§ Mr. Leonardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings what factors were responsible for the decision to expend £35 in removing from the statue of King Charles, at Trafalgar Square, the protective material that cost £320 to erect; and why, when the statue was removed, was the pedestal allowed to remain involving a further expenditure of £140 for a brick enclosure?
§ Mr. HicksThe protection originally given to the statue of King Charles was only proof against blast and splinters and it was decided, in view of the risk of damage from a direct hit, to remove the statue to a place of safety in the country. In regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 23rd July to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Pearson).