§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I beg 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 will be the cost of the new bridge over the lake in St. James's Park;
§ (2) When will the work be finished;
§ (3) What was the amount of the lowest tender;
§ (4) What was the shortest period for the completion of the work given by any tenderer.]
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, the cost of the new bridge is to be met entirely from an anonymous bequest of some £23,500. The cost, including ancillary works, is estimated on the basis of the lowest tender for the demolition of the old bridge and the erection of a new one to come within this figure. It was a condition laid down by the trustees of the fund that the work must be finished by the end of this year. The firms invited to tender were not asked whether they could complete the work in a shorter time, but the contractor would be liable under the terms of the contract to pay a penalty if he took longer.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I want to get one point clear. Am I right in thinking that the cost of the work will come within the figure named?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, I certainly hope so.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the purpose of demolishing the old bridge and building the new one?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, I am not sure of the purpose, except that I suppose the new bridge which is to 437 be built will be more artistic: and more use than the old one which is now being pulled down.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is sure of that? What authority has authorised the new bridge without being certain that it is going to be an improvement on the old one, both for the amenity of foot passengers and as being pleasing to toe public eye?
§ LORD AILWYNMy Lords, I should like to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord opposite. What is the actual reason for destroying a very lovely-looking old bridge and replacing it with a modern structure of dreary cement?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, I would refer both noble Lords to the statement which my right honourable friend made in another place in April, 1956, when he invited the views of Members of another place about the demolition of this bridge and the erection of a new one. In fact, a model of the new bridge was displayed in the Members' tea room in another place, and after the model had, no doubt, been carefully examined, the response to my right honourable friend's statement clearly favoured the erection of the new bridge.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, may I, with respect, ask whether it is not the fact that the old bridge which is now being demolished was erected by the great Duke of Wellington and, therefore, is of great historic importance? Would it not have been appropriate that something should have been placed in one of the tea rooms of your Lordships' House, as well as merely in a tea room in another place? I should also like to reinforce the query which has been raised as to what is the authority for the demolition of the old bridge.
§ LORD TEVIOTMy Lords, may I just add this comment to what has been said about the bridge? I walk across this bridge sometimes. I have never found any difficulty in walking across it. It gives one great pleasure to watch the ducks, and occasionally to feed them. I feel that we shall lose a great amenity in walking through the Park if we lose this bridge.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, let me assure my noble friend Lord Teviot that he will be able to look at 438 the clucks and to feed the ducks just as well from the new bridge as from the old one.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that, before the First War, some of us in the House of Commons defeated a proposal which was brought forward in connection with a memorial to King Edward VII to straighten out the winding paths on each side of the bridge? That proposal would have had the effect of virtually separating this lovely little Park into two parts. And can the noble Earl give us an assurance that no such vandalistic scheme as that is in contemplation?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords. I seem to have got myself into enough trouble by merely answering the noble Lord who first asked the Question about the new bridge in St. James's Park. I can assure the noble Viscount that, so far as my knowledge goes, there is no intention whatever of altering in any way the footpaths leading to the bridge.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, may I point out that the noble Earl has still not answered the question which has been put to him from more than one quarter of the House. In view of the fact that this work is being done, apparently, without any consultation or discussion in this House, formal or informal, what is the authority under which this historic monument is being destroyed?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, I would not for one moment regard this bridge as an historic monument. In any event, my right honourable Friend, as I have said, explained the position in the statement which he made in another place in April, 1956, and he had the concurrence of the Members of that House in the project for the erection of a new bridge.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, with great respect to the noble Earl and with great respect to another place, what the noble Earl has just said does not answer the questions that noble Lords have raised in this House. Surely we have the right to know under whose authority the old bridge is being demolished and what the new bridge is going to be? Is it going to be constructed 439 of reinforced concrete? Has any design been submitted to noble Lords in this House? After all, this House is still a part of Parliament.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, the answer is clearly what I think every noble Lord knows. My right honourable friend the Minister of Works is responsible for the upkeep of the Royal Parks.
§ LORD KILLEARNMay I intervene at this point to remind the noble Earl that we have not yet been told why the old bridge is being destroyed.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I suppose I ought to make my apologies to the House because that statement was not made in this House, but I am afraid that I was not aware at the time that it was being made in another place. But I do not think that that really apportions blame entirely to the Government. This matter was public property. A statement was made in another place, and it was open to any noble Lord at that time to ask a Question in this House. No noble Lord did ask a Question, so I do not think that the Government are entirely to blame.
§ LORD WINSTERMy Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether this is not part of the settled procedure nowadays for the destruction of things which are old and beautiful and of historic interest?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYOf course any noble Lord can have his own opinion about the old bridge. I think it was an interesting bridge. It is true. I think—at least so far as my memory serves me—that it was put up by the great Duke of Wellington. But it was put up, I understand, in order that troops, and even cannon, might be moved across it in case of civil disturbance, and not because it was a beautiful bridge.
LORD REAMy Lords, in view of what has been said in this House to-day, would the noble Earl consider asking his right honourable friend to abandon the proposal for building the new bridge and to retain the old one?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, the new bridge is now actually in course of erection, and the old bridge is in course of rapid demolition.
§ LORD GLYNMy Lords, may I ask whether the new bridge has been approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERI am afraid that I should require to have notice of that question. If my recollection serves me correctly, I think the position was that while the Royal Fine Art Commission would have liked to retain the old bridge, they did, in point of fact, approve the new one.