§ 2.38 p.m.
§ LORD AMULREEMy 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 it is true that a portion of land in Hyde Park is to be converted into a car park for the use of those who will patronise the new restaurant now being erected near the south bank of the Serpentine.]
1141THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL NAVY (EARL JELLICOE)Yes, my Lords. The present parking facilities are very limited, and some small extension of them will be necessary for the convenience of the patrons of the new restaurant.
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his reply, which I cannot say I find particularly satisfactory, I should like to put to him one or two supplementary questions. First, why is it necessary for the patrons of the restaurant to have parking facilities, whereas those people who play bowls, or bathe in the Serpentine, or ride in Rotten Row, or putt on the putting green do not also require parking facilities? Secondly, would it not be possible for part of the main road around the park, which is already used as a car park, to be set aside for people coming to the restaurant? The third question is whether it would not be possible for patrons of the restaurant who come in cars to put their cars in the new underground car park which has recently been opened and which, except to a certain limited extent, never seems now to have any cars there at all.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, if I might answer the third supplementary question first, I thin k the new car park is a very long way from the proposed new restaurant; and the noble Lord's idea, while it would commend itself to me personally, might not commend itself to the less athletic patrons of the new restaurant. I think that the first and second of the noble Lord's supplementary questions go somewhat together. It is hoped that this "gay, modern restaurant", as it was described by my right honourable friend at his Press conference last October, will attract new patrons. The effect would then be that the road used for car parking at the present time would become very jammed by the cars of those who were patronising the restaurant.
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, would it not be the fact that the people who use the road now could park in the underground car park, which is not so very far away, so that people using the restaurant could park on the road?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, could the noble Earl give the number of cars 1142 for which this car park is to be provided and the amount of Royal Park space that is to be taken over? Could he also say whether this restaurant is going to be a new structure?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, as the noble Lord will see if he strolls past it this evening, the restaurant is going to be a new structure. It is practically complete and its design was approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission. I gather that the parking place is to be pretty small. It was designed for something like 60 cars. What will be lost to the Park on the side of the Serpentine Bridge Road (if it will be lost) will be gained on the other side, where, as the noble Lord knows, there is an area of tarmac. It has been there for some time, and the present plan is to dig that up and restore it to grass.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, does the noble Earl recall that three years ago this House, on my Motion, struck out a clause from the Public Health Bill that would have enabled the local authorities to take over land in open spaces for this purpose? Is it not unfortunate that Her Majesty's Government should treat with so little respect the Royal Parks and the rights of the public peacefully to enjoy them?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, all my noble friend's actions in this House are vividly in my mind and I do, of course, recall that particular Parliamentary occasion. But, with due respect, I do not think—though I am venturing into legalistic matters—that my right honourable friend is a "local authority". I hope I indicated in my Answer to a supplementary question that my right honourable friend is conscious of the importance of the amenities of the Park, and of preserving and enhancing them where possible. It is for that reason he is taking action to eliminate this tarmac eyesore on the other side of the Bridge Road and to restore it to grass.
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, would it not be possible in the future for Parliament or the public to be informed about what is going on in the Royal Parks (it was only by chance that I read about this car park in the paper), so that Parliament can decide whether pieces of the Royal Parks should be taken for purposes for which they were never intended?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I would entirely agree with the noble Lord. Of course, it was with that thought in mind that my right honourable friend explained the concept of this restaurant very fully in a Press conference last October.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, in view of the general sympathy in all quarters of the House for preservation of the Parks, would the noble Earl consider the possibility of this car park being put below ground level? Only a small number of cars is involved. I am sure that if this were possible—and I recognise the expense factor—an eyesore could be taken from this Park.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am sure my right honourable friend will be very glad to consider that suggestion, which I will pass on. I think there is a difficulty here. A good deal of preliminary work has been done, including the drainage, for this car park. As the noble Lord will see, if he looks at the report of last October's Press conference, it is planned to have another restaurant on the other side of the Park and it is conceivable that his suggestion might be more applicable there.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, will the noble Earl give an undertaking that, when the new restaurant is being considered, the amenity that is required for offices—the provision of below-ground-level car parks—will apply for the new restaurant?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I cannot give an undertaking, but I will bring that idea to my right honourable friend's attention.
§ BARONESS HORSBRUGHMy Lords, can the noble Earl say whether this car park is to be used solely by the patrons of the restaurant and whether anyone else will be allowed to park there?
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, can my noble friend say what will happen when the provision for 60 cars proves to be wholly insufficient? Will further acres of the Park then be taken over for a sure that the new restaurant is going to
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am similar purpose? 1144 be a great success, but I do not think that we should unduly anticipate that success.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, as well as saying whether the car park is to be used exclusively by those who are enjoying the amenities of the restaurant, will the Minister say whether a time limit will be put upon parking?—otherwise, somebody may come for, say, a luncheon meal, park there and stay for an evening meal as well.