Questions in Parliament
Meanwhile, however, Parliament had been dis- cussing the thing. On November 17 there were questions in both Houses. In the Lords, Lord Waldegrave (who, collectors of moonbeams from the larger lunacy may care to note, is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agri- culture, Fisheries and Food) replied firmly, after a short apologia, 'the Government do not propose to intervene.' At the same time, in the Commons. Mr. Kenneth Robinson was opening fire; he was joined by Mr. Gresham Cooke, Mr. Grimond and Mr. Bevan. In answering, Mr. Brooke—no doubt unwittingly—seemed to give the impression to the House that the Government had not until then been aware of what was going on in Piccadilly Circus. This, however, cannot be so, and indeed is not. Apart from the fact that there is a general understanding in what can only be described as well-informed circles that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has been kept in touch throughout (certainly they must have been apprised of the situation not later than February, 1959, when the Royal Fine Art Commission sent the Ministry a copy of its objections to the build- ing), the LCC officers' reports to the Town Plan- ning Committee of the Council stated specifically that the Ministry of Transport had been con- sulted throughout. Much more extraordinary, however, is Mr. Brooke's statement, in reply to a question from Mr. Bevan, that 'I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that the build- ing that is in process of being approved by the London County Council is generally in line with the model showing the whole lay-out of the sur- roundings of Piccadilly Circus.' It is difficult to think of any convincing explanation of this re- mark, for it does not touch the truth at any point.
But far more astonishing was the reply given by Lord Waldegrave to a question on December 1. He was asked by Lord Conesford whether the LCC had yet submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission plans of the improved elevation of the 'podium,' which it will be remembered was the one criticism by the Commission that the Council accepted. Lord Waldegrave replied : understand that as yet the London County Coun- cil have not themselves received from the de- velopers the revised plans which, among other things, will incorporate the modification to which this Question refers.' Now where Lord Walde- grave got his information from I do not know, but his answer could hardly be true. As long ago as last June the Council's officers were satisfied that the modifications had been satisfactorily made, and had expressed themselves content, in the negotiations with the developers, on this point. And on December 2, when the matter came up in the House of Lords again, Lord Waldegrave was almost equally misleading. He said : `The public have known about this scheme since March 13, when photographs (I have them here) and leading articles were published in the newspapers. . . . No objections of any sort were made at that time.' This may well have given the impression that the publication referred to was the one which followed Mr. Cotton's press conference, after which there were indeed 'photographs and leading articles.' But from the perspective drawings re- leased by Mr. Cotton on that occasion it was clear that changes had been made to the design. And when the original design was released by the LCC (when the conditional approval was given), there was far less publicity. And to imply that because a design is available to the public, the vast majority of whom would be quite unaware of its existence, proper opportunity for objection has been made, is surely tantamount to arguing that silence means consent. In any case, it is not true that no objection was made at the time; the Architectural Press, for one, strongly criticised the scheme.
Previous page
