Whitehall Buildings (Hansard, 15 October 1996)

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, the Executive Agency, Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE), which co-ordinates departments' plans, informs me that it is not aware of any proposals for the partial conversion of Whitehall buildings into residential or hotel accommodation.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on a report in last Friday's Financial Times which stated that if the projects in the pipeline are successful the whole government office estate could be transferred to the private sector? Does the noble Baroness consider it wise that property which has been in government hands for 200 years and situated on land which the Crown has owned for 800 years should now be sold off? When one thinks about the Foreign Office, Downing Street, the Cabinet Office, Horseguards—and, indeed, Admiralty Arch, about which there has already been speculation—one wonders whether it is right for the Government to be selling off such fundamental Crown properties.

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, that was a rather long question. I should advise the noble Lord not to believe everything he reads in press reports; I am sure he does not. The private finance initiative, which is what much of the question refers to, is really about securing value for money. Moreover, we believe that most departments have no in-house expertise when it comes to property ownership. Instead of owning a depreciating asset, being exposed to cost over-runs and then managing the asset itself, we are contracting out to buy a quantity of services accommodation at set standards from the private sector. Payment will be dependent upon the delivery of those services. Risks are shared, thus reducing government exposure and introducing the prospect of reward to contractors who manage services well. As a matter of fact, we believe that the PH is a very good initiative and one which will provide very good value for money for the taxpayer.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, I should perhaps point out to the Minister that she has just given a rather long 1595 answer. Further, if I may say so with the greatest of respect, it was a somewhat incomprehensible answer. What exactly do the Government have in mind in relation to Whitehall and the Crown estate? Is it a sale with a lease back to the Government? I am not quite sure what the Minister said in that respect. Can the noble Baroness give an assurance that at least Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street will remain in the public sector? While there will be a change of occupancy after the next election, we would not wish to see a change of functions.

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, the noble Lord stole my joke about long questions and answers. Perhaps I may make the position quite clear.

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
I am so sorry that noble Lords opposite did not understand what I said the first time round. I thought that I had made the position quite clear. However, I am prepared to repeat myself. It is for departments to dispose of any office space they no longer require. That is really what we are talking about. Any consequent redevelopment or change of use is subject to the normal planning procedures operated by the local authority, which in the case of Whitehall—to which the noble Lord referred—is Westminster City Council. I can assure the House that this Government have no intention whatever of selling off No. 10 or No. 11 Downing Street; nor indeed the Palace of Westminster. We will most certainly be here after March, April or May of next year, or whenever. If noble Lords opposite have different views and believe that they will do differently, they may decide to make this beautiful palace redundant, but we will not allow that to happen.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, I am sorry to press the point. Can the Minister say whether there is any specific office accommodation in and around Whitehall which the Government at present feel they do not require and in respect of which they are about to go through the quite astonishingly contorted actions just mentioned?

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, I cannot add much to what I have already said. As I said in my original Answer, there are no such plans. Indeed, I shall repeat it. The Property Advisers to the Civil Estate inform me that they are not aware of any proposals for the partial conversion of Whitehall buildings into residential or hotel accommodation. That seems to me to be perfectly clear. I am surprised that the noble Lord opposite, with all his high intelligence, does not understand plain English.

§ Lord Wyatt of Weeford
My Lords, is the Minister aware that every answer she has given today increases the disquiet of the House? Is it not absurd to be thinking of handing over any area of one of the most famous administrative centres in the entire world to the private sector?

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, I am very surprised and indeed sorry that the noble Lord feels any 1596 disquiet regarding what I said. It is certainly not my intention to make anyone unhappy; indeed, I always try to make people happy if I can. As I tried to say, it is for individual departments to consider the future of their Whitehall buildings. There are advantages in the PH but any proposals will be subject to normal planning procedures and planning policy as well as all the necessary guidance on historic buildings and other matters. I can certainly say that this Government very much protect the heritage of all of our buildings.

§ Viscount Mountgarret
My Lords, am I right in thinking that some time ago Members of both Houses of Parliament were desperately short of offices and other accommodation? If that is the case, why is part of Whitehall being converted for a use other than that of parliamentary business? At the eastern end of the Palace of Westminster there seem to be major developments. Indeed it appears that New Scotland Yard is being used for government purposes.

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot give a particularly satisfactory answer to my noble friend. I do not have any information about that, but I shall most certainly find out.

§ Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove
My Lords, it is slightly worrying that in all her replies the noble Baroness has not given any reassurance as regards the future of Dover House in Whitehall. That is important to many people in the Scottish Office.

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, I know of no plans. I have said that we have heard of no plans. I have not been informed of anything in that regard. As far as I am concerned, there are no plans in that regard.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, I am a little lost. Am I right in saying—as I understand the Question—that the Government do not consider the Treasury "suitable for partial conversion"? Am I right in saying that they do not consider anything else suitable for partial conversion? Is that the answer to the Question?

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, I should make clear something that perhaps I have not made clear—

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
I am sorry if noble Lords think I may have misled them in some way. The position as regards the Treasury building is different from that of other buildings to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred. I shall read my brief exactly to make the position clear to noble Lords. On 13th September the Treasury announced that it had decided to appoint Exchequer Partnership plc to redevelop its headquarters in Whitehall. This imaginative bid breaks new ground—

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
Noble Lords may well laugh, but it most definitely is an imaginative bid. It 1597 will break new ground as regards the private finance initiative. It offers good value for money for the taxpayer which we on this side of the House are particularly keen to achieve, and it provides modern, efficient office accommodation for the Treasury which is very necessary. Negotiations with Exchequer Partnership plc are continuing. Obviously at this stage, for commercial reasons, it would be premature to reveal further details. However, the Treasury expects to sign heads of terms shortly and further information will be provided then. I am sorry that I did not make clear that that position was different from the general position I discussed subsequently.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, the noble Baroness said there were no plans as regards Dover House. Does that mean that if the Scottish Office wants to get rid of the building, it can put it up for sale, or let it, for some imaginative proposal and the Government would have no objection in principle?

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, since 1st April it has been for individual—

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
I accept that noble Lords opposite find that date humorous. I agree that it is an unfortunate date to have to announce. However, since 1st April it has been for individual departments to consider the future of their Whitehall buildings. I can inform the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that it is a matter for each individual department. Any proposals would be subject to normal planning procedures and planning policy—I can do no better than repeat what I have said—and would take into account guidance as regards historic buildings and other matters.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that one possible use for those parts of the Treasury buildings which the Treasury will no longer need is as residential and hotel accommodation? Will the Minister also confirm—as she said in a previous answer—that under the private finance initiative the Government consider property to be a depreciating asset whereas most of us were brought up to understand that property was an appreciating asset which one sells only when one is in financial distress?

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, I am not in a position to confirm what the noble Lord has just asked. However, I can inform the House that an announcement will be made shortly by Sir Terry Burns who is the highly respected chairman of the Treasury Management Board. Negotiations over the heads of terms regarding the Treasury building with the proposed private sector partner are currently in progress. For obvious commercial reasons it would not be in the Government's interest to make any further comment or announcement at this time.

§ Lord Mowbray and Stourton
My Lords, I do not wish to add to the misery of the noble Baroness but 1598 is it not time for the Government as landlord and active owner of all these places to call a halt to these rumours? A few months ago we were told that Admiralty Arch was to be sold off. Shall we be told next week that the Palais de Danse will buy the Banqueting Hall? I say with great respect that it is rather frightening that all these lovely buildings which have been designed for a purpose are being treated in this way.

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, I have spoken at length about the Treasury building but other than that building there are no further plans in this regard.

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, is the Minister aware that her paean of praise for the PFI rings strangely untrue to people working in the National Health Service? On the issue of value for money, would it not be sensible to have an investigation and study undertaken by the Audit Commission on the value for money of the PFI in the NHS before the Government embark on any imaginative PR schemes elsewhere?

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness will agree with me that that matter is wide of the Question.

§ Baroness Park of Monmouth
My Lords, I too wish to be clear about this. Are we really saying that private finance initiatives, or any other such initiative, may be taken by individual government departments and not referred in any way to Parliament? This is a national issue. We are talking about buildings that belong to the nation. I am sorry but I find it extremely difficult to understand how one can justify the fate of a building resting in the hands of a particular department at a particular moment in time.

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, as I said, there are no plans in this regard in relation to other buildings. I have nothing further to add.