§ 2.45 p.m.
§ LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUXMy 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—
- (1) what was the date on which the building of the new Knights-bridge Barracks began;
- (2) what, at that time, was the estimated cost and date of completion of the building; and
- (3) what is the cost and completion date now expected.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM)My Lords, work began on site in February, 1967. At that time the estimated cost was £3.2 million and the date of completion was October, 1969. The estimated cost is now £3.6 million and the expected completion date is August, 1970.
§ LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUXMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Can the noble Lord say whether 1047 there was any penalty clause in the original contract for the delay and increased price?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I understand that the delay was due to the fact that the central tower was redesigned twice in order to meet the wishes of the Royal Fine Art Commission.
§ BARONESS STOCKSMy Lords, would my noble friend tell us whether any Ministry, other than the one immediately concerned with the site, was consulted as regards the design of this banausic excrescence?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I would not agree that the building is all that unpleasant. The view of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was sought at the appropriate point.
§ LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUXMy Lords, is it now certain that the building will be finished this year? Can the noble Lord say why there was no penalty clause?—because I should have thought that there was a dreadful waste of taxpayers' money.
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I believe that the barracks will be completed in August of this year and occupied at the beginning of October. With regard to penalty clauses, I am certain that the barracks were built under the normal contract of the Ministry of Public Building and Works; but, as I have said, the central tower has been redesigned twice in order to fall in with the views of various interested bodies.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I should like to ask the Government whether they will take into account what has happened over Knightsbridge Barracks when they are considering the future of Wellington Barracks.
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I will bring that expression of view to my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, does the Minister recall that the Royal Fine Art Commission made it quite clear in a letter to The Times that, though they prefer the tower to some other alternatives, they object to the whole development which might have been avoided had not the Government themselves insisted on this concentrated use of the site?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the Household Cavalry has to perform official functions in the centre of the capital. The site was occupied by the Household Cavalry, and it was only rational, and indeed necessary, that this site should be developed for the purpose for which it was originally built.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, does the noble Lord mean that it was necessary to do this irrespective of the amenities of the Royal Parks?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I do not agree that the amenities of the Royal Parks have suffered thereby. The horses have to be tended, and therefore the members of the Household Cavalry have to live close to them; and that is why they need to live on the site next to the horses.
§ LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUXMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a further question? While admiring the work that has been done, would he say how many men and horses will be accommodated in the new Barracks?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMNo, my Lords, I cannot say that. I will write to the noble Lord, if he wants the exact figures.