§ 8. Mr. KINGasked whether the Committee sent out to report on the building of the new Delhi was informed that a particular architect had been selected to submit plans for the new Government buildings; and, if so, whether the name of such architect can be stated?
§ 9. Mr. KINGasked whether any architect has yet been selected to design the Government House in the new Delhi; and, if so, whether any particular style of architecture has been imposed upon, or selected by, him for the proposed building?
§ 18. Mr. KINGasked whether the India Office has consulted another architect, besides Mr. Lutyens, on the planning and designing of the public buildings of the new Delhi, and, if so, whether the name of this architect can be given; whether his opinion agreed with that of Mr. Lutyens; and if this architect or Mr. Lutyens has been, or will be, entrusted with the designing and carrying out of architectural work at Delhi?
§ Mr. H. BAKERThe India Office has not consulted any architect about the planning and designing of the public buildings of new Delhi, and no decision has been come to as to how or by whom they will be carried out.
§ 19. Mr. KINGasked whether a London journal published last July what purported to be a summary of the preliminary Report of the expert Committee which went out to Delhi to report on the planning of the 2104 new part of that city; whether its publication was authorised by the India Office; and whether, in future, official Reports, the full text of which is withheld, will be imparted to the public in this manner?
§ Mr. H. BAKERThe newspaper article to which the hon. Member presumably refers was not authorised by nor were the materials supplied by the India Office. The information which it contained with regard to alternative sites for new Delhi and to the views of the Town Planning Committee seems to have been generally known in India.
§ Mr. KINGThen we are to understand that the report published in the newspaper is not an actual summary of the official Report?