British Library: NAO Report (Hansard, 12 June 1996)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood)
My Lords, the Committee of Public Accounts in another place will be taking evidence on 24th June from the accounting officer of the department and the chief executive of the British Library. Your Lordships will be aware of the convention constraining comment on the report before the Committee of Public Accounts has taken evidence.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that shrewdly constraining reply. Is he aware that the report listed what was described as a catalogue of technical disasters leading to an overrun of the completion date of eight years and a trebling of the original costs? Is he aware further that the report put the main blame on the Department of National Heritage and its predecessors? Would the Minister like to speculate with the House whether anyone will be held responsible for that—given the fact that we all accept that Conservative Secretaries of State are never responsible for anything?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I am of course constrained in my reply to the noble Lord, but this matter has a long history. The noble Lord says that the department has been blamed, but the department has been responsible for the project only since 1992. Indeed, 1716 the project ante-dates the department. The noble Lord says that the costs have trebled, but of course the project itself has changed during that period and there have been factors such as inflation and the imposition of VAT.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a different, if related, question. Have the Government yet made any decision about the vacant land site to the north of the St. Pancras building, as that will be needed for very important expansion, since the number of seats has been reduced from the original figure of 3,000 to just over 1,200? That is not many more than there are in Great Russell Street.

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the noble Lord asks two distinct questions. As regards his first question, the land to the northern part of the site is potentially going to be used during the construction of the Channel Tunnel CrossRail site and may be subject to compulsory purchase until the year 2007.
As regards the provision of seats, it is not merely a matter of the number of seats provided but the use to which they are put. Different forms of delivery are required other than people merely appearing in person. I am advised that the provision of seats is adequate for the purpose for which they are required.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, will the Minister explain why the costs of such a prestigious building can treble without anybody being brought to account? Why were those costs allowed to treble? How was the money made available? I remind the Minister that if local authorities slightly exceed what they are allowed to spend, they are severely surcharged and called to account.

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, bearing in mind the history of the project, the way it has changed and the financial circumstances during that period, I do not accept that the cost has trebled. In view of my original reply, I had better leave the second part of the noble Lord's question unanswered.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, I must declare an interest as a member of the advisory council of the British Library. Will the Minister confirm the statement in paragraph 14 of the report that the British Library has never had any management or contractual responsibility for the construction of the project? Does he agree further that any errors by the contractors or others involved in no way diminish the need for a new British Library which will work?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I can confirm the first part of the noble Earl's comments. As regards his second question, this has been a sorry story but I do not believe that there is a possibility of the final dénouement being that, after 14 years and the spending of £500 million, the Library was not necessary. No, this Library is required.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I raised this matter in an Unstarred Question several 1717 years ago when I asked the Government whether they would appoint one single person to be responsible for the whole project? Has that been done?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, in July 1995 Mr. David Trench was appointed project manager. His job is to deliver the project on time, which is by the end of this year, and within the cost target.

§ Lord Dainton
My Lords, I should like to ask two questions, but before doing so I must declare an interest. I was Chairman of the National Libraries Committee in 1968–69 when it went outside its remit not only to recommend the foundation of a national library, which later recommendation was incorporated in the British Library Act 1972, but also to recommended that a building must be provided for the vast collections then dispersed, and still dispersed, throughout 16 buildings, many of which are totally unsatisfactory—for example, wooden huts at Woolwich Arsenal—to house that vast treasure house which is so valuable to us.

Noble Lords
Question!

§ Lord Dainton
My Lords, I am merely declaring my interests. For seven years, I was Chairman of the British Library Board, during which time the project to which the Question refers was started. Certainly while I was chairman for three years there was very strong control within the British Library.
Does the Minister agree with me that this building, which has recently been the subject of favourable comments from knowledgeable people not only in this country but also abroad, will—although smaller than it might be—provide an environment wholly appropriate for the Library's treasure house of knowledge and rich holdings? It will thereby ensure a much longer life and readier and easier access to the users. Does he agree also that judged by any system of rational accounting, the UK will be having a fine building which is much more satisfactory than other libraries? It will certainly be workable and will not be a icon to any particular politician, like the Bibliothèque Nationale at twice the cost.

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I have every confidence that this project will turn out to have created a significant, important and long-lasting national asset.

§ Lord Howie of Troon
My Lords—

Noble Lords
Order! Thirty-one minutes!