§ 3.5 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 have given thorough consideration to the principle of retaining the exterior facade of the Foreign Office but removing all the interior and re-designing this: or, if not, would they hold a public architectural competition to see whether some private architect could produce a satisfactory solution to this by no means insoluble architectural problem, as has been proved with such success in many other cultural countries?]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, the idea of reconstructing the Foreign Office within the existing facade was exhaustively considered by my right honourable friend. He has, however, reached the conclusion that a scheme of interior reconstruction could provide neither the amount nor the standard of accommodation needed. As my right honourable friend has made clear in another place, he intends to appoint an architect capable of designing a fine building which is both functionally adequate and worthy of this important site.
§ LORD BOSSOMMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he will not hold a public competition to see whether he can get exactly what he wants? This is not an insoluble architectural problem, as any architect of experience will tell you.
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, that this is not an insoluble architectural problem. Is it not a fact that the Home Office also is located in the Foreign Office building; and has the problem of moving the Home Office out to a new building—one on, say, the site of the old Westminster Hospital, which still stands bare—thus making more room for the Foreign Office, been fully considered?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, the Home Office is at present located within this general building. My understanding is that it is the idea that, when the new Government building is constructed between Bridge Street and Richmond Terrace, part of that new building will be occupied by the Home Office. This will, in fact, give more room on the existing Foreign Office site, but it will give nothing like the amount of room which is required if all the Foreign Office departments are to be brought together, as is clearly desirable.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, would the noble Earl answer the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Bossom? Why is it that we cannot have a competition, so that we may have the opportunity of studying, the ideas of a number of architects, instead of relying on one architect and the Minister's own decision?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, it would, of course, be possible to have a competition; but my right honourable friend is absolutely certain that without a new building it is quite impossible to accommodate all the staff that are required within this existing site. I should perhaps mention that it is his intention to appoint a planning consultant, so that the treatment, both of this new site and of the new site opposite, the Bridge Street-Richmond Terrace site, should be handled together and viewed as a whole.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, would the noble Earl tell us what is going to happen to the Commonwealth Relations Office, which also is expanding very rapidly?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, the idea is that the Commonwealth Relations Office will be located, along with the Foreign Office, in this building.
§ LORD BOSSOMIs my noble friend aware that, by using long-span, pre-stressed construction, you could do this work and probably get all the accommodation needed at much less cost and in very much less time?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am not aware of this, but I will certainly bring my noble friend's ideas to the attention of my right honourable friend.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will not give further and deeper consideration to the suggestion made in this Question? Is it not a great pity that one of the classic views of London, of a really worthy building, should be lightly cast aside? When you come across St. James's Park and see that tower you see one of the best-known views of this city. I would beg the noble Earl to consider further some such suggestion as that made in this Question.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will give very careful consideration to the views which are expressed in your Lordships' House on this matter. I would agree with the noble Lord that this is a very fine building—at least to some eyes, including mine—from the outside; but he knows as well as I know how intolerable it is inside for a great many people who work there. Also, I think the Question implies a lack of confidence in our architects to-day which is not entirely justified.
§ LORD KILLEARNIn reference to the noble Earl's statement just now, judging by the new buildings which are put up in Whitehall I think it would be appalling to have something similar set up in St. James's Park. With all respect—cubic capacity, if you like; but there is something else besides cubic capacity involved. I really would beg my noble friend to give more serious consideration to this question.
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind that this is partly an engineering problem, and not merely an architectural one? I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, that long-span, pre-stressed concrete bars might be the answer, but that might be very unpopular with the architects. Will the noble Earl make sure that appropriate consultations take place with structural engineers?—because I am 214 quite sure this problem could be solved as a structional engineering problem. This is a gem of architecture which it would be a shame to destroy.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I thought that I had made it clear, in replying to another noble Lord just now, that my right honourable friend will pay very careful attention to these views which have been expressed.
§ LORD BOSSOMMy Lords, are the Minister and my noble friend so totally indifferent to the very serious thought of probably a million or more informed people who have reputations for good taste as to destroy a building of this sort—a building that will not be replaced by anything like so congenial a building when another is erected on this site?
§ EARL ATTLEEIs it really so necessary for all the Departments to be under one roof? Surely, we have had many instances where Departments have found it quite possible to send part of their staffs away. I am quite sure that parts of the Foreign Office could do the same thing.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I think it has been considered that there would be considerable advantage felt by this Government, as it was felt by the noble Earl's Government, in co-locating (to use that horrible expression) the Foreign Office staff in one building.
§ LORD BOSSOMMy Lords, may I thank my noble friend for what he has said: that he will take all these matters very seriously and convey them to the Minister and see whether something cannot be done to retain the façade of a building of such historical value.