HC Deb 30 March 1981 vol 2 cc126-34

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

11.12 pm
Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the problem that faces all of us as a result of the deterioration of the fabric of the Palace of Westminster.

The House will know that there was today a reply to a written question by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) which set out, for the first time, the good news that at least we are to start on the work that should have begun so many years ago. I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary who is replying to the debate for the manner in which they have put forward the proposals and enabled them to be discussed by the House tonight—a method which is in accordance with the finest traditions of Parliament in that these matters are discussed and canvassed in the House before they reach outside it.

We all love the House. We work in it, serve in it and live part of our lives in it. It means a great deal to us, and we have been deeply saddened to see it decaying over the past years. I remember being brought here as a child by my father, who first served here in the early 1930s. The chimes of Big Ben throughout the war were the symbol not of the House but of the permanence of democracy and the greatness of Britain. In the past 11 years, I have campaigned to have work begun on the structure, but until today we have had no good news.

Recently, for a period of about six months, I saw this marvellous building in a way that few hon. Members have done. A dearly loved uncle of mine was spending his last few months in St. Thomas' hospital, on the tenth floor. I well remember one evening when he pointed to this great Palace and said how much it meant to him. He was former chief rabbi, Israel Brodie, and he compared this building with the Bible. He said "Like the Bible, every time I look at it I see something new and different and something from which I learn."

All these years, we have watched this building crumbling away. We see now, alas, the results of this lack of sufficient love. We find the building collapsing inside and out, and it is only as a result of that collapse that at last a Government have been induced to start spending the money which is needed in order to keep the building alive.

The fall of the roof of the House of Lords was taken by some to have a certain humorous aspect of putting constitutional advance into a rather swifter state than might otherwise have been the case. But those who work there did not treat it with a particularly fine sense of humour. When stonework started falling upon the public and, much worse, upon us from the area above the entrance to Westminster Hall and Members' Entrance, it was roped off and we began to feel the winds of change approaching this Palace. When we saw just a week ago that other areas were roped off, quite clearly something had to be done fast to avert tragedy.

It is to be done, and I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary for managing to get at least some resources to enable the work on the Palace to begin.

The written answer which was given today unfortunately leaves many questions to be answered, all of them, I hope, by the Minister in reply to this debate. The answer stated: Following a fall of stone in New Palace Yard on 2 March, thorough inspections of other areas of stonework, including the Clock Tower and the Victoria Tower, have been started. My first question is: why were they not started long before? I understood that the Services Committee in its various reincarnations had required this to be done, and I had been assured in answer to various questions over the years that examinations were already being made to see whether the stonework was in order. Yet today's answer says they "have been started." How long will they take? When will we know other areas of danger? When will they be concluded?

The written answer continued: As was the case after the fall in Speaker's Green in 1979, further potentially dangerous stonework has been found after every new inspection. I do not know why that should be a surprise to anyone. One has only to walk along the outside of this building and scrape away at the exterior of the stonework with a finger nail to find it flaking away. When one goes up to see one of the greatest sights in the land—the floodlit tower of Big Ben observed from the roof at night looking like a stage set in all its glory with the blackness of the stonework hidden by the sky—it is possible to touch any of the gargoyles or any other part of those ancient stone works which were hidden away by former generations in a most spendthrift manner. One wonders how they stay aloft because of the years of grime and decades of filth which have eaten their way into them.

I quote again from the written answer: Since 2 March numerous decorative pieces of stone have been taken down; some of these could have been dislodged by a slight movement. Is the Minister prepared to assure the House and the thousands of people who visit this Palace that there are not now pieces which may fall and cause grave injury? Would it not be a disgrace if that were to happen? If this were an industrial or commercial building, would not the Government have to step in to ensure that such a disaster did not occur? Why should we, because we occupy a Royal Palace to which the rules do not apply, have a privilege which enables us to avoid the sort of prosecution which should otherwise follow?

A commercial building would be dealt with by the local authority. It could not be used while it was unsafe. What is more, a heavy legal liability would fall on those who occupied such a building if they should have known and could have known that it was dangerous. They would be liable to be sued. No Government should hide behind their freedom from suit in a Royal Palace to avoid the results which obviously might follow if the fears which we all now entertain turn out to be realised.

Is it not enough for us, when we have watched the roof fall in the House of Lords and seen stonework fall from the exterior of the building, to recognise that the entire work ought to be commenced immediately and with energy, and with such funds as are necessary, before we are forced to undertake it by a further disaster such as is now all too nearly upon us?

I shall continue to read the Secretary of State's reply: The pavement beneath the Victoria Tower has also been closed as a precaution while a canopy is erected to give protection from any stone that might fall from the upper half of the Tower before it can be properly inspected in a few weeks' time. It should have been inspected years ago. Hon. Members on both sides have been protesting for years about the disgraceful and dangerous state of the building. We on these Opposition Benches wish to know how many other areas are dangerous and whether it is suggested that, by protecting the public where they normally enter the building, all is being done that is necessary to ensure that there will not be a disaster.

The Secretary of State continued: The inspections so far completed have increased my concern about the condition of the stonework, and, although any identifiably dangerous stones have been removed, I have decided that a start should be made as soon as possible"— I ask, when?— on a major programme of repair, restoration and conservation. We all welcome that, but the word "cleaning" is sadly absent. Surely, while the building is being repaired, restored and conserved, there should be a full, sensible and intelligent cleaning programme.

The Secretary of State continued: In order to reveal the condition of the stonework, it is essential to remove the corrosive deposits. This will also prevent further chemical attack on the face of the stone. That is a purpose with which we must all heartily agree The first phase of the conservation programme, costing about £¼ million, will start in the recess this summer. Why do we have to wait until then? What is the ludicrous tradition by which the face of the building which is the home of the Mother of Parliaments can only be cleaned, washed, restored, painted and repaired while there are no Members within it? Surely, if there is danger, we should start now. If it were any other building in this country in which the public were at such risk, the repair and restoration would begin at once. Why the delay? Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to tell us tonight.

The first phase is to start this summer, and the rate of progress thereafter will depend on the extent to which work can proceed while Parliament is sitting May we have an assurance that there is no reason in law, no reason in fact and no reason in reality why the work should not begin while the House is sitting?

The Secretary of State says: My aim is to complete the work in as short a time as possible. That is an aim which we all heartily applaud, and we trust that the work will be done.

This magnificent marvel of a building is a symbol to the world of the democracy which we here serve. It is a disservice to democracy that any Government should allow it to decay. Regrettably, the last two Governments, one Conservative and one Labour, failed to take action. We are grateful for the fact that this Government will take that action now, and we applaud the Minister's decision. However, it looks very much as though the action will be too little and too late. I ask for an assurance that everything in the Minister's power will be done to see that the job is concluded as swiftly as it is begun. I ask the Minister to use this opportunity to tell the House all he can now about the steps which the Government propose to implement a decision for which, I repeat, we are grateful.

11.25 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

I simply want to say that many of his colleagues are deeply grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr Janner) for raising this important subject. I repeat his question. Is it true that, if this were not a Royal Palace, different rules would apply? If it were a factory or if it came under the care of a local authority, would matters be different? This is an important factor.

11.26 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack) (Staffordshire, South-West

I, too, congratulate the hon. and learned member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on raising this extremely important matter. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and, through him, the Secretary of State for the answer I was given earlier today. It was a very encouraging reply. It is certainly about time that the Government looked at this problem realistically and provided the House with a sensible solution.

We are not talking here about Parliament, the House in which we are meeting. We are talking about one of the greatest buildings in the world, certainly the greatest building erected in the last century, one of the architectural wonders of the universe, which is an incalculably rich and priceless possession of us all and deserves and needs proper treatment.

I quote a rather telling phrase from a debate which took place in the last century, when this wonderful building, having been built with rather unsatisfactory stone, was, even then, showing signs on decay. A Member of the Liberal Benches got up and said: that was not economy but scandalous parsimony which grudged what was necessary to support our national monuments. This is a great building, of which we are the stewards and trustees for posterity. It is incumbent upon the Government to recognise their responsibilities.

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have given me this parliamentary answer. There is only one thing I would say. As a member of the Services Committee, which helped to draw up the report, I feel this deeply. At the end of the answer, the Secretary of State says: the rate of progress thereafter will depend on the extent to which work can proceed while Parliament is sitting"— The hon. and learned Member has referred to that— and on the level of funds that I can allocate to this programme in successive years. I know that our country is facing a hard time. I know that it is the policy of the Government, rightly, to regard with great care and detail every item of public expenditure. But the Services Committee came to the conclusion that the total amount needed to put this building right was no more than about £5 million. That represents less than a mile of motorway.

It would be a terrible condemnation of our generation and of our regard for our architectural heritage if we could not find, and quickly, the £5 million which is needed to put this building right. I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply. I again thank the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West for raising the subject, and I hope that tonight we can show the people of Great Britain that their great Parliament House, the Palace of Westminster, will be safeguarded for generations to come.

11.28 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg)

I begin by thanking the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for drawing the attention of the House once again to this subject. His considerable interest in the appearance of this historic building and the safety of those who enter it has been shown by his persistent questions to Ministers. I hope that what I have to say tonight will satisfy him that we are determined to conserve this part of our national heritage.

It is my privilege, as a Minister within the Department of the Environment, to hold special responsibility for the Palace of Westminster. The maintenance and protection of its fabric is no light task when one considers that this building covers 8½ acres and contains two miles of corridors, 100 staircases and more than 1,000 rooms. I think that hon. Members can judge for themselves just how much care and thought have been given, and continue to be given, to this task.

At the present time, our efforts are being co-ordinated by the Parliamentary Works Officer based in the Palace, who has the benefit of day-to-day advice from the Department's Directorate of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings. Futhermore, architectural drawings relating to the Palace and its furniture and works of art are now being catalogued by Mrs. Alexandra Wedgwood and Miss Phillis Rogers, the recently appointed curator from the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments, both of whom are also available to advise us on the fabric. I should also remind the House that my right hon. Friend has, in addition, the services of Sir Robert Cooke as his special adviser on the Palace—a man to whom Parliament and its Members are deeply indebted.

We have inherited the legacy of the finest nineteenth-century building in Britain, with parts dating from earlier centuries. Following the fire which almost entirely destroyed the Palace in October 1834, a Select Committee decided that the new building should be either Gothic or Elizabethan in order to harmonise with Westminster Abbey and Westminster Hall, and Mr. Charles Barry's design was accepted.

The external decoration of the building was Barry's own design, and his plan was to make the new Palace a monumental history of England. The plan was Barry's but the details owe much to Augustus Welby Pugin, whose monuments one finds all around this place and in many other parts of the country. Some 300 statues representing saints and sovereigns of England from the Norman Conquest to the reign of Queen Victoria, were therefore incorporated into the main facades of the building.

Most of the original stonework came from South Anston in Yorkshire. Whilst this stone has a pleasant colour, it is vulnerable, and serious decay set in very quickly, the first report of it being as early as 1861. In 1928 a major refacing programme was begun, which took about 10 years to complete. The stone then used was Clipsham, which is harder and has a good record of resistance to atmospheric pollution. Nevertheless, considerable soiling has occurred on all the Clipsham refacing and in the remaining Anston stone.

The sulphate deposits corrode the surface of the stone and obscure the condition of the undelying material. Stonework that is in urgent need of restoration would be revealed by the removal of the deposits and could be repaired more cheaply whilst the scaffolding was in position.

I shall not remind the House of the various investigations that have been made into the conservation and repair of the stonework. They were set out in the third report from the Services Committee in the 1977–78 Session. Unfortunately, the Government of the day made no time available for a debate on that report, and it was not until the publication of the Committee's fourth report, in the 1979–80 Session, that the seriousness of the situation received the attention that it merits. That report made seven recommendations about the work which needed attention. Of these, work on the first two recommendations has already been completed and will shortly be started on the third and fourth.

The two main questions which are being asked tonight are whether the fabric has deteriorated further since the Committee reported and how the Government intend to complete the major elements of the proposed programme.

I turn first to the question of safety. The house will recall that in evidence to the Select Committee it was stated that much of the stonework had not been subject to a detailed physical inspection. It was conceded by an expert witness that the real state of the stonework could be far worse than it was possible to tell by examination through binoculars and that it might get worse as each year went by. I told the Committee that I did not think anyone could give a cast-iron guarantee that there was no danger, and I have to repeat that statement tonight.

Although we have removed the potentially dangerous coping stones and the string courses that were identified up to last June, and brushed off spalling stone surfaces, it was still no surprise to me to learn of a fall on 2 March this year. This occurred on the north face of Westminster Hall, not far from the entrance. Although only a few pieces the size of a table-tennis ball came down, this was sufficient to indicate that something was wrong.

As a precautionary measure, the Parliamentary Works staff instigated a series of physical inspections,using a long-arm platform, of areas that had previously been examined only from the ground. They found that it was possible to lift off some decorative stonework without effort. They quite rightly considered it prudent to remove such pieces. To date, they have removed 42 decorative finials from the north elevation of Westminster Hall, and a further 21 pieces from between St. Stephen's Entrance and the Victoria Tower, of which three were fairly substantial in size. These items have been stored for subsequent restoration.

Mr Dalyell

Will the Minister ask his civil servants not to give us the history of England? St. David and St. Andrew are also out there. I simply want to ask whether the latest techniques of using a laser beam to detect faults in stone and metals were being used.

Mr Finsberg

I shall find that out for the hon. Gentleman. I am told that, with the advice of the best stone experts in the country, all that can be done will be done. I shall look specifically at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

It has not been possible with a long-arm p:atform to inspect the top half of the two Towers. Inspection of the lower parts gives cause to believe that some stonework on the upper half of the Victoria Tower may be defective but that the Clock Tower is in a better state of preservation. The pavement beneath the Victoria Tower and further to the south has been closed as a precaution until a protective canopy can be erected. The upper half of that Tower and other areas will be inspected in coming weeks. It is just not possible to do everything at one time. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept from me that a limited number of people are capable of doing it. There were problems in doing what we wanted, which was to get a long-arm crane to go right to the top, because the pavement would not bear the weight, and this means that scaffolding will have to be erected.

While I have no reason to believe that a serious fall is likely in the immediate future, I cannot entirely rule out that possibility. We must remember that the Palace is not only a great historic building but is a place of work. About 3,000 people are employed here daily, and hundreds of thousands visit the building during the year both to see the Palace itself and indeed to visit their Members. This and the constantly changing requirements of the two Houses put enormous pressures on the fabric of the building and on the staff who maintain it. I commend our Parliamentary Works staff for the very prompt exercise of their professional judgment to ensure that, as far as possible, Members of either House, staff working in the Palace and the general public are not exposed to any significant risk that could be foreseen.

The difficulty in carrying out the work recommended in the Services Committee's fourth report has simply been due to the very large sums of money required. I told the Committee in evidence that I was not able to confirm the availability of funds on this scale—a full programme now being estimated to cost £5½ million over three or more years. The House is well aware that the Government are committed to reducing public expenditure, and it was not felt that the House should be—nor, indeed, would wish to be—exempt from the constraints placed on other sectors.

As a result, the level of funds available for maintenance and new works in the Palace of Westminster and parliamentary precincts has been reduced from some £7½ million per year to £6½ million. Of what remains, about £4½ million is taken up by running costs and essential maintenance. Besides dozens of jobs which hon. Members and the staff consider essential to improve the facilities and efficient running of the building, there are several large and urgent schemes competing for the limited funds that are left. The plant that cools the air in this Chamber is on its last legs. It will cost more than £1 million to replace, and a breakdown would leave us with no cooling at all for at least eight months. I leave hon. Members to imagine what the working conditions would be in such a situation.

Secondly, the House will recall that a heavy wooden boss fell from the ceiling in another place last year. A thorough survey has now been completed, and it is apparent that this outstanding example of Victorian craftmanship can be restored only at a very considerable cost, yet to be accurately estimated. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is determined that this particular piece of our national heritage should be restored for future generations.

Parliament is rightly proud of its home. But, at the same time, Members may shrink from committing large sums of money to work on the Palace lest they be thought to be too self-centred and unaware of the economic difficulties which we face. There are, however, vast numbers of people outside Parliament who insist that we preserve our inheritance properly. This was brought home to me last year when my Department received numerous small gifts of money from people all over the country—and abroad—in response to the publicity which surrounded the Services Committee's fourth report. And only three weeks ago The Times urged us to brace ourselves to meet the costs involved.

My right hon. Friend has, therefore, today announced his decision to proceed with the repair, restoration and conservation of the stonework. Work will start in this Summer Recess. One of the reasons is that the management of work here comes under the Services Committee. My Department acts as the agent of that Committee, and we shall be putting to it a proposal and telling it that the cost can be contained within reasonable bounds only if the two Houses are prepared to accept any inconveniences resulting from work continuing whilst Parliament is sitting. I must make it clear that it is not our decision. Many hon. Members will recall the experiments into stone conservation methods in the 1970s and that the working conditions inside the Palace close to the experimental areas were by no means intolerable.

I shall, therefore, shortly be consulting the House authorities to see whether continuous working would be acceptable to them. I am sure that hon. Members will accept any inconveniences as their personal contribution to a most worthy scheme.

It is not possible to say how long it will take to complete the conservation programme until we know whether work will go on while Parliament is sitting and the exact level of funds that can be provided in future years. My Department's aim, however, is to carry it out in the shortest possible time. The House will wish to see the speedy completion of this work.

Up to now, I have not referred to the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). He has done a signal service to the House in three ways: tonight by his words, in the past years by views given to the Services Committee, and by his delightful book, from which I quote to end this speech. He describes it as at once the home of Western democracy and the greatest building of the last century. We are determined to do all we can to ensure that future generations will not be able to accuse us of destroying that precious heritage.

I hope that when I am able to put the document to the Services Committee it will take on board the points I have made and—

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 eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock Midnight