asked the Minister of Works whether the decision to erect a new Embassy building in Rome at the cost of 350,000 was taken before or after the present building suffered bomb damage; and what alternative sites were considered and found to be unsuitable.

The existing Embassy at Rome stands on an excellent site of seven acres which has been the property of His Majesty's Government for the past seventy years. Even before the bomb outrage the buildings were, however, in-adequate for modern requirements. It had been proposed to build new offices on a portion of the site and to exchange the remainder of the site and buildings for a more suitable property. This is no longer possible and it is now proposed to demolish the existing buildings and erect a new Residence and offices on the same site. I am advised that no more suitable site than that already owned by His Majesty's Government is available.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why in Rome of all the capitals of Europe it is necessary to have a new Embassy instead of converting the existing palace for a sum of money less than £350,000?

That is the advice which has been given to me, and I see no reason to doubt its wisdom.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the exchange to which he referred cannot be carried through? It would have avoided this vast expenditure.

No, Sir, it would not have avoided the vast expenditure as far as I can see, because the building was damaged and, therefore, a new building must be erected; but I will look into the question of exchange again.

If the right hon. Gentleman will look at his answer he will see that he himself talked about an exchange contemplated with another building, and that is why I am asking him why the exchange was not carried through.

I do not know that I have said it could not be done, but what I have said is that it is proposed to build new offices on a portion of the site. I am not saying that is not being carried out. All that I am saying is that it is now proposed to demolish the existing building and to rebuild. If there is any question of exchanging part of the site, I Will look into it again.

The original proposal, when I was at the Foreign Office, was to exchange our Embassy for another building and to build on part of the site. Why has that exchange not gone through?

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the spending of £350,000 at this time might cause great public indignation?

Major Mott-Radelyffe:

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter as soon as possible on the Adjournment.