§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Lait.]
2.38 pm§ Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)In this debate, the House has a brief moment to consider the state of architecture in our country. I stand to be corrected, but I do not think that it is a subject to which the House has paid much attention in recent years. I have a lifelong interest in it, which is why I asked for this Adjournment debate.
As I walk through our city streets, drive through our towns and go along our roads, so little of what has been built in recent years cheers the soul. If architecture should, as Goethe put it, be frozen music, too much of what has been built today is mush and slush, unpleasing to the eye and out of harmony with nature and the spirit. We have the greatest corps of architects in the world here in Britain, but their greatness is recognised more in other countries.
Britain has one of the greatest public architectural heritages. For two and a half centuries, from the days of Inigo Jones, through Hawksmoor, Nash, Wren, Pugin and Barry, to the confident statements of imperial Britain, British public building had measure and feel to it. That is not the case today. What has gone wrong?
The official rhetoric of the Government is to praise something called UK plc, as if the people and creativity of a whole nation were reducible to a limited company. I am sure that the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage will draw the House's attention to success stories in modern building in this country, but if he is honest, he will admit that too much of modern architecture, as commissioned by the public authorities, is an affront against aesthetics.
I am glad that the Minister of State is to reply because, without a lead from the top of public life, there can be no hope for British architecture. In a sense, I chose the Minister to reply to this debate—a rare privilege for a Back Bencher. Once I had been granted the debate, a Minister from either the Department of the Environment or the Department of National Heritage could have replied, but when I made it clear that it would be about the aesthetics of buildings the Department of the Environment said, "Ah, that is for the Department of National Heritage."
The Minister is a distinguished translator of Pushkin and he will understand what I mean when I say that recent Ministers, especially the present Cabinet, have been "nie kulturny". The crude translation from the Russian is "uncultured", but the real meaning is a lack of sense and sensibility about what matters in public life. Architecture is about proportion, scale and harmony and even the strongest supporters of the Government would agree that those three concepts have not been part of the philosophy of state administration for two decades or more. This meretricious Government, who designed such legislation as the poll tax and the present crime and police Bills, are incapable of constructing policies that result in good architecture.
Architecture cannot be a matter for private concern. It is the only art form that is a permanent public event. All other art is a private matter of choice and discretion. I can 595 choose whether to go to a play or concert and only I decide whether I will read a poem or watch television, but the theatre, the concert hall, the library and the broadcasting centre are part of the public domain. Their architecture, by definition, impacts on us all, and the public authorities, in the broadest sense, cannot avoid their responsibilities.
According to the Library, each year the British state spends more than £5 billion on public works. I expect that if one counted in all the building commissioned by Ministers, local government, quangos, agencies and other public bodies directly or indirectly financed by the taxpayer or lottery money, the figure would be considerably higher. Each bus stop, motorway bridge and housing association bungalow is financed with our money. Of course we want value for that money, but the bad design and the downgrading of the architects' input cost money, as the monstrous bill for continually repairing that part of the national estate built to the lowest common design denominator on cost grounds in the past four decades now shows. We have the right and the duty to ask that design and aesthetics should again be put at the top of the agenda for public building.
We need demanding patrons—clients, in the modern jargon—who demand high standards and not simply low costs. It is sometimes forgotten that Aneurin Bevan was Minister of Housing as well as Minister of Health in that great Government of renewal in 1945. He resisted the urge to build as quickly and as cheaply as possible through the lowering of standards and specifications. In 1947 Bevan said:
At this moment we are going to be judged by the number of houses that we build. In 10 years' time, we shall be judged by the kind of house that we build, and I am not going to be panicked into doing a bad job.All public bodies, not Ministries alone, must have the confidence to become great patrons again.If our cities had dynamic and popularly elected leaders, or if our government was not the most centralised in the world, city and regional leaders working with private architects and designers could create a style that was true to their local culture, history and economy, and to the needs of their people.
The new generation of patrons that I hope will take shape in the public sphere must not be frightened of the vulgar philistine criticism that greets any innovative design. I have no doubt that, when the then Prince of Wales built the wonderful Brighton pavilion 200 years ago, some wiseacre described it as a "monstrous carbuncle". Today it is a joy to behold—unlike the supremely forgettable facade of the extension to the national gallery.
A confident patron and a demanding client are not enough. There are also specific measures that could help to encourage a new culture of confident and attractive public architecture. The first is simple enough: accept the need for an architect.
In my region of Yorkshire we have what is widely considered one of the worst-designed public buildings in Europe—the national health service administration centre, Quarry house in Leeds. I cannot hold up a picture of it, Madam Deputy Speaker, because even in a debate of this nature we are not allowed visual aids. However, I have the National Audit Office's damning report on its construction, produced a year ago.
596 The most revealing aspect of the report is the fact that nowhere in it is the word "architect" mentioned. The basis for the construction of Quarry house was the idea of getting a building up as quickly and cheaply as possible. The NAO report says that the Department's project team
had no previous experience of construction work but arranged relevant training.Arranged relevant training? Did they become latter-day Christopher Wrens by going on an awayday course set up by another Department?The idea is ludicrous. The ladies and gentlemen of Whitehall, with no previous experience, "arranged relevant training" to build a £50 million building that spits in the eye of everyone in Yorkshire. If we want a monument to today's Government approach to architecture, we need look no further than Quarry house. We can no more build buildings without an architect than write poems without a poet.
The first question asked is often, "How much will it cost?" I have no problem with strict budgets, but instead of asking about cost we should say to the architect, "Here is a budget. Design for us a good and noble building that meets the challenge of low lifetime maintenance, energy saving and good design."
We should follow the European practice of holding more open competitions for the design of publicly funded buildings. I know that praying in aid good practice from other parts of the continent is not popular with the Conservative party, but soon we may have a new dispensation that is not frightened to learn from overseas.
At times, competitions may have to be limited by invitation, and perhaps by age, so that tomorrow's Norman Fosters and Richard Rogers may earn recognition in their own country now, before they are too old. Perhaps we could consider, for example, the idea of flat fees for design, instead of a percentage of the final cost, which can lead to inflated fees for architects.
Will someone—the Minister, perhaps—have a word with the Treasury so that the idea of design is built into the rules of the public finance initiative? The cheap alternative that is increasingly becoming the norm is a contractor bidding on what is called a "design and build" basis, using an off-the-shelf model—as if one went through a supermarket looking for a pattern book from which to choose a design.
Those of us who saw the British pavilion at the Seville Expo in Spain will recall its impact. Its architect, Nicholas Grimshaw, went on to produce what I consider to be the finest piece of public transport architecture in recent years—the Eurostar terminal at Waterloo. It is a shame that that cannot easily be seen, because vista and landscape are not given enough consideration either. I am pleased to say that the Eurostar terminal at Waterloo was constructed largely using British steel, much of which was produced in my constituency.
The tender has been issued for the 1998 Lisbon Expo on the basis of design and build, so no British architect will fly the flag for British creativity and talent. The Ministry of Defence is particularly bad in that regard: it always seems to award contracts on a design and build basis on the grounds of speed and cost, scouring the Yellow Pages for the cheapest offer. Alas, the MOD is the lead body responsible for developing the heritage site at Portsmouth—the so-called Gun wharf—on the basis of 597 a design and build contract which, judging from experience, is unlikely to fire the imagination or to do justice to the wonderful history of the public space concerned.
It does not have to be like that. The design and build project at Nottingham for the Inland Revenue—perhaps it is more confident about spending our money—was scrapped in favour of a competition, which was won by Sir Michael Hopkins, the architect responsible for the commended new parliamentary building above Westminster tube station.
I began my remarks by saying that I had selected the Department of National Heritage to reply to the debate. I did so deliberately, because I believe that one can see the glimmerings of a coherent architectural policy emanating from that Department. To be fair to the Secretary of State for the Environment—although I do not know why I should be so generous, as he is invariably rude to me at Question Time and in debate—he is probably sensitive to these issues. However, he sits in a Cabinet of philistines in a value-free and vision-free Downing street where he has little influence.
Despite its ghastly name, the Department of National Heritage has at least sought, in allocating lottery funds through various boards, to insist that good design is built in at the beginning of projects being commissioned. I understand that we owe that provision to the foresight of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), to whom we pay credit. However, ministerial fiat, based on the lucky and unusual chance of having a cultured Conservative Minister, is not enough. All Ministries and public bodies that commission buildings in the public sphere should be obliged to make good design the first rule rather than an add-on extra.
Perhaps we need—my suggestion is a little tongue in cheek—an "Ofarch", headed by an architectural Chris Woodhead, to lay down standards and rattle the cages of complacency in public architecture. On balance, I am not sure whether the profession could decide which of its members is today's Sir Christopher Wren—they are modest men and women. In any case, with the departure of Baroness Thatcher, the age of omniscient supremos is over—at least for the time being. If the Chancellor can have a panel of expert advisers on the economy, could we not have a panel of architects charged with advising Ministries and municipalities and encouraging them to support innovation and imagination in public building?
Britain has a wonderful history of great architecture, which has been publicly led. However, in the past 20 years, Governments—I do not exempt Labour Governments—have abdicated responsibility in that area. Privately commissioned building has followed the public lead, and alas we have witnessed a dulling and downgrading of the physical essence of our country. I make no pleas for architects or new money in this debate; I plead simply for public policy that is well designed in the building sphere. Our architects and designers are very talented and their creativity is world class. The duty of government should be to unleash that creativity, but this Government have stifled it. New architecture needs a new Government.
§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing me to contribute to the debate. I shall take only a moment. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) made a fascinating speech—it reminded me of the Brighton pavilion, of which Sydney Smith said it was as if St. Paul's had gone down to the sea and pupped, because the hon. Gentleman was all over the place. However, he made some extremely telling points. I was sorry that he took so many personal swipes at people, but that is part of the cut and thrust of political life.
Public architecture since the war has gone through a rather barren period. There are some notable exceptions, of which Richmond house in Whitehall is one. On the whole, however, there is not a great deal of which one can be inordinately proud.
We can have unreserved pride in one building, however, and that is this one—the greatest public building of the 19th century. The hon. Member for Rotherham referred to Michael Hopkins, who is a great architect, and to the fact that the House has commissioned him to build our new parliamentary building. I hope that, just as this set the standards for great public buildings in the second half of the last century, as we near the end of this century and move into the next, the Michael Hopkins building will set the example for well-ordered, good-mannered architecture—architecture that respects its surroundings and the skyline, which has been so disfigured and defaced by unthinking architecture in the past 30, 40 and 50 years. I hope that we in Parliament will, therefore, be able to take the lead in setting an example for good public building for the 21st century.
§ The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat)I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) for introducing the subject of the debate. It is an interesting subject and he made an extremely interesting speech about it. It is a shame that it has to be raised on the Adjournment of the House, when there is not the opportunity for discussion. It is a pity that this is not some sort of Bill, so that we could have a lengthy Committee stage, with lots of giving ways and ideas being tossed about. As you said earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, no doubt the right people will have heard these remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) from the Whips Office is sitting on the Front Bench. Perhaps she can arrange for us to have a good, in-depth and detailed debate on this truly important subject.
There are periods when people seem to care about their architecture and others when they do not. There are always isolated examples of great monumental buildings, but the architecture that really affects people's lives is on a more modest and more widespread scale. There was a golden age of British architecture from perhaps mid-Victorian times—this splendid building is an example, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said—until the eve of the first world war. It produced the great offices of state, the national museums and the churches in the new suburbs. My hon. Friend will remember that we talked about the conservation fund for churches the other day.
The hon. Member for Rotherham kindly made some remarks that, in the context of debates as elections come close, were as near adulation as the Opposition will ever 599 admit to—namely that the Department of National Heritage has a sensible policy for architecture. I am grateful to him for those pre-election crumbs of praise.
The Victorian period also produced the rows of attractive terraced houses, which will serve us for many years to come. If the industrial revolution produced the back-to-back slums, which in most cases have now been consigned to history, it also produced the estates built by the Peabody Trust and others to give poorer people a quality of housing that they could hardly otherwise have dreamed of.
The inter-war years too produced many fine buildings, including a flowering of municipal architecture throughout the country—such gems as the Hoover factory and Charles Holden's stations for the London Underground.
Generally speaking, the post-war years failed to rediscover that enthusiasm for good architecture. Understandably, we were in a hurry to rebuild. Resources were scarce, and emphasis was put on efficiency of construction, rather than on fine aesthetics. There was a reaction against the flamboyance of Victorian Gothic, epitomised in the no-frills approach of the modern movement. There was also an increase in scale which seems, for a while, to have outrun the ability of architects to absorb it into the urban fabric, with the result that we had a rash of faceless tower blocks and cliffs of monotonous office facades dominating our streets. Perhaps that period should make us extremely cautious of adopting a centralised policy for architecture.
It would be wrong, however, to suggest that that was a generation of architecture without merit. English Heritage, in carrying out its thematic surveys of post-war buildings, identified many worthy of close examination and a modest number which were sufficiently distinctive to be candidates for listing.
In recent years there has been a remarkable upsurge of public interest in architecture. It was given particular emphasis in the early 1980s by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his views, there can be no doubt that he struck a chord with many people who felt that the architecture of the previous 20 years had been heading down a blind alley.
The debate has continued, with all the major newspapers running architectural pages, and headline exposure given to items such as Norman Foster's millennium tower, Daniel Libeskind's extension to the Victoria and Albert museum, or Gabrielle Bramante's tiff with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which did not like what she produced for it. I welcome the increasing interest in architecture, which must result in a demand for higher standards, and the establishment of a network of regional architecture centres, where ordinary people can find out about current projects and proposed developments.
The hon. Member for Rotherham spoke particularly of public bodies. Here again, the record is mixed. Round the corner from here is No. 2 Marsham street; few will lament its passing. By contrast, just up the road we have Whitfield's Richmond house, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) mentioned: a distinctive Government building of the 1980s which will bear comparison with any of its neighbours in Whitehall.
600 Further afield, many people believe that we had a narrow escape in Nottingham, where an undistinguished design was put aside at the last minute in favour of a design competition. The result was the Inland Revenue headquarters by Sir Michael Hopkins, which has been widely acclaimed both for its architecture and for its innovative system of natural ventilation. In Leeds, as it seems to many, including the hon. Member for Rotherham, there was no such reprieve: Quarry house has attracted widespread criticism and stands as a monument to insensitive development.
Those projects demonstrate two of the principal risks to which any building design—especially for a Government building—is exposed. The first risk is that key decisions are taken by very senior people who may have little understanding of the practicalities of a building project. They may take far-reaching decisions without fully appreciating their impact. They need early and expert advice. At Quarry house there was an early decision on the amount of floor space to be squeezed on to the site, with the result that the bulk of the building was excessive and any architect would have had difficulty fitting a building into the scale of the area.
The second risk, which may also arise from uninformed decisions, is that the time allowed is often unreasonably short. In both of those projects a design-build approach was adopted to save time. Design-build can produce an excellent building in the right circumstances, but it must be chosen for the right reasons.
The timetable for Nottingham did not allow time for a proper appraisal of alternative design proposals. It was only when the then Minister, Francis Maude, who I hope will return to the House shortly, took a personal interest that the tight timetable was relaxed and time was found for alternative designs to be considered.
How can we improve the chances of success? The Royal Fine Art Commission, a body that is sponsored by my Department and one of whose roles is to encourage higher standards of architecture, has advocated that every major Government building should bear the name of the Minister who commissioned it. I am not sure that I would agree with that.
That is not the slightest reflection on the aesthetic judgments of Ministers in this distinguished Government, but because of the simple and practical point that Ministers move on, and few would see a major building through from inception to completion; but we tend to push responsibility too far down the ladder. There should be a very senior person—a project champion—to take personal responsibility for a project, and take credit, or the reverse, for the quality of the finished building.
Major buildings are, in future, likely to be commissioned under the private finance initiative. That will introduce new problems, and we are trying to address them positively. The basic principle is that public bodies will procure services rather than assets. Thus, for example, a Department will not commission an office building, but will sign a contract for the provision of office space, leaving the supplier to decide how best to provide it. However, a major public body must retain responsibility for what is done to the built environment in its name. The public client will therefore wish to ensure that its chosen supplier understands the process of design and regards architectural quality as important, and is determined that the building and its associated setting will make an improvement to the public realm.
601 My Department is working with the PFI executive to prepare best practice guidance on how a requirement for high architectural quality may best be built into a PFI project. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye felt her heart sink when the hon. Member for Rotherham said that we should give advice to the Treasury, knowing the intense, almost unreasonable difficulty involved. For once, since no money but mere quality is involved, I think that I can say that the Treasury will accept that. Perhaps it is dangerous even to say that. I hope that it will accept that quality must be built into PFI arrangements.
We already have experience of good design under PFI arrangements. The Royal Armouries has obtained what is widely agreed to be an excellent new museum in Leeds. Although I have not visited it, I am told that it has added a distinguished building to a key site in the city, one of which we can be proud.
Another area with great potential for public architecture is the national lottery. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage opened the exhibition of lottery projects at the Royal Institute of British Architects. The visit happily coincided with the day when the total raised for good causes by the lottery passed £3 billion. The potential of the national lottery to extend architectural patronage is enormous and the 24 arts and sports projects in the exhibition demonstrate that architectural quality at the appropriate level is a prime component of a successful lottery project.
We held a seminar last year for lottery distributors, to share their experiences in how best to encourage design quality. They re-emphasised that architectural success is the result of a close partnership between an informed client and a skilled architect. It is crucial therefore that a client, who may have had little to do with building projects, can find advice. The distributors already run a programme of conferences, workshops and road shows to make early contact with potential applicants.
I hope that our handbook on architectural competitions will help. Published last year, it was deliberately written for the promoter who has little experience of such matters. 602 Design competitions have the great merit of offering a range of creative proposals, and they have a record of bringing forward promising young architects who might otherwise find it difficult to make their mark. However, they are expensive in abortive effort and are not always appropriate. Sadly, they also have a record of intemperate accusations and recriminations.
Our new handbook recognises the equal validity of appointing an architect by competitive interview. That approach gets the architect and the client working together from the beginning, and has also produced excellent results. The inspiration comes from the architect, not from the method of selection.
Finally, I should say a word about the world squares initiative, not just because Parliament square, Whitehall and Trafalgar square are local issues for the House, but because architecture is about places as much as buildings. I hope that the means can be found to control traffic so that people can enjoy the experience of those two great squares. I hope that architects in other cities will recognise that every building helps to create a place that will be important to more people than will ever use the building.
I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate our commitment to improving the architecture of the public realm. It will not be easy, because money is always tight. We should not underestimate the courage required for a public servant to invest in quality. However, good design is not necessarily more expensive. The Broadgate complex achieved high architectural quality within tight cost limits. In a different field, Hampshire county architects, under Sir Colin Stansfield Smith, have produced a succession of excellent schools to standard cost allowances.
Good architecture is a sound investment, but it needs both a good architect and a knowledgeable and committed client. We know that we have good architects: British architecture has a high international reputation. I hope that our public bodies will match them, and play their part as enlightened clients.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Three o'clock.