HC Deb 28 March 1947 vol 435 cc1603-19

Order for Second Reading read.

3.8 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill is sufficiently self-explanatory to need very little commendation from me on its Second Reading. It provides for the acquisition, either by agreement or compulsorily, of the site of the old Westminster Hospital opposite the Abbey, and also for certain modifications in the restrictions that exist on the use of that site which were designed originally to protect neighbouring buildings. It is proposed to demolish the old hospital buildings which are now used as a hostel for troops, and also to demolish the old Stationery Office buildings on the adjoining site. It is the fact that they are being demolished that leads to the omission of certain restrictions upon the use of the sites. Then upon the combined site it is proposed to build a new Colonial Office.

Hon. Members will probably know that the office accommodation which exists in Downing Street for the Colonial Office has long been totally inadequate to the expanded services of that Department, and that the Colonial Office staffs are now scattered in various premises, much to their inconvenience. When the Colonial Office moved into their present buildings in 1875 their staff, I am told, numbered 40. At the present moment it is 1,084. It is hoped to erect a new building on this fine site which will be worthy of our Colonial Empire. When the new Westminster Hospital was built, the hospital sold their site to a purchaser, who proposed to develop it for commercial offices, but I am sure that it will be generally felt on both sides of the House, that the development of that site should take place in accordance with the principles laid down in the County of London plan, and that it should be used for definitely national purposes. The Bill is needed in order that the Ministry of Works may be given the powers, which it has not at the present moment, of compulsory purchase and, as I have said, it provides for certain modifications of restrictions on the development of the site which were necessary when it was proposed to develop the hospital site on its own but are not necessary now, for instance, restrictions upon the height of the new building on its Northern side. Those are not now necessary because we shall use the site of the Stationery Office as well, but the original restrictions are still kept so far as the height on the other sides of the development are concerned.

There is also here a Clause which is to exempt the site from the provisions of the London Building Acts. That is done because, in the normal way, Government Departments are not subject to those Acts; the Crown is not bound by them, and we think it would be wrong to create a precedent by allowing that to happen in this particular case. However, the House may be sure that the Government will, in the development of the site, proceed in consultation with the planning authority as well as with the Royal Fine Art Commission. I think that has covered the main points that arise in this Bill, and I move, therefore, that it be read a Second time.

3.13 p.m.

Mr. Grimston (Westbury)

We on this side of the House do not oppose this Bill; in fact we agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a site upon which should be erected a building, having regard to the importance of the site and its position, which is used for national purposes. Let me remind the House about the site. It will be remembered that only recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Government have agreed to contribute £100,000 to the sums already provided through the generosity of the Middlesex County Council, the Westminster City Council, the London County Council and the Pilgrim Trust in order that the Canning site may be preserved as an open space, and that we may be able to improve Parliament Square. The House will also remember that the Abingdon Street site has been chosen for the memorial to King George V, and when one remembers the Abbey and this building, and the sentiment attaching to this part of London, we really have now an opportunity, if we take it, of making this area something which is really worthy to be the heart of an Empire.

The site, the acquisition by the Government of which we are discussing, is an important part of this area. Everybody knows its close proximity to the Abbey, and our concern is that when a building is erected here, it should be something really worthy of the position which it is to occupy. I have one or two observations to make about that, and a question or two to ask, and, if they are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I know that several of my hon. Friends have points to put, not only with regard to the building itself but with regard to the use to which it may be put.

I think the question of the design of the building so important that the right hon. Gentleman should select one of our finest architects, or possibly put the design out to a number of architects, and let public opinion play around the various designs. He has already said that the Royal Fine Art Commission should be brought in. What I wish to impress on him is that this matter should not be treated, as are buildings which go up in various parts of the country, as just a matter for the Ministry of Works. This goes beyond that, and one of the finest architects the country can produce should be employed.

We think it wholly proper that this building should be used for Colonial Office purposes, but I wish to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Westminster Hospital authorities found the actual site was very noisy. We should consider whether the actual position is suitable for offices where people can work in conditions of comfort, at any rate on the side which faces the Broadway. I do not want to trespass on what my hon. Friends may wish to say, but there are questions to be considered in that regard.

Another matter on which I should like some information relates to the fact that the Bill takes power to acquire the site by compulsion or agreement. Have any negotiations gone on yet, and is it likely that the site will be acquired by agreement, or does the Minister anticipate that he will have to use compulsory powers? If would appear from the Bill that the site is to be acquired at something like the 1939 valuation. I would like some information on that. There will be other opportunities at later stages to discuss different points, but Is conclude, as I began, by saying that we on this side of the House, and I believe on all sides, are concerned that when the time comes to erect a building on this site it should be something completely worthy of the great position it is to occupy.

3.19 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Hanley)

I am very glad to have the opportunity of supporting what has been said about the desirability, in this case, of building a structure which will be a credit to ourselves, and be worthy of the Empire, at the very heart of which it will lie. In order that that may come to pass, it seems not only desirable to employ the best architect we can obtain, nor is reference to the Fine Art Commission enough. The Fine Art Commission have no executive powers, but only advisory powers, and the architect alone may not find it possible to provide for us what he himself might desire. In other countries, particularly Sweden, it is customary to use the most talented groups of people, sculptors and painters, in conjunction with the architect in planning the structure of the building, in order to see that when completed it reflects the feelings, the mood, ideals and aspirations of the people in that country, or that city. I would like the Minister to give as an assurance that we shall use a similar technique here. Our buildings, in the past 100 years, have not always been as beautiful as they might have been. They have been of no true significance whatever, and they have not offered any particular joy to the eye of the beholder. Certainly, artists have not been called in to help to beautify buildings internally or externally; and it would be reasonable to say that the external frigidity of most buildings has been matched by their internal barrenness of design. Where we should have idealistic conceptions we have been given miserable abortions.

Today, in view of the fact that much of Britain has to be rebuilt in our lifetime, and that of our children, we must match our needs with the desires of the people, if we are to build better. I think that most of us must agree, and I hope the Minister will agree, that it is this particular feature we must cater for—the ever-growing appreciation of the need for more beauty in our daily lives. It is of no use to offer us utilitarian buildings, or whatever they may be called. If we allow posterity to accuse us of shoddiness in our public buildings, I think that we should be for ever ashamed. At this time, when it is said that we must cater for the age of the common man, let us cater for "Everyman."

In the past, private patronage has been thought to be enough to ensure that buildings of some beauty might be embellished. Whether it was done by prince or duke, or by the Church, which did magnificent work, or by the private patronage of the eighteenth century landowner, I think we must agree that it was not satisfactory in all respects. I am sure that all of us would assent to the view that we might have had more Shakespeare and Milton if they had not had to tout and cadge, during so much of their lives, for a living. It is hardly conceivable that Rembrandt would have died a drunkard's death if it had not been that he thought of himself as being as important as some of his burgher patrons. Wouverman, one of the greatest landscape painters the World knew, who showed us how to paint skies, died in a pauper house. This is not something to be thought of with pride. When one of the greatest of our painters, Innis, the greatest since Bonnington's time, died as a young man of 28, if I had been called upon to write his death certificate, I should have written, "Death from pulmonary tuberculosis, due to poverty and disregard by the society in which he lived."

If we are to replace what can no longer be afforded by private patronage, thanks to the remarkable work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sees that there is little private income available for the purchase of works of art, as compared with the eighteenth century, then we must urge that a Minister of State should take the place of the private individual and offer us that patronage. I am told that there are scarcely six large-scale collectors in the country, and that all of them live in the metropolitan area. There are barely 700 painters and sculptors in the country who earn £500 a year gross. This figure includes our fashionable portrait painters. I will say of them little, except that one can recognise their sitters by their faces, and not much more.

I propose to the Minister, therefore—and I hope he will consider it—that out of this sum of money of £1,850,000 for the cost of the building, he should allocate a minimum of two per cent., not necessarily by way of addition, if that means fresh legislation, but by way of subtraction, set aside £50,000, and say, "This shall be spent on fine art alone in conjunction with the advice given by the architect—"—

Mr. Speaker

We cannot discuss the future of fine art on this Bill. We cannot enter into that subject now.

Dr. Stross

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, I accept your Ruling; but as this is the last part of what I have to say, I hope that you will consider that I am in Order for the next two minutes. I suggest that, in respect of this particular building on this particular site, £50,000 out of the money allotted for the project should be allotted for the employment of sculptors, painters and wood carvers, in conjunction with the architect to see that the design of this building shall be suitable, something of which we may be proud, something of which those who see it at any time in the future may say, that it is a reflection of our people, and a true symbol of our Commonwealth.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that in 1910 there was a young man named Rupert Brooke discussing this very thing in his university? He was asking for money—£500,000 a year—for this very sort of thing, and he said—I shall quote only one or two sentences I need not tell students of modem budgets what a drop this is. If anyone wants to realise its insignificance, let him consider the modern expenditure on armaments. Half a million pounds to secure the arts in Britain. Of course, he had in mind the arts associated with our great public buildings, and he said: I appeal, therefore, to my friends the politicians in this Society, to see that this is done. If there is any politician present here is his chance. There was another young man present who has become a politician since. He is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this particular Government. He sat in the room at that time when Rupert Brooke made that appeal. It is for his memory, and for the memory of all those who have lived and died, and who were the most sensitive folk of our nation, that I appeal to the Minister to accede to my request.

3.27 p.m.

Mr. Howard (Westminster, St. George's)

I take it that I need not ask for your Ruling, Sir, as to whether I should be in Order in following the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) in a discussion as to who was, in fact, the best painter of landscapes or the best painter of skies. Therefore, I must ask the indulgence of the House if I come down to earth with somewhat of a bump and come straight to this Bill. I intervene for two purposes only. The first is to express my delight that the Minister has made it known that he is prepared to consult the Royal Fine Art Commission and the planning authority at every stage before this building is planned or erected. I intervene to ask him to extend his consultations one stage further and to give an assurance to this House that he will also consult the highways authority. He will appreciate that, in the planning of the streets in this area, points may arise which will affect the building. I anticipate that he will probably reply that he will automatically do that, but it would be a source of satisfaction if he would give an assurance that he will, in fact, do so. We are all aware of the historic nature of this site, and no words of mine could add any embellishments to the site itself.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Skinnard (Harrow, East)

In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, the Minister said he hoped that the buildings which would arise on this site would be worthy of the Colonial Empire. They ought to be worthy, also, of what is regarded as the centre of Empire, and since they will very much affect the first sight of the centre of Empire from the Victoria Street entrance, it is very important that, to whomever the design is entrusted, there should be some realisation of the necessity to harmonise the style of this building with that of the surrounding buildings. I am mortally afraid that, by the misuse of the opportunity that is offered, we shall have another example of the drab, functional approach which has disfigured so many London highways in recent years, and that we may have an admirable design, perhaps, internally, for the purpose for which the building is designed, but entirely at variance with the London we know and the London we desire.

I do not want to see an architect, even with great ideas, perhaps, given a completely free choice in his treatment of this great opportunity. Already mention has been made of various authorities with whom he should collaborate in preparing the design. Knowing the Ministry of Works, I am very anxious to know it they have already in mind the architect to whom they intend to entrust this great work. I would personally prefer to see a great open competition, under, perhaps, the auspices of the Royal Institute of British Architects, or of the Art Council, and an exhibition of the designs submitted, and of models, in some central place, preferably on the very site on which the building is to be erected, so that people could come to the exhibition and see the neighbourhood, enabling them to judge of the suitability of the designs which they would inspect.

I prefer to hasten slowly in this matter of the choice of architect and of the artists who will embellish his work, and I hope the art of the engraver will not be neglected when these artists are considered. I urge the Minister, even if he has taken certain tentative steps, to consider the vastness of this project and its importance to every man and woman, not only in London, but in the Empire, and to see whether it is possible to have a competition worthy of the design which we hope to see accepted.

There are many architects practising in Britain who have given us examples of their work in recent years, but in hardly any instance have they avoided controversy. This site is unique; it is probably the best site remaining for a great national building, and it would indeed be a pity if we did not get a great consensus of opinion in favour of the design before ever the foundation stone is laid. We do not want a bitter controversy to rage about the building which is to arise on the hospital site. If the choice of an architect has been made, and it is considered irrevocable, I urge that representatives of the Art Commission or the R.I.B.A. should be appointed as consultants to the architect, and the closest contact made with the authorities of the City of Westminster and the London County Council, so that when the Colonial Office is more worthily housed than it has been for many years past, it will be housed in a building not only adequate and suitable for its purpose, but in a building which will be a pride to everyone who approaches it and an inspiration to the Empire as a whole.

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Gammans (Hornsey)

The first question I should like to ask the Government is—Where is the Colonial Secretary? Why is he not here this afternoon? We are providing him with a new office, and spending a lot of money on it, and I should have thought it was only elementary courtesy to the House that he should have been in his place for this Debate, especially as I doubt whether the Minister of Works can answer one of the questions I wish to put to the Government. It is a question which I think only the Colonial Secretary can answer. As for a new Colonial Office, I certainly would agree with that because nothing could be more depressing than the present Colonial Office with its dreary passages and its uninspiring entrance.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South)

And its smells.

Mr. Gammons

The first question I want to raise is this. Is this site suitable for a Government office at all? As other hon. Members have said, this is a unique site in London, opposite the greatest shrine in our history—Westminster Abbey. Although I would agree that we do not want shops there, I have not so much respect for a Government office, either from without or within, as to suggest that it should go on that unique site. After all, most Government offices have a rather forbidding appearance from outside, and when one goes inside one finds that curious smell of ink, sealing wax and mice which seems to pervade every Government activity. On the point about noise which has been referred to by my hon. Friend, surely ii is one of the noisiest parts of London? It is where buses seem to rev. up, and they make more noise going round that corner than in any other part of Westminster

On the second point I want to mention, I was hoping that the Minister would tell us a little more about the type of building he hopes to put up. I certainly do not envy the architect who has to design it. He has the Abbey on his left and in front of him a row of Victorian horrors which advertise various aspects of the Church; on the right of him he has the Central Hall of Westminster, which I do not regard as one of the most beautiful buildings in London; again on his left, he has the staid Middlesex Guildhall, and away on the right, Victoria Street—surely one of the most forbidding and dreary streets in the whole of London.

What I should have liked would have been to see this site kept free altogether as an open space. However, if that cannot be arranged, I certainly agree with other hon. Members on both sides of the House in saying, "For heaven's sake let us see that we get a really good architect. Let us see that this is put out to competition and not handed over to some architect in the Ministry of Works." I think the Government ought to agree this afternoon that the design for this building should be put out for competition and that we should have an opportunity to see the plans and form some idea of what the finished building will look like. What is to happen to the present Colonial Office? Is it to be knocked down, or is some other unfortunate Department to go into it? What is to happen to the India Office? I suppose that it will not be required for very much longer, and as we are moving from one building to another I. do hope that the Minister will tell us something about that.

The chief point I want to make is this. I was rather hoping that when the right hon. Gentleman asked for money to purchase this site he would tell us that it was to be used for some entirely different purpose. I hoped that he would tell us that it was to be used not for a Colonial Office but for a great Colonial House. I put down a Question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies last year on this subject in which I asked whether or not this Government favoured the erection of a Colonial House in London, and the answer I received was that they did. When I read this Bill I hoped that that was the purpose for which it would be used. This is one of my King Charles's heads, and I must ask the House to be indulgent with me on this point. I do think it has betrayed a lack of any kind of imagination on the part of successive Governments that we have never shown our pride in the Colonial Empire by having a great Colonial House here in the centre of London worthy of that Empire.

In all parts of London we have the agents of the Colonial Governments tucked away in back streets. I doubt if half the Members of this House know where those offices are. What a chance there would have been to set up on this unique site a great Colonial House which every one of our fellow subjects in the Colonies overseas would have regarded instinctively as his home in London, and the centre to which he could have come. We could have had there a club house, with residential accommodation. I would like to have seen there a cinema so that our own citizens—school children and others—could go to see what is happening in the Colonial Empire; there would also have been a library and so forth. It would have been a wonderful conception, if we could have had the imagination to do it.

Each one of the Dominions has set up a worthy building in the centre of London. In the Colonial Empire we have 60 million people—more people than there are in the Dominions put together—and yet there is no building in London which shows our pride in the Colonial Empire. There would have been a chance for such a building on this site, and I suggest that the building itself might appropriately have been a gift of His Majesty's Government as a token of our appreciation of the loyalty of the Colonies in the late war, and that we should have called upon the Colonies themselves to provide the interior decorations from all the wood and other things which they produce in different parts of the world. I do not know whether it is too late to put that idea into the minds of the Government. I do not dissent from the suggestion that we need a Colonial Office; there are many other parts of London where we could have a suitable Colonial Office, but I do not know of any more suitable part of London than this site where we could have had a great Colonial House. I would like to feel that we should make this gesture which embodies our pride in our common citizenship, our gratitude for loyalty and sacrifice, and our faith in the permanence of this great Commonwealth of peoples.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Braddock (Mitcham)

I do not intend to say anything about the general user of this building but, following the remarks of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), I think we ought to bear in mind that, in all probability, what is known as our Colonial Empire is not a permanent institution. It is the belief of the people in this country that ultimately these parts of the globe shall become self-governing and self-controlling countries.

Mr. Gammans

The mere fact that they do become self-governing, surely, should not lessen their pride in the British Commonwealth of Nations, any more than it has in the case of the Dominions.

Mr. Braddock

I do not want to continue on this point too long, but if it is a memorial that is wanted to our late Colonial Empire, I suggest there are better ways of having a memorial than this.

I wish to say a few words about the building and its site. I am sure we all welcome the fact that the Government are taking this site, and that it will not be used merely for a commercial building. What I am worried about is the use which is to be made of the site itself; because, unless the site is properly laid out, no matter what care we may take with regard to the selection of the architect, and no matter how much we may embellish that building with sculpture, paintings and, as one hon. Member suggested, engravings, we shall not have a satisfactory building. I do not know what restrictions the Government intend to place on their architect, but I do ask that no building should be erected with the same frontages as Westminster Hospital. If that building is to be stuck out in its present position, in front of the Central Hall, it will be impossible to get a satisfactory result. I understand that Government Departments are not obliged to consult the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. But basically this must be approached first of all from a planning point of view, and I ask that the frontages of the Westminster Abbey site be set well back, so as to enable other buildings to be better appreciated.

In doing that, we will give the architect a better opportunity of producing a decent result, because, quite frankly, I do not see how an architect can reconcile Central Hall, Westminster County Hall, the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey. Goodness knows how he is to deal with that particular problem. I do not say it is impossible, but it is exceedingly difficult. I would remind the House that the existence of Westminster Hospital on its present site has had serious repercussions on buildings already erected. The Central Hall was never able to be completed in accordance with its original design, because the Westminster Hospital authorities raised objections; the turrets that were supposed to have been included as a contrast to the general design of the building were never erected. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give particular care to the lay-out of the site, and to give instructions to the architect that he is to have freedom to give full consideration to the surrounding buildings.

I should like to add my voice to those of hon. Members who have asked that an open competition, open to all British architects at any rate, should be held in this matter. In saying this, I think it meets the wishes of my colleagues who have spoken in favour of bringing the other arts into collaboration. If we do that we can be certain of getting the work of one of our most brilliant architects. I emphasise that by using this method we shall, in all probability, get the advantage of the ability of one of our young architects. Almost invariably open competitions in this country have resulted in bringing young architects to the fore. The design of one of the finest buildings in this country, St. George's Hall, Liverpool, was the result of an open competition, and giving a young architect an opportunity. The same applies with regard to County Hall, and with regard to the new set of offices to be erected in Whitehall. I agree, the architect who won that latter competition was not a young man; but he obtained his place and experience as an architect as a result of an open competition. In view of the fact that we have just come through a war, it is all the more essential that we should use this method, in order to give young architects, young sculptors and young painters of this country a chance. If there is one thing in which our younger men differ from the older men, it is in this respect, that they appreciate—as was remarked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross)—the necessity of co-operation with each other. We can be certain that if we get a young man, we shall get a man who understands the need for co-operation with the other arts in this particular matter.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris (Cambridge University)

I do not possess the technical knowledge of the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), and I will therefore not be indiscreet enough to trespass on that ground. I was very much impressed by the imaginative sug- gestion of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) in regard to something in the nature of a Colonial House. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us whether a building occupying a site covering both that of the Westminster Hospital and that of the Stationery Office would be adequate to fulfil the double purpose of a Colonial Office and a Colonial House. It will be observed that the proposals before us today are twofold, and in that sense provide the Minister with a double opportunity. He proposes to take powers first of all to abolish the existing Westminster Hospital, and secondly to erect some other building on the same site. In regard to the first he can be assured of not only cordial but enthusiastic support. The right hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the injunction: Walk about Zion, go round about her, tell her towers, mark well her bulwarks. I myself applied that procedure one afternoon this week to the Westminster Hospital, dispensing myself for a quarter of an hour from the service of this House. I have not previously concentrated my mind on this edifice. Having done so, I am quite convinced that among all the hideous buildings in this great metropolis it can claim not merely an unchallenged, but an unchallengeable, place. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take powers to demolish Westminster Hospital, I can only hope that he will begin tomorrow morning, if the workers at his disposal are in the habit of doing that kind of thing on a Saturday.

With regard to the kind of building which is to be erected, I agree most cordially with the hon. Members for Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) and Mitcham that what is in question is not merely the erection on this incomparable site of a building impressive in itself, but of a building which goes as far as is posssible—and it is only possible to go a certain distance—towards harmonising with the very variagated companionship in which it will find itself. I cannot better the adjectives which have been applied to the Methodist Central Hall or the Middle-sex Guildhall, but it is perfectly obvious that the task of designing for erection there a building both impressive and harmonious will tax the capacities of our very best architects. I therefore desire, and it is the last point on which I shall detain the House, to reinforce most strongly the plea that has been put forward from so many quarters that the design for this building should be thrown open to general competition. I would only appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he could not give us an assurance on that point at this moment, so as to cut short further debate, and give the public the satisfaction and assurance which I am quite certain they most urgently desire.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Berry (Woolwich, West)

I join with hon. Members in urging that this shall be put to open competition, but I would like to cheer up my right hon. Friend by saying that even if it is put up to open competition and a successful architect is chosen, there will not be unanimity concerning the building until after the architect is dead—by which time I understand my right hon. Friend will have been promoted to another and higher place. I think my right hon. Friend has quite settled the doubts I had ready for him by the assurance he gave earlier that he would, in fact, consult the planning authority with regard to the general planning and the London County Council with regard to the points that would have arisen under the London Building Act. Also, while at the present time it is the practice to except Government Departments, as representing the Crown, from local Acts of Parliament, I would remind my right hon. Friend that that practice in another direction has been breached in another place, for a Bill is being considered to make the Crown and the Crown Agents suable by the ordinary citizen. I am hoping that in time to come Government Departments will place themselves under the same Acts of Parliament, which have been determined by this House, as ordinary citizens.

I have not very much to say further except that I hope the building will express certain parts of our Colonial Empire. I happened to be in Malta in November and December, 1938, and there a British architect had expressed some of the long ancestry of the Maltese and the Island of Malta, and just as attempts have been made in other places in London to express other countries associated with our Empire and Commonwealth, so an attempt ought to be made here. I do not share the despair of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) that when the Colonies are given self-government they will detach themselves from our Commonwealth. On the contrary, I hope I may have every confidence that they will attach themselves more firmly, and that being so, the Colonial Office which it is proposed to erect shall be expressive of them and of the ideas associated with them. I welcome this Bill and I wish my right hon. Friend the best of luck in regard to the taking of this site.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Key

By leave of the House I should like to reply to one or two of the points raised. I share with the House the great ambitions in regard to the buildings which are to be erected upon this site together with the other buildings which it will be necessary for us to erect in central London, and which we wish to be of the highest and finest character it is possible for us to secure. All I am asking for now is the power to acquire this site. I am not asking today for approval for any specific building to be erected there, but I shall give very careful consideration to the suggestions that have been made with regard to a competition for the architectural work on this site, and that consultations should take place not only with architects but with other artists in the hope that we will provide buildings worthy of the place.

Mr. Gammans

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance now that it will be done by competition?

Mr. Key

No; what I am saying is that I will give the fullest and most careful consideration to that in the hope that it is possible thereby to secure what we all want. I must say that experience in the past suggests that not always have the best results been achieved that way, but it does seem to me that on the evidence that has been given and the urge that has been expressed by the House, it might be the best thing to do to give an opportunity for competition in this connection. I have the greatest sympathy with the desire. I have already consulted with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, with the highway authorities and with the planning authorities. Let me say in this connection that in regard to the London plan this site and its precincts will be traffic free and the traffic will be diverted by a broadway in Great George Street so that there will be no traffic around the House nor in the immediate vicinity of the Abbey. That should meet many of the desires which have been put forward.

I shall take every possible step to meet the desires of the House and I hope that I shall be given the power to acquire this site for the erection of these buildings. I am afraid it will be difficult for me to say that the site will be capable of meeting the two ambitions regarding the Colonial Office as well as a house for Colonial purposes, because accommodation will be required for the Colonial Office Library and things of that sort. I doubt very much whether the place would serve the other purpose as well but that is something which I will bear in mind when dealing with the matter and when it comes to the time for considering the type of building to be erected on the site. I hope now that I will get the Bill in order to acquire the site.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Keeling (Twickenham)

When the Debate on this Bill is continued on another day, as it will have to be. I hope it will be arranged that the Colonial Secretary will be here to deal with the very important suggestion, which has been made in several parts of the House for a Colonial House. It seems to me that the argument used by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) against such a house is equally an argument against this Bill, because if there ceased to be Colonies there would be no need for a Colonial Office—

It being Four o'clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.