§ 4. Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what further consideration he has given to the erection on Constitution Hill of modern lamp 948 stands in place of the existing lighting; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. MellishI would refer my right hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. Royle) on 26th February.—[Vol. 759, c. 235.]
§ Mr. StraussIs my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to retain the old lighting was received with relief and great satisfaction by all those anxious to preserve the remaining attractive vistas in London? Will he pursue this desirable objective wherever he exercises his authority or influence?
§ Mr. MellishI am obliged to my right hon. Friend. As the Minister concerned, I am most anxious to be associated with the retention of all that which is worth preserving in London. I also associate myself with the policy of getting rid of slums, but when it comes to preserving things of yesteryear, I want to be there with him.
§ Mr. A. RoyleI agree with everything said by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). May I ask who was originally responsible for the error of taste and grave waste of public money which has occurred?
§ Mr. MellishI thank the hon. Gentleman for the interest that he has shown, and indeed I give him credit for what finally resulted from my ultimate decision. As to who was responsible, it was a Ministerial decision based on the best information available to the Minister at that time. I am a new Minister giving a decision as I see it now. That is the position.