—in a Parliamentary Committee and on the Floor of the House, if necessary, rather than by public inquiry.

The same applies to the Foreign Office. The previous Government took a firm decision to pull the Foreign Office down, and the present Government have confirmed that decision. Naturally, the bodies concerned with planning will be consulted about the building. My hon. Friend suggested that the Government were not consulting planning authorities as others would, but I feel that she should, perhaps, reconsider that view. It is the general policy of Government Departments to consult, and in this case there has been no difference.

There have been very many proposals as to how to deal with the Foreign Office. On each occasion there has been a shift or a new idea has come up. The latest proposal of the preservationists is to leave the frontage overlooking the Park. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) reiterated the decision of the previous Government, and I must say that, as far as I am personally concerned, I am very much in favour of it.

There was a debate in the other place on 22nd December, and the Government spokesman again reaffirmed the decision to pull down the Foreign Office, for a variety of reasons. I shall not give those reasons now. One thing I liked in that debate was the contribution by Lord Caccia, who ought to know about the Foreign Office, having spent a long time in it. The noble Lord told a story of an American ambassador who used to come to the Foreign Office, and he was heard to remark to the lift man, "I would have you know that in my country trees grow faster than your elevator moves". That was the situation in 1929. I do not know whether the lifts have been improved in speed, but the generally poor conditions in the Foreign Office have persisted since those days, with only slight modifications. Firm decisions have been taken on this, and although I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have another look at the situation, we see no reason at all why there should be any further general discussion about it at the moment.

In general decisions are delayed by a public inquiry. In planning inquiries, people who have a vested interest, an interest which they are perfectly entitled to, come along to air their views. They defend their narrow point, very often with the assistance of expensive counsel to put the case. A matter such as this, however, is a matter of high policy for the Government and Parliament to decide, is really not appropriate for further public discussion of the sort to which, I think, my hon. Friend referred.

The two councils—Westminster City Council and the G.L.C.—were sent copies of the plan on 20th July, and the Town Clerk of the City of Westminster replied when he had the plan: I expect that the City Council will share the Government's views on the proposals. I have suggested that the G.L.C., although it has some detailed criticisms—most of which will be discussed with it—generally approves of the plan.

Traffic plans are under intensive consideration in the Ministry of Transport and the G.L.C. A feasibility study is going on into the tunnel under the river. These are very much matters of technical appraisement, but they are of concern to the citizens of London, the citizens of Great Britain and, for that matter, citizens of the world. The solutions should he studied technically and be discussed by the people who have particular democratic responsibility for them and not in terms of a public inquiry going over the whole ground.

My hon. Friend raised the question of office accommodation and of concentration of 10,000 civil servants in the Whitehall area.

Mrs. Joyce Butler

An additional 10,000.

Mr. Boyden

Yes; 10,000 more. So far the outline plans do not propose to concentrate quite that number. Ten thousand is the absolute maximum. In any case, the architects have not even started planning buildings. The actual numbers will he discussed in the light of the clients' brief which is being prepared—for the Foreign Office, the Parliament building and the Government office. The architects will then be able to work on the plans.

Settling the problem seems less a matter of public inquiry than a matter of Government policy, debatable in the House of Commons, taking into account the Board of Trade policy for offices and so on. My Department has an interest here. We like to build new offices on Crown property because it is the cheapest way of doing it. We also like to get civil servants out of London because that is cheaper. There are considerable pressures on us not to concentrate civil servants too much in the centre of London. But, of course, it may be more economical and efficient and in no way against the policy of the Greater London Council or the City of Westminster to have a bigger concentration immediately in Whitehall and a thinner concentration in other parts.

My point is that this is part of Government dispersal policy, of Government office policy, and is better resolved by discussion between Government Departments, in this House, and by consultation with such bodies as the Greater London Council. The detailed points which they raise are the traffic difficulties, those which my hon. Friend made—which will all be considered carefully. Indeed, they are under active discussion at the moment. The other road proposals, which stem from the proposals for the narrower area which we are discussing, are also under consideration by the traffic authorities.

I wanted to say a word about such inquiries as could be helpful to the process of general planning as distinct from an overall public inquiry. My hon. Friend referred to the one which concluded yesterday, on the Broad Sanctuary area. There was a similar public discussion in 1961 about the Bridge Street and Richmond Terrace area.

Both these public inquiries are the normal planning inquiries, the purpose of which is to give the ordinary citizen—the property owner—an opportunity of putting his case to an inspector of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who then reports to the Minister. There are areas within the area covered by the plan where it would be useful and proper for an inquiry to be held—for example, the area behind Westminster Central Hall, the area along the line of Great Peter Street taking in part of the Victoria Tower Gardens. I do not know whether my hon. Friend would react violently to a development across Victoria Tower Gardens; it would probably ruin the view.

All this is a long way off, but these are the sorts of area which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West had in mind when he agreed to the inquiry which has just taken place, and made suggestions for other inquiries of a similar sort. The Civic Trust came to see the Minister some time ago on the question of a general inquiry. In the discussions that followed the Civic Trust and the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) accepted the general indication that these narrow inquiries, involving private property and private views, and which went into the periphery of the scheme, were the suitable inquiries. They were prepared to forgo the idea of a general public inquiry which my hon. Friend has raised tonight.

The matter has been discussed for a long time and there is general agreement about the plan. The Martin-Buchanan Plan is an excellent general concept for the development of the area. There will be the fullest co-operation, discussion and technical collaboration on all points, to get the very best conspectus of view on the situation. On the question of individual planning inquiries, my right hon. Friend the previous Minister has said that these will take place, and I see no reason to think that the new Minister will in any way dissent from that view. I hope that what I have said will go some way towards satisfying my hon. Friend. I thank her very much for raising the subject.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.