§ 2.35 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the immense programme of capital works of the highest priority to be undertaken in the near future by the Government and their Agencies, and thus the great need for economy on less essential projects, they will set a good example to the nation by refraining from demolishing and rebuilding the Foreign Office in present circumstances.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, it is essential that the Foreign Office and Commonwealth Relations Office should be suitably and adequately accommodated in a building which enables them efficiently to discharge their responsibilities. Her Majesty's Government do not accept the implication in the noble Lord's Question that the rebuilding of the Foreign Office is to be classified as a less essential project. However, allowing time for necessary preparations, and for the arrangement of alternative accommodation, it will necessarily be some years before work can be started on a new building. Her Majesty's Government see no reason why this important scheme should not then 1102 take a place in their building programme, along with other important Government projects.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, which is more comforting than I thought, because there are several years of respite. Will my noble friend give me an assurance that the pulling down and the replacement of this building will not take place while the London building industry is in the grossly extended state it is in at the present moment?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am glad my noble friend has been comforted by my reply. I do not think I can give him any assurance as regards specific dates, but I can repeat or re-phrase the assurance in my original reply: that it will necessarily be some time before this scheme can come to fruition.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, in view of the fact that this is a matter which is arousing a good deal of controversy, would the Government be prepared to state the case for demolishing, in rather more detailed terms than the noble Earl has done in answer to this Question? If one were satisfied that the Foreign Office could not discharge its functions effectively except in a new building, that would make some difference to the attitude of those who are against demolition. Would the noble Earl consider that?
LORD REAMy Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I add a corollary? Would he consider leaving the outside of the building as it is and rearranging the inside according to modern standards?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, if I may, I will take the second supplementary question first. Of course, the proposal put by the noble Lord was carefully considered and that was the original intention. But it was decided, after considerable reflection, that to modernise the building while preserving the existing façades would be inadequate, inefficient and, indeed, uneconomic. Those, of course, are the broad considerations which have been in the Government's mind. But I will certainly see that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is conveyed to my right honourable friend.
§ LORD COLYTONMy Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in considering designs for rebuilding, they will have regard to the designs of Inigo Jones which were, in fact, incorporated in the present building, and of which the only original room remaining is the Banqueting Hall? Will they have regard to those designs so as to help to bring about a regular and symmetrical building in that area?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, of course the Government are most anxious that the new building in this particular situation should be the best possible building and one suitable for its special environment. Again, I will certainly draw my noble friend's suggestion to my right honourable friend's attention.
§ BARONESS HORSBRUGHMy Lords, as the noble Earl has said that it would be inadequate and inefficient to alter the inside of the building, can he tell us whether this has been the opinion of all modern architects who have been consulted? Or have they not been consulted?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, it has certainly been the opinion of those responsible architects whom my right honourable friend has consulted.
§ LORD FERRIERMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is proper to assume from his reply that the intention would be to increase the number of individuals, notably of junior status, in the new building as compared with the number to-day?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, it is certainly the intention to allow for more staff to be able to work in the new building, in far better conditions than those which exist at the present time. I myself have worked in the present building, and I know that, whilst it is to a certain extent suitable for senior staff, the conditions in which junior staff work in the existing Foreign Office building are quite lamentable.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, would it not be doing a great service to the world if, instead of contemplating an increase in the Foreign Service, the Government set an example by decreasing the Foreign Service? Would that not provide an example to the rest of the world, most of whose foreign services are being maintained by people who, we allege, are three-quarters starved?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, although my noble friend's supplementary does touch on the question of economy, I do not see how it is otherwise related to his original Question.