§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements they are proposing to make for the development of the Imperial College at South Kensington; how it is proposed that the Imperial Institute shall fit into this scheme; and whether they will place in the Library a copy of the plans in connection therewith, showing any modifications in these plans decided upon as a result of the recent adverse criticism by the Royal Fine Art Commission.]
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)My Lords, the Government's plans for the expansion of Imperial College were announced to Parliament more than three years ago, on January 29, 1953. In brief, the College was to be developed on the South Kensington site to enable its student numbers to be raised from 1,650 to 3,000, and the College was to be given first claim on other parts of the site as it became possible to release them from their present uses.
Work has been proceeding and student numbers have already increased by some 25 per cent., to 2,066. The need to increase the country's output of scientists and technologists is urgent and, as stated on January 25 by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, the Government have recently decided to adhere to the scale of development originally announced and to provide new premises for the Imperial Institute. Until this can be done, every 1125 effort will be made to minimise disturbance to the Institute and to ensure as much continuity as possible for its activities. I note the suggestion made in the last part of the Question. A model showing the treatment of the site now proposed is being made, and when it is available it will be shown in the Royal Gallery of your Lordships' House.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the last promise he made, which I am sure will be of great interest to many Members of your Lordships' House. But may I ask whether it is still intended to destroy or remove the present building of the Imperial Institute and, secondly, whether, if there is such destruction, it is proposed that the work of the Imperial Institute shall cease until such time as a new building is erected?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, the noble Lord is aware, I believe, that after careful examination Her Majesty's Government have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the, building at present used by the Imperial institute will require to be, if not destroyed, at least substantially modified. That decision was reached in the interests of technical development; but I can assure the noble Lord, in answer to the second part of his question, that every consideration will be given to ensure that such disturbance, if any, as may take place at the Imperial Institute will be kept to an absolute minimum and that an alternative site will he found which will be just as convenient as, or perhaps more convenient than, the one occupied by the Institute at the present time.
LORD GIFFORDMy Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's answer, may I ask whether the possibility of reconstructing the interior shell of the old building has been considered? Is that a possibility?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI can assure the noble Lord that that point has been taken into careful consideration, but it has been found that it is not practicable to do that. If it had been, that would certainly have been done. As I have said, the development of the site for technological purposes seems to the Government—and I think correctly—to he overwhelmingly important.
VISCOUNT ESHERThe noble Earl has used the word "modification." Does that mean that the tower will be preserved, even if the building is pulled down?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKSo far as I am aware, there are hopes that the tower may be preserved, but at the moment I should not like to give a categorical statement in reply to that question.
§ LORD OGMOREIs it or is it not the fact that this building will have to be completely destroyed? Surely, there can be no modification of the building. The whole point of the Government's argument, as I understand it, is that the part of the site on which the building now stands is required for the technical college. Therefore I ask whether the noble Earl is correct in saying that there can be "modification" of the building and not total destruction. Secondly, what does the noble Earl mean when he says that there will be as little delay as possible in finding new Premises? Surely any delay is to be deprecated.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI am not quite sure that I appreciate the force of the second part of the noble Lord's question. An alternative site has not yet been found for the Imperial Institute. It is intended that the work of the Institute should continue, either in temporary or in new premises, though inevitably, of course, there must be some disturbance of its work for a year or so. With regard to the first part of the question, we are examining the possibility of retaining the tower which is a matter of concern to the noble Viscount, Lord Esher. I do not wish to put that forward as more than a possibility. I cannot say at the moment whether that will be possible, having regard to the necessity of meeting the urgent requirements of the Imperial College on the site.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILL-SBOROUGHMay I ask the noble Earl this question? He says that the work is in hand. But will it not require an Act of Parliament to do away with the present building?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI think it will require an Act of parliament. When I said that work was in hand I intended to convey that I was referring to work on some part of the island site. Quite a con- 1127 siderable amount of work has already been done. For example the work in connection with the College of Mines building has been carried out. Certain further work is now proceeding. In particular, work on the Imperial Institute building will not start immediately. That, I believe, will require an Act of Parliament.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHA tremendous amount of interest is being displayed in certain quarters in this matter. May I draw the noble Earl's attention to two points—perhaps he can give me an answer upon the first one now. Have the Commonwealth and the main Colonial interests been consulted, and have they agreed to this scheme? In the second place, I should like to ask whether this building was provided by Government revenue or by private subscription—including subscriptions from members of the British Army—as a memorial to Queen Victoria. And is it not correct that the Institute's powers are laid down by Act of Parliament?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI am given to understand that the Commonwealth representatives have been consulted. They are agreeable to this scheme if proper accommodation is provided elsewhere for the Imperial Institute. With regard to the second point, it is, of course, true that this building was built substantially by subscriptions. But if those subscriptions are used—in other words, if the assets of the Imperial Institute are used—to provide an alternative site of equal value, it seems to me that the value of those subscriptions will be in no way diminished. For that reason I suggest that no injury is being done to the purpose and intention of the Imperial Institute.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)My Lords, perhaps I might usefully say a word from the Commonwealth angle. I think that everyone concerned, the Governors of the Imperial Institute and other members of the Commonwealth, have signified their agreement provided that an alternative site gives the Institute full facilities.
§ LORD OGMOREOne of the reasons given for destroying the Imperial Institute is that there is no alternative site 1128 for the Imperial College. Where can an alternative site be found for the Imperial Institute?
THE EARL OF HOMEThere are a number of alternative possible sites for the Imperial Institute. I think that is largely a matter for the trustees. I do not know whether they have had a meeting recently. The important thing is to find a site for a comparable building. I think that the Governors and other Commonwealth members are satisfied on that aspect.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMay I take it that there will be no further progress with the demolition until an Act for amendment of the existing Act has been passed by Parliament? Can we be assured that nothing which will destroy this national trust, embodied in an Act of Parliament, will be gone on with until it has the authority of Parliament?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, so that there may be no misunderstanding, I should like to have an opportunity of giving a full and positive answer, if the noble Viscount wants it, but I think that what he suggests is correct.