HL Deb 18 June 1964 vol 258 cc1289-92

3.18 p.m.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the reasons for removing the Metropolitan Police headquarters from its historic home at New Scotland Yard to Victoria Street and whether the site at Victoria Street is being rented or purchased.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT)

My Lords, this decision was taken because it had become clear that a satisfactory and fully efficient headquarters for the Metropolitan Police could not be provided on its present site, where it has been since 1890. The building now being constructed in Victoria Street will provide modern and efficient accommodation for the offices of both the Commissioner and the Receiver and will be suitably sited in Central London. The building is being taken on a long lease with the intention that it should constitute a permanent headquarters for the Metropolitan Police.

LORD MORRISON of LAMBETH

My Lords, I may be over-sentimental about it, but Scotland Yard is an historic place. It is known all over the world, and everybody knows that it faces the river, with Whitehall at the back of it, which is very convenient sometimes for the Home Office. Is it really necessary to shift it? There was a modern extension of Scotland Yard some few years ago in which the noble and gallant Marshal of the R.A.F., Lord Trenchard, asked for my assistance in getting agreement with the London County Council, which I gladly gave. Therefore, their accommodation has extended. Would it not be better to demolish the present building and put a higher building on the site, which nowadays would be permitted? It seems to me to be anomalous and wrong for Scotland Yard to be round about Victoria Street—and, I understand, a back street of Victoria Street. I would ask the Government to think about it again.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I think the noble Lord is being somewhat over-sentimental. New Scotland Yard was moved to its present site only in 1890, and before that it was at the other end of Whitehall. It is not possible to build a suitable building on the present site, and it is essential, in our view, that the Receiver, who for the last three years has had premises away from New Scotland Yard, should once again be in the same building as the police head-quarters.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

This is all very well. The noble Lord said that New Scotland Yard has been built only since 1890. Only in the last Session of Parliament, noble Lords were saying that the London County Council, which began to function a year before 1890, was an old affair and that it was time it was altered. Why do the Government sing two tunes? Surely the site is all right and they could build a higher building on it. What is the rent to be paid for this place in Victoria Street? If it is a substantial rent, why do not the Government buy the land, unless they can take other premises temporarily during the rebuilding of Scotland Yard on its present site?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, if the noble Lord will think of his first supplementary question he will find that although we were dealing in one case with buildings and in the other case with an organisation, our view was that both needed change since 1890. There is no suitable site for sale in the centre of London, and it is not normally Government practice to publish details of any commercial transaction, such as leases. They are regarded as confidential, for this reason: it would most certainly adversely affect the negotiating position of the Government if they had to publish the terms of their leases.

LORD BOOTHBY

My Lords, could the noble Lord at least give us an assurance that the new building will still be called Scotland Yard?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I can give that undertaking, and that has already been announced by my right honourable friend. It will be called "New Scotland Yard".

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, as modern architecture is more glass than bricks and mortar, would not "The glasshouse" be the better name? Also, in view of the nature of the construction, are the Home Office satisfied with the security?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate for the Home Office to use a military term like "glasshouse".

LORD HOBSON

My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether this building is being built as a specialist building for the purposes of Scotland Yard, or merely for office accommodation? If it is the former, what is the case for having it on a lease?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, it is being built as a specialist building. It was not possible to get a freehold site in the centre of London, where we think the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police should be.

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, if it is not possible to get a freehold site, are not the Home Office, like a local authority, able to use compulsory purchase?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I am not sure of the answer to that question, but I am almost certain that it is "No" in this particular case.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, is it really desirable that an important Government Department should be holding its premises on lease? It does not apply to any other Government building. Why should they have this building on lease? Is it not possible to acquire the freehold of these premises?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, many buildings, of course, are on lease. I can think of two, the Ministry of Education and the Board of Trade. I think you will find also that most of the London prisons are on land leased from local authorities.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, may we take it that the Government are firm in their policy of what they call a free trade in land?

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, if the Government wanted a compulsory purchase order is it not clear that the Westminster City Council, or the London County Council, acting on their behalf, would readily get them one? Not that I want them to go to Victoria Street at all. What a dreadful place for the police!

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, the present arrangements for the purchase of this land are considered perfectly satisfactory.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

We do not know; Parliament must not know.