NEW CLAusE.—(Opinions of Royal Fine Art Commission to be published.) (Hansard, 19 June 1947)

§ Mr. Keeling (Twickenham)
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
As has not yet been mentioned, but as I am sure every member of the Committee knows, this Bill refers to the proposal to erect a new Colonial Office on the site of the old Westminster Hospital immediately adjacent to Westminster Abbey. When the Bill was before the Select Committee, of which I was a member, the Minister resisted an Amendment requiring him to consult the Royal Fine Art Commission about the layout, design and elevations of the new Colonial Office. He gave assurances, however, that at all stages he would consult the Royal Fine Art Commission. I want to take this a little bit further, and require the Royal Fine Art Commission to publish the opinions which they give. There is great public interest in this new building, and it is no exaggeration to say that it is the most important building site in the whole of London, with the possible exception of the vicinity of Saint Pauls. Therefore, I think it is important that the public should know what the Royal Fine Art Commission says about the proposals of Mr. Tait, the architect selected by the Ministry of Works.
The Royal Fine Art Commission is a most eminent body. It has as its chairman Lord Crawford, who was well known in this House as David Balniel. Its members include the distinguished architects and town planners, Professor Abercrombie, Professor Holden, Professor Holford and Mr. Maxwell Fry, and the recent Director of the National Gallery, Sir Kenneth Clark. Other members are the Royal Academicians Professor Richardson, Mr. Edward Mange, Mr. Hubert 2345 Worthington, all of whom are also architects, and Mr. Charles Wheeler and Mr. John Wheatley. It is very desirable that we should know what they have to say about the proposals of the Ministry of Works in regard to this very important site. We have had the assurance that they will be consulted, but I am seeking in this Clause to ensure that we shall know what opinions they give.

§ Mr. Gammans (Hornsey)
I beg to second the Motion.

§ The Minister of Works (Mr. Key)
As is obvious, this new Clause seeks to do a rather extraordinary thing for a Bill of this character. It seeks to impose on the Royal Fine Art Commission the obligation to publish whatever advice they give to my Department in regard to the building proposed on this site. There have been a number of cases in which the Commission's advice has, on their own volition, been published. Their Royal Warrant specifically empowers them to report their proceedings from time to time when they judge that it would be advisable and expedient so to do. But when advice is given by the Commission it is generally regarded as being confidential, and I think the Committee will appreciate that there are real reasons for that. The value of the advice they give would be seriously lessened if it had to be framed with the knowledge that publication of it would be a statutory obligation. There is an important difference between publication, by agreement with the Commission, of a report which has already been made, and the contents of which are known, and the imposing of an obligation on the Commission to publish their report and their advice before they have given it.
I would like to say a word about the relationship between the Ministry of Works and the Royal Fine Art Commission. It was the old Office of Works which was largely responsible for bringing the Commission into existence in 1924, and the Department have consistently supported them throughout. Our relations have always been of the friendliest, and nowhere is the value of the Commission's advice more keenly appreciated than in the Ministry of Works. In so far as the Motion seeks to ensure that I cannot ignore the Commission's advice without disclosing that I am 2346 so doing it seems to me to be guarding against a contingency which is very remote indeed. Moreover, this contingency is already provided for by the fact that the Commission are at liberty to publish their advice if they judge it to be expedient to do so. While I appreciate the sincere motives of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) in bringing this new Clause forward, in order that it may, in his opinion, strengthen the position of the Commission, I do not feel that the Commission would welcome proposals that publication should be made compulsory in this way. For those reasons, I feel I cannot accept the Motion.

§ Mr. Gammans
Do I understand that while the Minister is opposed to any obligation on the part of the Commission to publish their report, the Commission may, if they wish, publish their report without any obstacle being put in their way?

§ Mr. Key
That is exactly the position. They have power to publish their report if they desire. If they feel that I have not followed their advice, they have the liberty and power to publish their report. I therefore think it is wrong to try to put a statutory obligation on them in this way.