§ 25. Sir Geoffrey Finsbergasked the hon. Member for Taunton, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, whether, in the search for a single headquarters building for the National Audit Office, consideration was given to locating the National Audit Office within the area of the London Docklands Development Corporation.
§ The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission (Mr. Edward du Cann)Yes, Sir. However, the National Audit Office urgently needed a single headquarters near the Palace of Westminster and the main offices of the departments and other bodies which the Comptroller and Auditor General is required to audit. This need excluded the docklands and many other areas. In practice, no suitable building was available in the docklands.
§ Sir Geoffrey FinsbergMay I compliment my hon. Friend on answering his first official question for just over 431 20 years, and observe that I find his answer rather unsatisfactory? Does he agree that the overwhelming majority of the staff who occupy the new building at Victoria, which British Airways found difficult to dispose of — it was probably glad to see an easy buyer—are clerks and the like who do not need to be close to the Palace of Westminster?
§ Mr. du CannNo, Sir. The matter is not as simple as that. It has been the subject of continuous recommendations by the Public Accounts Committee to the House that a single office should be found in a central location to replace the 28 offices that are currently occupied by the staff of the Exchequer and Audit Department, now the National Audit Office. Some 23 different locations were examined and this proposal has the Treasury's support. I am quite satisfied that, ultimately, the process of audit and obtaining value for money, in which the House is especially interested, will be much enhanced by this important move.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's compliment. I hope that my answer to his supplementary question will have persuaded him that, in the judgment of many of his colleagues on both sides of the House, this is the right course to follow in the general interest.
§ Mr. PavittWill the hon. Gentleman consider 35 Great Smith street — which belongs to the Ministry of Defence, has now been empty for more than 12 months and which is 20 yards from the Department of the Environment and 20 yards from the Department of Trade and Industry — as a possible means of relieving the Secretary of State for Defence of a white elephant that looks like continuing on lease for another 22 years?
§ Mr. du CannI hope that I have shown that all possible premises were examined under the advice of the Property Services Agency and consultants from the private sector. I am satisfied that the right decision was made. It would be a mistake to begin that process all over again.