WHITEHALL AND PARLIAMENT SQUARE

HC Deb 20 November 1972 vol 846 cc1047-58

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

This debate concerns the future of Whitehall and Parliament Square, and particularly the people who work there and those from all over the world who have the right to visit, and, indeed, the pleasure of visiting, this historic part of London. I know that the dispersal of some of those who work here has an important bearing on the future of the existing buildings, as does the disposition of the hundreds of thousands and, indeed, millions of visitors who will want to see them. This also affects well-mannered newcomers among these buildings—for newcomers there must be.

There are parts of this area which are so historic and familiar that they cannot willingly be destroyed. My hon. Friend will know of the intense public feeling about a number of these buildings, and, indeed, of the strong feeling which exists in the House—a feeling which I have the privilege of representing since I do not speak in this debate only for myself.

I come straight away to the Foreign Office and its fellows, the India Office and Home Office, which are all part of the same block. Their exterior is familiar to us all. I believe that the exterior has no enemies, and there is much that is very fine inside the building too. There are the courts—namely, the Durbar Court and the Foreign Office Court—and there are some fine interiors in the Foreign Office and in the other buildings. We must strive to remove some of the crowded inmates and to rehabilitate the rest of the interior, but we should seek to retain all that is best inside and, of course, the exteriors.

I come to the question of Bryden's Treasury, which is the last great imperial building constructed in this part of London, and is now revealed in all its splendour by the efforts of my hon. Friend and his right hon. predecessor. Surely nobody would wish to sweep that away. It might require a new interior to come up to modern standards, but I hope that the circular court within it will be retained.

Much emotion has been displayed about Richmond Terrace. It might be said that a case for its retention cannot be made out on purely stylistic grounds and that there are many finer terraces, but it must be pointed out that it is a terrace with a most human scale, and this alone must give reason for its retention. Also to be borne in mind is its influence on possible new neighbours which may one day adjoin it. I believe that all this makes its retention highly desirable, if not imperative.

What of the use to be made of the interior of Richmond Terrace? Should it be preserved? I hope that my hon. Friend will not shut his mind to the idea that it should once again become residences for people. It might be difficult to convert the interior for offices. Not all the interior is ruined, and it would not be a bad idea if some of those who work in this area were able to live near their work.

We come, then, to Scotland Yard, the most celebrated part of which is Norman Shaw (North). It is much admired and an important example of its period. In an improved setting it could be greatly enhanced. What is more, the building was reprieved even by Martin-Buchanan in the Whitehall Plan, though that is not its greatest ally. A ministerial edict in this House made it clear that the Government regarded the interior of Norman Shaw (North), and, I believe, the rest of the building, as unfit for permanent use by the Civil Service. However, I suggest that the House of Commons will be delighted to have the use of that building until our facilities are expanded. I shall come to that problem in a moment.

Perhaps I might even drag from my hon. Friend a hint—I hope that he will go even further—that he is prepared to look at the possibility of this House having the use of Norman Shaw. It cannot have been promised to anyone else, because it is under a threat of demolition. So I am getting the first word in for the House of Commons. If I were a shop steward I should be shaking my fist and demanding the use of Norman Shaw. But as I am not and as I believe that other methods have better results, I make a polite request fortified by the support of dozens of hon. Members to whom I have spoken in recent days.

If we keep Norman Shaw, are we to retain Curtis Green? If we do that, it is somewhat unfinished at one end and skilful work will have to be done to make it attractive alongside Richmond Terrace.

If those buildings are retained, there will be ample opportunities in the surrounding area for the architects of today. Whitehall is a living development. Lest there are those here who view that prospect with alarm, I hope that they will take the trouble to meet the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, a man of infinite common sense, and some of his new council. If hon. Members have a chance to meet some of those gentlemen they will realise that not all architects are exhibitionists.

That brings me, coincidentally, to the proposed new parliamentary building, and I do not want to suggest that it is an exhibitionist's work of art. That is far from the case. It has many implacable enemies in this House and outside it. I shall refer to the winning design in the competition en passant.

It has been condemned by many because it is just too damned dull. It is also very large. It might have stood a better chance if it had not had to be so large. If we rethought some of our needs and reorganised ourselves a little more in this Palace it might not have to be so large.

The problem of disguising its horizontal emphasis with vertical members has now been attempted by the architects. I am sorry that very few hon. Members saw the revised model that was brought here recently. No doubt there will be another opportunity. The winning design has been much improved by its architects, and it has also been realigned with regard to the existing streets, in addition to being slightly reduced in height.

Hon. Members would do well to look at the model more closely, and I believe that we should have a debate in this House before Christmas. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction appears to agree with me. Of course, it is the job of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to find time for it, but I know that my hon. Friend will use his influence. We ought to discuss the matter here before Christmas if possible.

Provided that we can find ourselves somewhere else to perch in terms of temporary offices meanwhile, I do not believe that anyone will quarrel with the idea of clearing the proposed site. If it were cleared with all speed we could undertake some valuable archaeology without the rush that we had in New Palace Yard. The cleared site might make for clearer-headed decisions about any future building.

New Palace Yard is at present an ocean of mud resembling a lunar landscape. The Leader of the House, when speaking about this matter not so long ago, confirmed that this underground car park was no selfish whim of Members of Parliament; indeed, it could be linked with other underground car parks and roads to remove a great deal of the surface service traffic from this area for the benefit of all who work here and our hundreds of thousands of visitors.

How much progress has been made since our last debate towards the removal of all the heavy through traffic from this area? Is this our aim? It certainly ought to be. We should have a pedestrian precinct in a greater Parliament Square twice the size of the present square. We should also eventually clear away all those buildings in Great George Street which obscure Bryden's Treasury and present their undistinguished rear elevations to Broad Sanctuary.

If we are to have a Government conference centre in the area, it should not be on the old Colonial Office site. We should rebuild Storey's Gate and have our Government conference centre high enough to obscure the proposed new building on Queen Anne's Mansions. Sir Basil Spence defended his building on the ground that it would be largely invisible. Let us make it completely invisible. Let us make our conference centre high enough to obscure it from Parliament Square.

Passing along that side of the square past Central Hall we come to Abbey House, an undistinguished building, which used to be the Conservative Central Office. There is no need for a Queen Anne's Mansions monster to be rebuilt there. I understand that the owners are anxious to redevelop in harmony with an enlarged and enhanced Parliament Square. A skilful architect can do something in close proximity to Hawksmoors towers of the Abbey. The Ruskin Gothick Abbey Gateway we should certainly retain.

Middlesex Guildhall, Art Nouveau Gothick, could be retained and cleaned up, and also Central Hall. Let us also clean up the Abbey and remove the corrugated iron roof and replace it with something better.

St. Margaret's is now revealed to our gaze because the trees have been cut down. Others will take years to grow. That, too, needs a little outside treatment.

The Palace of Westminster requires cleaning. It is only a question of choosing the technique and the Palace of Westminster can be cleaned. Public money may be needed on other buildings. If they have not the resources, perhaps a little cosmetic restoration might come from public funds.

We want Parliament Square laid out anew keeping all the things we know so well. I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has some goods news about the Churchill statue.

Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Wavertree)

As Chairman of the Churchill Memorial Statue Committee, I welcome the news that the Minister is to look at the statue early in December.

Mr. Cooke

I am sure we are all delighted to hear that.

There are many familiar objects in Parliament Square, and I believe that from time to time we should see others join their company. If some of the ideas which I have broached were carried out—they need not all be done at once—I believe that we should have a Parliament Square worthy of the name of the heart of the Commonwealth where people in their hundreds of thousands can gather, enjoy themselves, and appreciate what they can hardly see now for the thundering traffic.

The Abbey is gradually learning a little about crowd management. The Palace of Westminster has much to learn.

I hope that in future we shall have special days with fuller, well instructed tours, in Westminster Hall a parliamentary archive—I do not call it a museum—and a viewing theatre where one can see what is going on here, and perhaps a walk-round gallery round the Commons Chamber so that people can look down through the existing windows. Not everybody wants to sit in the Public Gallery for half an hour.

Tourism pollutes. Tourists destroy what they aim to enjoy. Therefore, we must devise new ways of getting people into this historic area. They must park their coaches a substantial distance away and come in by some new underground link. We could then make Parliament Square better than many of the great squares abroad.

I should have liked to digress into St. James's Park, but I will save that topic for another occasion as there is hardly sufficient time to deal with it now.

I hope that something will be done to remove the clutter on Horseguards. Why must it be covered with parked cars or dismembered scaffolding after some great State event for most of its life? If my hon. Friend was a Prince of the Church in Rome or Florence, he would by now have commissioned a Bernini to design a pair of removable fountains which could freshen the air when the place was not being used as a parade ground.

I could say something about the succession of slab-like buildings which march upstream from Lambeth Palace. The Greater London Council and the Westminster City Council—or is it the Lambeth Council?—and the other local councils have much to answer for in that direction. The GLC's pile of concrete dinner plates just across the end of Westminster Bridge is not a very happy new building, and then there is York House, which is now partially obscured, and St. Thomas's Hospital. The hospital is a monster, not built as we were told it would be when we saw a model here 12 years ago. Such buildings wear out quickly, so let us hope that we may one day see a significant part of the European Parliament here in London and complimenting this most famous Parliament house in the world.

The future of all this historic neighbourhood is one of infinite possibility and we should not rush headlong into it. The time has now come to take a few careful steps, and I hope this third debate which I have had the privilege to initiate on the subject will help to carry the living history of Westminster a further confident step into the future.

10.31 p.m.

Sir Gilbert Longden (Hertfordshire, South-West)

I intervene in the debate for only one minute to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) in what he said. I also wish to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction back to the Department. I sat with him through the 351 hours, or whatever it was, of the Housing Finance Bill, and I am delighted that to see him back here now and out of Northern Ireland.

I hope that something will be done soon to stop all the talking about what will happen in Bridge Street so that something can be done.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Cannock)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) for initiating the debate, and I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on his new appointment.

In his admirable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West referred to St. Margaret's, Westminster, and to the Abbey. It is essential that they should be cleaned and restored, and it would seem a most fitting gesture for the Government to make available public money for the work to be carried out and thus provide a permanent memorial of our entry into Europe. That would be the most significant contribution they could make, a much more lasting and enjoyable monument than any fanfare that they could produce.

10.34 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Paul Channon)

I would first thank my hon. Friends for their kind remarks about me and say how delighted I am not only to be back from Northern Ireland—although I enjoyed my time there very much—but to have the oppor- tunity of dealing with some of the problems raised this evening. It should be widely recognised that, although this may be an Adjournment debate, there is, I believe, an abnormally large attendance of hon. Members. It would be even larger at a normal time of day. The attendance shows the keen interest in this subject and, I suspect, the very wide approval of a great many of my hon. Friends' remarks.

When I see my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), Cannock (Mr. Cormack), Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), Ludlow (Mr. More), Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill), Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden), Dorset, North (Mr. David James), and Harrow, West (Mr. John Page)—I think I have mentioned most of them—and two hon. Members opposite, as well as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, and two other members of the Government present, I consider that to be a large attendance for an Adjournment debate.

I make the point only because those outside may not realise that there is very keen interest in the problem in the House and a determination that we should take the right decisions and reach decisions which our descendants will welcome and will not curse us for.

I believe passionately that when the history of the development in Whitehall and Parliament Square comes to be written my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, will go down as someone who has fought hard, successfully and skilfully and in a cause that has proved to be completely worth while.

It is a great pleasure for me to answer the debate tonight. I have had the pleasure of answering my hon. Friend's Adjournment debates in the past on this topic—perhaps less satisfactorily than he would have wished—and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has also dealt with some of his points.

I cannot answer everything that has been said, but I will consider all the points, and the Government will take careful note of them.

My hon. Friend's deep interest is shared by the Government, and during the very short time that my right hon. and learned Friend has been Secretary of State I have discussed these matters with him a number of times. He, too, is deeply conscious of the importance of decisions taken about the neighbourhood of this House and the centre of London. I believe that, with his deep and long experience of London, he is peculiarly fitted to be the Secretary of State to deal with these important problems at this time.

When Minister of Public Building and Works, my right hon. and learned Friend commissioned the Martin-Buchanan Report in 1964. It was felt that developments since Sir Leslie Martin's plan for Whitehall of 1965 made it essential that there should be a fresh comprehensive look at the area. It was right at the time. Sir Leslie's study was particularly valuable in clarifying the right land uses for Whitehall.

However, the architectural solution that Sir Leslie advocated based on the premise of cleared sites may no longer be desirable or acceptable. The Government accept that the right balance must be found between the conservation of the many fine historic buildings in this key area of London and the operational needs of a modern and efficient Government.

The Willis Inquiry, set up in 1970, was confined by the terms of reference to an investigation of the previous Administration's proposals to demolish all the buildings on the Richmond Terrace—New Scotland Yard site and erect a new block of offices to house about 4,000 civil servants.

I recall that, before the General Election, when I spoke from that Dispatch Box on the subject of arts and amenities, again supported by my hon. Friend, I went on a deputation, among many other more distinguished people, to the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), who was then Minister, to request an inquiry into this proposal.

Mr. Willis was asked to pay particular regard to the intention to demolish Richmond Terrace and the former headquarters of the Metropolitan Police, and at the inquiry strong representations were made that the listed historic buildings on the site should be preserved.

In this case the decision has been complicated not only by the economic considerations affecting the development of the site but by the Government's responsibility for accommodating the Civil Service having regard both to economy and to the machinery of modern government.

In addition, the reprovision and, if possible, the improvement of the shops, pubs and other amenities have to be taken into account in reaching the right decision for this area. Alternative accommodation must also be provided for the police at present occupying Cannon Row, which lies on the Parliamentary Building site.

Whitehall is one of the most important historic areas in this country and the presence of listed historic buildings adds to the complexities of deciding upon the right kind of new development. The criteria for determining the quality of a building are drawn up by the listing committee of the Historic Buildings Council; grading of individual buildings is carried out by the Department's own investigators.

Two of the buildings on the site, Norman Shaw (North) and the Old Public Offices—what we commonly call the Foreign Office and the Home Office—are Grade I listed buildings. Grade I buildings comprise only about 3 per cent. of all those listed. It is generally accepted that a Grade I building is one of national rather than local importance. No Grade I building has ever been intentionally destroyed. I can assure the House that the Government have paid close attention to the value which my Department's investigators and the Historic Buildings Council have placed on these buildings in reaching a decision on the future of Whitehall.

The future of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office building, although it did not come within Mr. Willis's terms of reference, is also naturally being considered in conjunction with plans for the redevelopment of the southern end of Whitehall. Here again, the same problem arises, that of reconciling the requirements of modern Government Departments for up-to-date and efficient working conditions with the demands widely felt outside and inside the House that this notable historic building should be preserved.

Mr. Willis's report has been of great assistance to the Government in reaching a decision on these complex matters. I express my thanks to him. Copies of Mr. Willis's report have tonight been deposited in the Vote Office.

Mr. Willis found that there is no objection to the development of this site for Government offices to the maximum economic extent unless other factors—namely, the presence of listed buildings—make this undesirable. He agreed with the weight of expert opinion in favour of a development which would retain the New Scotland Yard building and the facade of Richmond Terrace, and he recommended accordingly. He considered that Norman Shaw (South) and 47 Parliament Street are buildings of less importance which should not be allowed to impede development.

The Government accept in principle the conclusions of the report and will plan the redevelopment of the site in the light of these recommendations. We shall ensure that the architectural design will be compatible with the final design for the new Parliamentary Building immediately to the south. The Government have also decided to preserve the external facades of the Old Public Offices. This building currently houses part of the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but it provides very unsatisfactory working conditions.

The fine interiors in the north-west corner of the building will be kept, but we shall be putting to the local planning authority, under the usual procedure, a proposal to reconstruct the remainder so as to provide modern office accommodation within the external facades.

I assure my hon. Friend that the splendid view from St. James's Park which all of us have appreciated and still do, and the distinguished west side of Whitehall—famous sights to Londoners and millions of visitors—will be preserved. I also assure the House that the facade of the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Richmond Terrace will remain, as will the Norman Shaw (North) building.

The decision to preserve these important buildings has been reached only after the most careful study of the arguments. The Government believe that in the unique situation of Whitehall conservation in this case is the right course.

I am delighted to give at least this token: the Government are seized of the importance of these areas and these buildings and of the widely-held feeling, inside and outside the House, and in Government, that it is important to preserve those I have mentioned this evening. I hope that the House will feel that the Government have been responsive to the views of the House and of my hon. Friend.

During my comparatively short period as a Member of the House, nothing has given me more pleasure than to be able to announce these decisions.

Mr. Robert Cooke

I thank my hon. Friend most warmly. This is a great beginning.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.