HL Deb 13 November 1962 vol 244 cc526-9

2.43 p.m.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in his speech at the opening of the underpass at Hyde Park Corner on the 17th October, 1962, the Minister of Transport said that he had been thinking of some very juicy ways of using the South Carriage Drive; and, if so, what he meant.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)

My Lords, I understand from my right honourable friend that on the occasion referred to by the noble Lord he did say that he had been thinking of some very juicy ways of using the South Carriage Drive. He meant, my Lords, just what he said. My right honourable friend is constantly thinking of possible ways of improving flow of traffic in London, and some of these ways would affect Royal Parks. In these cases, my right honourable friend must, of course, consult his right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works, whose first reaction is that the use of part of the South Carriage Drive would be seriously detrimental to the amenities of Hyde Park. But discussions between my right honourable friends will continue.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his answer, which has made the whole subject as clear as mud? May I ask him this further question: do the Government recognise that the Royal Parks, and the rest and recreation that they provide, are among the greatest treasures of London? Secondly, can he give the House this assurance: that the Minister's plans for the Park, by whatever adjective they ought to be described, cannot in fact be carried out without further legislation?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, before the noble Lord answers that question—

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

My Lords, I know the noble Lord wants to ask a supplementary, and he shall do so, but I think that perhaps it would be right if we were to take one supplementary at a time, in order to help my noble friend.

LORD CHESHAM

May I also be allowed to say, "Hear, hear!" to that, my Lords? So far as the amenity of the Parks is concerned, Her Majesty's Government are of course fully aware of its very high value—and that is perhaps one very good reason why my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works should be charged with preserving just that amenity. But, at the same time, my noble friend must not overlook that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is charged with the traffic problem of London, and it is his duty to think about any scheme which seems good to him; which is in fact what he has done. It is then for further discussion, as I indicated in my original reply, whether that scheme, after consideration of other factors, can be thought a good one or not.

LORD CONESFORD

Would my noble friend answer the question about legislation?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, so far as I am aware it would require legislation, but I do wish to reassure my noble friend upon this matter. There is no question of, as it were, bulldozing a traffic scheme into the Park in spite of intense opposition from everyone concerned.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord, so that the House may better understand the workings of his right honourable friend's very fertile mind, what is the Ministerial definition of the word "juicy"?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I do not think it is for Ministers to interpret the language. Personally, I should prefer to rely on the definition given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. There are a number of definitions given for the word "juicy", some of which apply to fruit and other things; but one of the definitions given, your Lordships may be relieved to know, is, "of rich intellectual quality".

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Hardly applicable to the Minister of Transport. My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? Before the Minister of Transport goes in for this juicy publicity, which he likes very much, affecting the work of another Minister, is it desirable that he should go in for this speculation without consulting the other Minister whose Department is involved? Surely that is common sense and common Ministerial practice, except in this case. Finally, could the noble Lord say when the discussions between the Ministers are likely to come to an end and a decision reached, and whether a statement will be made about it in this House?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lord's observations would be far more applicable if my right honourable friend had said he proposed to do this thing. He said he was thinking about it—no more than that—and I really do not see that there is very much harm in saying he was thinking about it. Certain changes have been taking place, and it is, as I have said, his job to think of such matters—which he most certainly does. I cannot exactly say when the discussions between my two right honourable friends will come to a conclusion on this matter, but what I believe the House will be really interested in is that they are taking place, and the necessary interests are being represented. The noble Lord's opening remarks, since we are very much now on the subject of fruit, seemed to me, if I may say so, to be verging towards sour grapes.

LORD MOLSON

My Lords, will my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that when it was agreed that there should be an underground car park under Hyde Park the Government gave something in the nature of an undertaking that there would be a discontinuance of parking of cars on the surface, at any rate in the vicinity of the underground car park; and when the Minister of Transport is thinking of the use of the Park as an overflow for traffic from other parts of London will he bear in mind that undertaking given and repeated by my noble friend in June last year?

LORD CHESHAM

I think my noble friend is verging now on to another question, because I do not think the question of the car park can be really related to the South Carriage Drive about which we are talking. I will repeat once more for his assurance and for that of the House that the matters of the amenity of the Park are to be taken into consideration just as closely as the requirements of the traffic; and I know of nothing which would cause me to retract in any way the assurances that my noble friend refers to as having been given earlier.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the whole of the Hyde Park scheme has been a monumental flop?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, no.