§ 3.18 p.m.
§ LORD BOSSOMMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider holding an open architectural competition, with appropriate prizes, for a fresh design for the Foreign Office whilst keeping the existing façade to Whitehall and Green Park but pulling down all the remainder and replanning the interior with the object of getting the maximum accommodation on the existing site, or, if need be, including the building on the adjacent site.]
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government have given careful consideration to the suggestion that the new Foreign Office building should be designed in such a way as to retain the existing façades to Whitehall and the Park. They have, however, come to the firm conclusion that a scheme on the lines proposed by my noble friend would prevent the satisfactory development of the site and make it impossible to erect a functionally efficient, adequate or well-designed modern building.
§ LORD BOSSOMMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that comment, is it not a fact that the majority of the greatest buildings in the world—in fact the actual building we are in at this moment—have been selected by public competition? Is there any reason why we cannot find a way of doing that in this case? No individual or group of individuals has a monopoly of all the inventive qualities in architecture.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I will naturally take note of what my noble friend has said; but he will know equally well that many fine buildings in this country, and in other parts of the world, have not been the result of public competition. I think there are certain reasons in this case why the design would not be susceptible to public competition. The requirement is highly specialised and most technical. We may not get all the best architects entering, but that is always a risk one runs.
318 I think the main thing here, with a most complicated and technical requirement, is that it is most necessary for the client, my right honourable friend and the architect to be brought together from the start of the planning of the scheme. Perhaps I might add that it does not seem to me that the chequered history of the architectural competition for the Foreign Office building a century ago is necessarily a good precedent in this case.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, would the noble Earl consider the possibility of inviting selected architects, who are capable of complying with the requirements, to put in their suggestions for the rebuilding—not necessarily opening the door to full competition? There are a limited number of architects who, surely, ought to be consulted, and perhaps from among them we might get some competition.
EARL JELLICOEMy right honourable friend has given careful consideration to this, and he feels that in this particular case it would be best not to open this rebuilding to competition. But, of course, the planning of the building as a whole comes under the umbrella of Sir Leslie Martin.
§ LORD GREENHILLMy Lords, would the noble Earl please tell us in what sense this building has specialised and highly technical conditions which do not apply to other buildings?
EARL JELLICOEIt has a number of specialised requirements, as I understand it. What precisely they are my noble friend behind me might know—providing for him is possibly one! This is, as I understand it, a building which will require careful technical planning.
§ LORD GREENHILLMay I put it in a more general sense? What kind of mysterious requirements are necessary in this particular building which demand a special kind of architectural distinction?
EARL JELLICOEI am assured by my right honourable friend that this is the case; but, if the noble Lord would like to put down a Question on this particular point, I should be glad, having looked into the particular point more carefully, to give an answer.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, if the Government are going to put up a much higher building for the Foreign Office, something of a skyscraper or something approaching a skyscraper, will they consult the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, who has considerable experience in the United States of building very high skyscraper buildings?
EARL JELLICOEI am sure the Government would be glad to accept the noble Lord's suggestion, but I would suspect that if we did have in mind a high building on this particular site, which we do not, as I understand it, my noble friend would be very ready with his advice.
§ THE EARL OF SANDWICHMy Lords, when the architect has been selected, will the design be submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission and be available for public comment and discussion before a decision is finally taken, in order to avoid the kind of embarrassment which we have had over, for example, the building in front of St. Paul's?
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to ask his right honourable friend not too readily to reject the idea of a limited competition? It is worth more consideration than the noble Earl seems to have given to it.
EARL JELLICOEIt is, of course, not for "the noble Earl" to give consideration to this particular point; it is for my right honourable friend. But I will certainly bring to his attention the suggestion made by the noble Lord.
§ LORD BOSSOMMy Lords, is my noble friend aware of the amount of money spent by visitors who come to see the buildings which have been built by British architects here in England, and does he think that the same amount of money will come into the country, and give that amount of employment, if those people see here the same kind of buildings they can see elsewhere, in Chicago, and such places? Let us show them the fine things we have. Are we not doing a lot of damage by destroying these things, with no benefit to anybody?
EARL JELLICOEIf the noble Lord had put that question to me in the early eighteenth century, and with the same 320 thing in mind, we should not have designed the Foreign Office building itself.