HC Deb 24 July 1972 vol 841 cc1493-506

12.39 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

One does not have to be a member of the institute for psychic research to come to the conclusion that we are not going to hear very much, if anything, from the Government tonight. However, that will be nothing new, because my hon. Friend's predecessor at the Dispatch Box was not able to say very much in a similar debate months ago.

I was amazed to find that the rules of order allow one to raise on the Adjournment the same subject virtually any number of times in any Session pro- vided one can win the Ballot. So—who knows?—perhaps in the end we shall be lucky and get some answers, but I think that we need not be too depressed even if we are not able to get anything by way of answer tonight because that will be a good sign that nothing rash will be done. It was Lord Melbourne, I think, who said that when everybody was saying something must be done one could be sure that in those circumstances someone was going to do something silly. No one can accuse this Government of doing anything silly in respect of Parliament Square and Whitehall.

It would also be true to say that they have not done precisely nothing, because they have done a marvellous job in cleaning up a good many buildings under sentence of death or subject to ministerial pronouncements not long ago. That is the first question to be answered tonight: how much has been spent on cleaning and, to use the fashionable Americanism, the refurbishment of all those buildings?

Mr. Ernle Money (Ipswich) rose—

Mr. Cooke

I will give way to my hon. Friend once, so let him please say all in one go.

Mr. Money

I was wondering whether my hon. Friend would agree with one other saying of that noble Lord who was a former Prime Minister, when he said, "Heaven help the Government who meddle with art".

Mr. Cooke

I am delighted to have support from the Arnolfini from Ipswich, and I hope that with that he will rest content.

I am very pleased to see here my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. More), Cannock (Mr. Cormack), Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) and Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) because I know that they will likely want to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if the Minister has not go very much to say perhaps they may all have a chance—and also, perhaps, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who is pretty active on the Treasury Bench.

To get back to this vital matter—and it is vital—of the Willis inquiry, it has been a very long time since the inquiry took place and a lot of people would like to know what the Government's conclusions are on this. We are not going to be told tonight. However, I have a Question down to the Secretary of State on Wednesday of this week, and I give notice that this Wednesday and every Wednesday till further notice I shall have the same Question to put till he feels like answering it.

I know his difficulties because the Prime Minister the other day told us that a great study was going on about dispersal of the Civil Service, and it will not now be laid, as we had thought, by the summer holidays, perhaps not even by the Christmas holidays.

But this is really what it is all about: one has to know how many bodies one has to accommodate before making a decision on how many important buildings are under sentence of death or worse.

I would put it to the Government that there could be a better way of going about things, and to go the other way and decide which buildings we will keep and then decide how many bodies one can agreeably accommodate in them, because the laws which Professor Parkinson and others have described in some detail suggest that the more buildings there are the more people there will be in them, and the more people there are the more buildings will be needed. I would suggest that it would be better to decide how and which buildings we should keep and then see how many people we can say must fit into those buildings.

There has been the suggestion that the Foreign Office, the Home Office, and the whole of the Treasury building would have to go—

Mr. Money

Shame. Scandalous.

Mr. Cooke

My hon. Friend who is vociferous on this merely echoes the sentiments of millions of British subjects and millions of visitors from abroad. Richmond Terrace and New Scotland Yard are also threatened. Of course, it was Sir Leslie Martin who designed that dramatic ant heap of bureaucrats which covered the whole of the end of Whitehall, and much else besides.

We are not going to hear anything on that this evening, but I hope that my hon. Friend will give us some more information when he tells us how much it cost to clean all these buildings, and the Government might at least show that they are prepared to reconsider the matter. I hope they can go as far as that tonight.

Some people would say that Parliament really is going beyond its proper function in interesting itself in its surroundings at all, and that that is a matter for city planners and the rest, but I think we have reason enough to take an interest in our immediate surroundings when we look across the river and see the travesty of architecture which will be St. Thomas's Hospital. Anyone who has been in this House a year of two will remember the great number of schemes for St. Thomas's Hospital which have been shown to us at various times. Not one of those is now taking shape. That building looking like a pile of concrete dinner plates which the GLC is building between St. Thomas's and County Hall is, to say the least, a controversial one. There is one hope, in that if we got the European Parliament here we could pull down the whole lot and put a European Parliament building over there. One of our national leaders said to me if that happened we could move into the new building and the European Parliament could have this one. For anyone who is as great a European as this leading statesman to have made that remark shows a surprising lack of Europeanism, for no European Parliament could survive long in this building. But a European Parliament building on the other side of the river would clean up the landscape considerably.

To come back to this building and to Parliament Square, I have talked about dispersal, and here the nigger in the woodpile—if one may use the phrase without offending the Race Relations Board—is the Home Office. It is the odds and ends or general assistance Department. It will go on growing so long as someone fails to set a limit to it. What we must do is decide what is essential for the Home Office to have close to Downing Street in Whitehall, and send the rest of it to Stevenage, Stonehenge, or elsewhere. The one Department of State which must be close to Downing Street is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That is the one significant Department of State that we have left if we are to mean anything in Europe and the world in general. But to a large degree the Home Office can be dispersed.

There is a controversial building which might help in all this, if it were not so unpopular. That is the Queen Anne's Mansions proposal. In its present form that building is a great, glowering mass. However, Sir Basil Spence is a great enough architect to take note of the equally looming public criticism of the building, and I feel sure that he could be persuaded to redesign the top of it so that it was made less offensive. I say that much in support of having an office building there. If we do not have one, we shall not be able to save some of the older buildings which we should all like to see survive.

I make one plea for demolition. It is that the Government make no further move to build a conference centre on the Broad Sanctuary site. That should be left open. The Government should commit themselves to not allowing any further development or rebuilding of any of those institutions beginning with the Chartered Surveyors' along George Street opposite the Treasury. They are a collection of architectural junk, and the landscape would be improved greatly if they were swept away altogether. One could have a greater and finer Parliament Square prospect if the whole of it were cleared so that it was possible to see the whole of Bryden's Treasury from the centre of the square, leaving Middlesex Guildhall, which is a notable and interesting building, on an island site.

However, it would not be a traffic island if I had my way. I feel that it ought to be possible to clear the whole square of traffic in due course. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to say what the Government have been able to do recently in their discussions with various interested bodies to get a step further towards clearing Parliament Square of heavy through traffic and eventually of traffic altogether. If my hon. Friend has not much to report in that direction, perhaps he will agree that the Department of the Environment, the GLC and the Westminster City Council should meet before the House reassembles in the autumn to see what further can be done, and report to us in the House if we give him an opportunity to do so.

There are other buildings surrounding the square that I might mention. Surely it is time that we got rid of the corrugated iron roof on Westminster Abbey. We know the difficulties. But there is hope here since we were told the other night that Historic Buildings Council money is to be increased greatly and that the Church of England and the other churches are not averse to accepting some for those buildings which are national monuments. Certainly the Abbey is one of them, and it is largely given over to tourism. It is not a place of worship for much of its time. Surely we should see to it that at least that part of the Abbey which is on view to the public in the square is cleaned up. St. Margaret's, Westminster, which achitecturally is most undistinguished outside, could do with a great deal of work on it. Now that the trees have been cut down, it does not show up in a very good light. I hope my hon. Friend will give some thought to that.

Abbey House, which is not a very beautiful building, is to be rebuilt, fortunately not by a nationally known achitect. Therefore, perhaps we may get some quiet, unobtrusive redevelopment at this end of Victoria Street.

I hope we shall see Central Hall cleaned up, and Middlesex Guildhall could do with cleaning as well as the Abbey.

The people who own these buildings have their difficulties. Perhaps there should be a penalty for the rich to make them clean their buildings and for the poor they should be helped with a certain amount of public money.

I believe the Church Commissioners fine building was threatened by the Martin scheme. I hope there are no plans to demolish it, because it encloses the view on that side.

I mentioned traffic. I hope it will not be forgotten that the House of Commons is making its contribution. The underground car park which is being excavated in New Palace Yard could be linked with many other underground car parks and roads to get rid of a lot of the service as opposed to the heavy through traffic.

I must break off for a moment to mention the proposed new parliamentary building. There will no doubt be a debate in the House, but I do not envisage it taking place before November. Certainly there will not be time before we go away for a brief Summer Recess. There will be work to do when we come back and pressing matters to attend to. Therefore, I cannot see this domestic matter—that is the way the House looks at it—being dealt with in debate much before November.

In view of the reception which the winning design has received and the much qualified approval which the Select Committee gave to it—I am a member of that Committee so I followed it with great interest—will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend—I am sure there is no technical difficulty—to commission a number of other sketch designs which might occupy that important site? It would not delay matters one bit if the House was given a number of other designs to look at alongside the winning design from the architectural competition. If the House decided to proceed with the winning design it would create no delay at all. If the House decided that one of the other sketch designs was worth exploring further, it would delay matters; but, looking at it as a percentage of the time necessary to clear the site and get it built and occupied, it would not be very long.

I do not want to go into the details of the Select Committee's Report, but I hope the House will pay attention to the Amendment, supported by five members of the Committee, which appears on page IX, which sets out in detail the reservations which the Royal Fine Art Commission, the GLC, the Westminster City Council and the Minister for Housing and Construction had about the appearance of the building. I believe the appearance of this new parliamentary building is of paramount importance. It is far more important than whether it is domestically convenient for those who are to use it. Any building when finished, if it takes 10 years to build, will be out of date on the inside. However, the outside appearance, which may be there for a century, will be seen by millions. The Committee, on the whole, was not so happy with the exterior appearance of the building. I believe much could be done to improve the winning design, and we should also have alternatives to look at.

My hon. Friend will probably recall that one of the great things about the Duke of Wellington was that he understood the technique of the use of the reverse slope: that one had one's forces concealed behind the crest of the hill and they were ready if needed. Hon. Members who are here now may be regarded as personifying the Duke of Wellington, but there are plenty of forces on the other side of the hill who can be marched into battle as soon as may be. Whitehall is the most historic street in London, Parliament Square is the heart of the Commonwealth, and both could be enhanced by some courageous decisions taken after the careful thought which must now be taking place in Government circles. We can contain our impatience a little longer if the final result is worthy of this immensely important site and if the final result is worthy of this immensely civilised Government.

I imagine that my right hon. Friend is not here tonight because he has still not achieved agreement with his many right hon. Friends whose Departments are concerned and interested, but I hope that it will not be long before he can stand at the Dispatch Box and unfold his grand design for Parliament Square and Whitehall.

12.56 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) for his informed and learned speech on this subject. I hope that he will forgive me for having risen to reply now, but the length of his speech requires me to give certain answers and I require time for that.

My hon. Friend's concern and knowledge about the enhancing of the Whitehall area has won wide respect. I was grateful to him for the complimentary reference which he made to the stone cleaning work which is being carried out. This work will do more to transform Whitehall than anything done in the last 50 years. Work has now been completed on the Old Public Offices, Horse Guards and the Old Admiralty Building. A good start has been made on Bryden's Government offices, and I should like to tell my hon. Friend that the total cost of the present programme of stone cleaning in Whitehall and central London is £500,000.

I cannot answer all my hon. Friend's questions, but he raised the matter of Queen Anne's Mansions. My colleagues and I are considering the criticisms that have been made of the design and bulk of the proposed new Queen Anne's Mansions building in the light of the fact that planning permission was given for it in April, 1969, after the previous Administration had decided not to intervene.

My hon. Friend raised the matter of traffic in Parliament Square. The House will recall that the original concept of the Martin-Buchanan plan was a traffic-free precinct around Parliament Square. This was to be achieved by a north-south tunnel taking embankment traffic along the river fronting the Palace of Westminster, and by an east-west route based on a widening and straightening of Horse-ferry Road. This latter proposal was rejected after careful consideration because the cost and the amount of property demolition required would be prohibitive.

I know that the House attaches importance to a satisfactory solution of the traffic problem, particularly in Bridge Street, and my right hon. Friend hopes shortly to submit to the Services Committee a further report by a working party composed of experts from the local authorities and his own Department on the road problem. I should not, however, like to encourage any hopes of a quick or easy solution.

Mr. Robert Cooke

I hope that the intention is not merely to widen Bridge Street to let more traffic through.

Mr. Eyre

I cannot add to what I have said, but my hon. Friend will be glad to know that this study is proceeding and the proposals will shortly be submitted to the Services Committee.

I know that my hon. Friend is familiar with some of the more recent background to this subject which stems largely from the acceptance in 1965 by the previous Administration of the Martin-Buchanan Report on the future of Whitehall. Sir Leslie Martin made his report on the assumption that the whole of Whitehall south of Downing Street and Richmond Terrace would be cleared, and that he would also be allowed a fairly free hand in the Parliament Square and Millbank areas. It was apparent that Sir Leslie's scheme would take many years to implement, and initially work was set in hand for only three of the stages which he suggested might be adopted—the new parliamentary building on the Bridge Street site, the new Government offices on the Richmond Terrace-New Scotland Yard site and the redevelopment of Broad Sanctuary.

Following the Martin report it was announced that a Commonwealth architectural competition would be held for the design of the parliamentary extension. My right hon. Friend announced on 10th December that the winning design had been selected by the distinguished panel of assessors but that he was postponing, on their advice, making an announcement and publishing their report until the seven final stage designs with appropriate models could be exhibited in a way which enabled the layman to appreciate the competing designs. As is known, this exhibition was held in Westminster Hall in March and was visited by 14,000 people.

The Services Committee have now made their report on the winning design and the next step will be for the House to consider the report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fully appreciates the importance of harmonising any redevelopment of the neighbouring sites with the design that the House selects for the parliamentatry extension. I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend to consider the suggestion by my hon. Friend tonight.

The plans of the former Ministry of Public Building and Works to clear the Richmond Terrace-New Scotland Yard site completely and erect an office building to house 4,000 staff were already well advanced when public opposition to the demolition of historic buildings led the previous Administration to hold a public inquiry into the proposals. The inspector, Mr. Harold Willis, QC, reported his findings on 30th November, 1970, and I recognise that we have not been quick in reaching a decision—rightly so, in my opinion, for whatever we do here will affect this key area of London for at least a century.

At the inquiry emphasis was laid on the need to preserve the historic buildings on the site. Arguments of this kind are never easy to resolve, and in this case the implications on the machinery of government and my right hon. Friend's responsibilities for housing civil servants essentially required to serve in Whitehall add to the complexities. Due attention must also be given to the amenities and facilities to be provided for tourists. In short, Mr. Willis' report raises many aspects which have implications beyond the immediate treatment of the site itself.

When Sir Leslie Martin made his report his recommendations called into question the proposed treatment of the Government's vacant Broad Sanctuary site. The intention had been to erect offices and a small conference centre on the site. Sir Leslie, however, considered that the area should be redeveloped comprehensively and that an appropriate use for the site would be one major building of international significance. As a result a public inquiry was held by Sir Robert Matthew in 1966. In accepting his main recommendations in 1967 the Government announced that the area would be re-planned comprehensively in consultation with the local authorities and with the institutions which already occupy part of the site to provide a government conference centre and new headquarters for the institutions.

Broad Sanctuary, however, is closely related to the southern end of Whitehall and the Government consider it essential that they should look comprehensively at the whole area. My right hon. Friend therefore decided that planning in consultation with the institutions should be suspended pending the outcome of the decisions on the southern end of Whitehall. But, whatever plan is adopted for the redevelopment of this area, there is no reason why the Middlesex Guildhall should be demolished since the building is worthy of preservation. Hon. Members have made very clear their views on that.

Public opinion may well have superseded the recommendations of earlier reports. It is possible, for instance, that the principle of cleared sites on which Sir Leslie Martin worked would no longer be generally acceptable. Sir Robert Matthew's recommendation that there should be a comprehensive development in Broad Sanctuary, although this would front closely on to the Abbey and Bryden's new Government offices, may not find favour nowadays. The Government accept that the development of these areas is interrelated and we are looking at the problems together. There would be no guarantee, however, that a fresh study on the lines of Martin's would not also fall victim to changing public tastes, and therefore the delay which a further study would cause would not be justified.

I am afraid that I cannot give the House more definite information about the future of Whitehall at this time. I am sure that the debate has advanced our thinking on Whitehall, and my right hon. Friend will take note of points which my hon. Friend has raised. I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is better to take time to reach the right decision rather than make the wrong decision in haste.

1.4 a.m.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I should like to put four points very quickly to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

First, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) was absolutely right when he castigated the pile of plates being put up by the GLC on the roundabout near that charming public house called "The Pill Box". Until this horrible thing went up, every visitor approaching London from Kent up the Old Kent Road had a superb view of Big Ben, and if I was late at least I knew the time. Now it is impossible due to that nauseating pile of plates.

Secondly, one of my hon. Friends who is a junior Minister in another Department gave me a most unsatisfactory and untruthful answer when I asked him in a Written Question whether he would take steps to stop the traffic turning into the Government offices from Great George Street because it adds to the traffic congestion. I apologise for having forgotten which of my hon. Friends it was. He said that in his view it did not add to the congestion. The chap can never have been in Great George Street in his life.

Thirdly, some years ago one of my hon. Friend's predecessors promised faithfully that those nauseating, bossy little notices spattered about the area saying "Keep off the grass" would be removed. Their only useful purposes are for dogs to lift their legs against and lazy gardeners to cut badly around, leaving a nasty little tuft of grass which the dogs make worse. I hope that my hon. Friend will take steps to honour his predecessor's pledge.

Fourthly, in the far distant past this honourable House met up and down the land, at Gloucester, Oxford, York—all over the place.

Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow)

And Acton Burnell.

Mr. Wells

Maybe. Anyway, this honourable House met up and down the land and conducted its business in those days with honour, dignity and efficiency. Today we proliferate. We get more wages, more secretaries and more free travel, yet we are no more use to the nation, the Commonwealth or the world than our worthy predecessors were. The sooner the new building is quashed, the better.

1.6 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Cannock)

It is about time we had a proper answer on Richmond Terrace and New Scotland Yard. It would be an act of monumental folly to destroy those wonderful buildings. It would also be an act of monumental folly to allow the terrible piece of ugliness proposed to go across the road from this House. It is not necessary. If the policy of dispersal referred to by my hon. Friend is put into practice, we might put a few Members into the Treasury and sent the Treasury to Milton Keynes. That would serve a more useful purpose. I urge that something shall be done to prevent that grotesque monstrosity going up. I once quoted to my hon. Friend something said by Lord Clark, that one judges the spirit of an age not by the speeches of the Minister of Housing but by the buildings that go up in his time. We could have a marvellous exception to prove the rule if my right hon. Friend could say once and for all. "That thing shall not pass".

Mr. Money

And no more Marsham Streets.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past One o'clock.