§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have yet come to a decision regarding the proposed new buildings for the Colonial Office.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRE-TARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON)My Lords, in view of the public interest in this Question, and the views expressed in this House and in another place, the Government have reconsidered the plans for a building on the Stationery Office and Westminster Hospital sites. The plans will be revised so as to set back the pavilions on each side of the building facing the Abbey a further 30 ft. This means that the main face of the building will be 72 ft. back from the line of the old hospital frontage, and the pavilions will be 48 ft. back from that line. No change will be made in the height of the building, which is within the limits laid down in the Public Offices (Site) Act, 1947.
About one-third of the hospital site was to be surrendered for amenity purposes. Under the new scheme, over half will be surrendered, so that the prospect of the Abbey and other surrounding buildings will be greatly improved, and it. will be easier to meet 386 possible future traffic requirements. Any further setting back would mean adding to the height of the building, which we are anxious to avoid. I am satisfied that the building to be erected on this site in accordance with the revised plans will result in a real improvement in the planning of this important area, and the building itself will provide for the Colonial Empire a headquarters of which we may all be proud. May I add that my right honourable friend the Minister of Works is making a similar statement to-day in another place?
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, whilst thanking His Majesty's Government warmly for this real attempt to meet the numerous objections which have been raised in your Lordships' House in the last four months, may I ask these two short supplementary questions? First, may we see a rough drawing of the proposed new building as soon as possible, and, secondly, can the noble Lord say what will be the ultimate reduction in the cubic capacity of the building, and in the number of civil servants to be employed there?
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, in reply to the last supplementary question, the staff to be accommodated in the new building will now be 1,164 as against 1,320—a reduction of 156. With regard to the first supplementary of the noble Lord, it may be that his desire to look at the plans can be arranged, although, speaking personally, I hope that this will not provide another opportunity for our many voluntary advisers—whose valuable advice is sometimes contradictory— to think out new suggestions and so cause further delay.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMy Lords, while joining in the thanks expressed to the noble Lord and the Government for this change, may I be permitted to ask whether they agree with what I think would be the general sentiment of the House, that we owe this valuable concession to the persistence and energy of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, supplemented as it was the other day by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone?
§ LORD MORRISONCertainly. I think that this House has played an important part in gaining an improvement.
LORD REAMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one supplementary question arising from his very valuable answer, which has pleased every quarter of the House? In view of the fact that Westminster Abbey is the heritage of the Commonwealth and not only of this country, have the peoples or the Governments of the Commonwealth countries been consulted about erecting this building so near Westminster Abbey itself?
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, I cannot answer that question without notice.