Previous SectionIndexHome Page


HUMAN TISSUE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 28 February.

DISABLED PERSONS AND CARERS (SHORT-TERM BREAKS) BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

WELFARE OF BROILER CHICKENS BILL [LORDS]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

DIGNITY AT WORK BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 February.

14 Feb 1997 : Column 593

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,


Ordered,


    That, the Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords] shall be proceeded with as if it was a consolidation bill and Standing Order No. 58A (Consolidation bills) shall apply.--[Mrs. Lait.]

14 Feb 1997 : Column 594

Architecture

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

14 Feb 1997 : Column 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:


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.

14 Feb 1997 : Column 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


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

14 Feb 1997 : Column 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 past20 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.

14 Feb 1997 : Column 598


Next Section

IndexHome Page