FESTIVAL PLEASURE GARDENS BILL (Hansard, 28 February 1952)

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this small measure is to make provision to continue the Festival Pleasure Gardens in Battersea Park for a further period. Unless noble Lords so desire, I do not intend on this occasion to discuss all the complicated history connected with this subject. I think it sufficient to remind the House that in 1949, 416 and again in 1951, debates took place and, therefore, the facts will be familiar to your Lordships.

This small measure is intended to implement a Resolution passed by the London County Council in July of last year. That Resolution read as follows: If … a continuance"— of the Gardens— should be decided upon, the Council would raise no objection to enabling legislation to permit an extension of not more than five years, but that there should be an experimental period of two years after the conclusion of the Festival before any decision is taken for or against a permanent continuance and that the consent of the Council should be required to any extension beyond two years. I am glad to tell the House that the London County Council, after satisfying themselves that they had the necessary local support, have consistently supported the Government in promoting this necessary legislation. My right honourable friend the Minister of Works is satisfied that, by a continuance of the Gardens, a public demand will be met and a substantial contribution will certainly be made towards the repayment of the outstanding loan capital, which now amounts to £1,162,000. I might remind the House in passing that the total of the borrowings from the Government, the London County Council and the Festival Office reached a figure of £1,432,000, but a sum of £270,000 has lately been repaid. The Bill is entirely a temporary measure designed to give an opportunity for public reaction and for the public to judge whether the Gardens should be retained in a permanent form. Both Parliament and the London County Council still retain their rights of decision.

Perhaps I should just refer the House to the first clause of the Bill, under which the Minister may, or if so requested in writing by the London County Council must, close the Gardens in November, 1953; but if the option is not exercised the powers conferred under the Bill terminate in November, 1956. Finally, I should mention that the Bill provides for retaining all the appropriate provisions of the Festival of Britain (Sunday Opening) Act, 1951, and I might add that the Gardens this year will be open from May 24 to October 18—if your Lordships approve of this legislation—which is a somewhat shorter period than in 1951. I think I need say no more on this Bill, which I commend to your Lordships.

§ LORD MORRISON

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Earl for so clearly and so briefly explaining the objects of this Bill. May I say at once that we on this side of the House approve of the measure? In point of fact, as the noble Earl knows, if we had still been on the Government side of the House it would probably have fallen to my lot to introduce a Bill in almost exactly similar terms. After all, no one really expected that the expenditure on laying out the Festival Gardens would be recovered in one season, and when an exceptionally wet winter was followed by considerable labour troubles a heavy loss became absolutely certain. I think we are all agreed that the attendances were maintained remarkably well, and I do not think anyone will deny that the Pleasure Gardens were greatly appreciated. In these circumstances, I think the Government are fully justified in continuing the Gardens in order to provide innocent amusement to Londoners and the numerous visitors who come to London. We all hope to make good a considerable part of lest year's loss. I remember that when I brought forward the original Bill in your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin (who was here a few moments ago) made a most interesting speech in which he expressed himself in favour of some permanent National Gardens in London. Whether that will ultimately come about is in the lap of the Gods.

When I introduced the original Bill, there was some criticism of it, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd (he was also here until a few moments ago, but has now mysteriously disappeared), who eloquently expressed many objections to it, inspired, I think, by the Chelsea Borough Council. Being now on the Government side of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and his friends may feel that their first priority 418 is to the Government and will refrain from opposing this Bill. I hope that the House will be unanimous in giving the Bill a Second Reading, but if peradventure it is not, I can least assure noble Lords and the noble Earl opposite that on this occasion we will assist the Government in putting it on the Statute Book as quickly as possible.