BUILDINGS IN WHITEHALL. (Hansard, 3 August 1926)

§ VISCOUNT PEEL

My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for giving me an opportunity of answering this Question, because paragraphs on this subject have appeared in some of the important daily newspapers with headlines rather alarming to those interested in the national finances and in economy. I am asked whether there is any truth in the statement that the Office of Works is completing plans for the construction of a block of buildings in Whitehall at a cast of £5,000,000. This question of developing what is known as the Montagu House site is rather an old one now. A scheme for dealing with a large portion of that site now occupied by Whitehall Gardens and by Montagu House was considered before the War when plans were prepared in competition by a panel of selected architects. On the outbreak of the War it was, of course, postponed indefinitely. Some two years ago the possibility of developing a building scheme on the site in question to house a large number of departmental staffs then occupying hired premises was reviewed, but owing to the necessity for avoiding heavy capital expenditure no further action was taken.

There were two main grounds on which the proposal was brought forward and discussed. One was that it was hoped that a good deal of expenditure might be saved by giving up a number of expensive hired premises in which a considerable number of staffs were being housed. The second ground was that it was hoped to recommend it because some degree of economy would be effected by concentrating under one roof the branches of several Departments which were then housed in different buildings. They included the Ministry of Labour, the Board of Trade, the Air Ministry, and the 510 Ministry of Transport. I should like to say that it is a complete misconception to suppose that this was merely a scheme to house the Air Ministry in rather a palatial residence of their own. It was, of course, to deal with no less than four great Government Departments. Another point on which I should like to comment is this. It is really uneconomical to leave the site in its present condition. It is a very valuable site, and certainly, when I looked into the matter nearly two years ago, I was rather unwilling that we should have sites held by the Government which were not developed to their fullest capacity. Since that time the whole position has remained completely unchanged.

As for the statement in the Press, with which I am challenged to deal, I can say that there is not even the shadow of truth in the suggestion that plans are in course of preparation or completion by architects of His Majesty's Office of Works. It is equally untrue and without the slightest foundation to say that the Air Ministry have been bringing pressure to bear upon the Office of Works in this matter. I am rather sorry to give, at this stage, its quietus to a very promising have that might have had an active course in what I believe is technically known as the "silly season."