HC Deb 15 March 1956 vol 550 cc549-53
43. Dr. Stross

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has noted the public disquiet at the proposal to demolish the buildings of the Imperial Institute; and whether he will take advice from other architects so as to ensure that the tower and façade are not destroyed.

82. Mr. Fleetwood-Hesketh

asked the Secretary to the Treasury how many architects or firms of architects were consulted as to the feasibility of retaining intact the southern façade and campanile of the Imperial Institute in the proposed rebuilding of the site.

Mr. H. Brooke

The plans for the development of the South Kensington rectangle, recently submitted to the London County Council, were prepared by the Imperial College and their architects, Messrs. Norman and Dawbarn, who co-operated fully in a detailed examination of the possibilities of finding means to retain the Collcutt building. The development is to be the subject of further discussions between the architect of the London County Council and the College authorities and their architects.

Dr. Stross

The Financial Secretary having mentioned the name of the London County Council, would he bear in mind that this tower and façade occupies only three-quarters of an acre out of the 16-acre site; and as all of us are anxious that there should be as many places as possible for science students, would he ask the help of the L.C.C. to get another site immediately so as to make certain that something can be done without any ill-influence to further education?

Mr. Brooke

There are further Questions down about the amount of land occupied by the Colcutt building, and also about the position of the L.C.C. in this matter, so I ought not to anticipate my Answers to those Questions.

Mr. Fleetwood-Hesketh

Is my right hon. Friend aware that public opinion would be better reassured that the claims of science and amenity were reconciled to the greatest possible extent if a second opinion could be obtained?

Mr. Brooke

I recognise my hon. Friend's point, but I must stress the fact that this is a university development and the Government have no more right to give directions to the Imperial College about its choice of architect than they would have the right to give directions to a college of, say, Oxford or Cambridge as to the architect it should employ?

Mr. Jay

Is it true that the Government took a decision—and announced it—on this issue without consulting the London County Council first, although the Council is the planning authority?

Mr. Brooke

It was not for the Government to consult the London County Council. The Imperial College has submitted its plans to the planning authority.

Sir I. Horobin

Could my right hon. Friend explain how, as an Act of Parliament is in any case necessary, it is possible to disclaim responsibility for these matters?

Mr. Brooke

This is a matter of responsibility for the choice of architect. I quite agree that legislation will be necessary, and all those matters will come before Parliament then.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, whatever is the final conclusion, a decision really must be reached very quickly indeed so that there is no further holding up of the development of technological education?

Mr. Brooke

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for stressing the importance of final conclusions on this matter at an early date.

44. Dr. Stross

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total cost of the Imperial Institute building when it was erected; from what sources the funds were made available; and what would be the equivalent today of this sum in money terms.

84. Mrs. White

asked the Secretary to the Treasury what consultations there have been with the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 or with other bodies which donated land or substantial sums of money for the building of the Imperial Institute, now that it is proposed to pull the building down.

Mr. H. Brooke

About £429,000 was contributed by public subscription, but I regret that no information is available to me about the source or amounts of individual subscriptions. The amount spent on building the Institute, including plant, fittings and furniture, was £354,753. The present day equivalent, in money terms, would be about £1.7 million.

No land was donated for the building of the Imperial Institute. The Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851, who are the ground landlords, have been fully informed of the plans for the development of Imperial College.

Dr. Stross

As the sum of money approaches, in today's value, nearly £2 million, which is quite considerable, should that not make the Financial Secretary and his right hon. Friend think again whether it is possible to achieve what we all desire, which is a decision almost at once, or as soon as possible, to house as many students as we can in this place without pulling down the tower and façade and have another site earmarked at once for further students?

Mr. Brooke

I think we all wish that there should be the right outcome in respect of this very difficult matter. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that, when he quotes a figure of nearly £2 million, one also has to take into account, if one is calculating that in economic terms, that the existing building is very wasteful of space, is inconvenient internally and does sterilise a considerable area of valuable ground.

Mrs. White

While it might not be in order to ask whether the Royal family has been consulted, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be desirable for some statement to be made on that matter, as this is a very personal memorial; and does he not consider it incongruous for a Conservative Administration to agree to the demolition of a building which is a memorial to a very significant name in British history, as well as to a very great Queen?

Mr. Brooke

I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I say nothing about the Royal family in this connection. The Imperial Institute, which is itself a living memorial, is unquestionably to be carried on and given new and purpose-built premises at Government expense.

Mr. Albu

Has the right hon. Gentleman observed the remarks in another place of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, who for many years worked in the Imperial Institute, and whose opinion is that, as a building, it is a cut-rate job, that it is quite useless as a place in which to work, cannot be used for any purpose at all and has absolutely no value?

Mr. Brooke

I had the privilege of listening to a great part of the debate in another place, and there is clearly—

Mr. Speaker

We should not refer to debates in another place held during the current Session.

Mr. Albu

I thought it was in order, Mr. Speaker, to refer to remarks made in another place so long as one paraphrased those remarks and did not actually use the words used by a noble Lord.

Mr. Speaker

It is not in order to refer to debates in another place. The only exception is when a Minister in another place makes a statement on behalf of the Government.