HC Deb 19 July 1889 vol 338 cc940-7

Order for Second Reading read.

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,) Cambridge University

In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I propose to make a brief statement, as much misapprehension exists as to the intentions of the Government in introducing the measure. I may remind the House that the site of Coldbath Fields Prison, which is the subject of the Bill, came under the operation of the Prisons Act of 1877, which vested all the sites of prisons and the buildings on them in the Home Secretary, subject to a certain right of redemption by the Prison Authorities. In 1885 Lord Cross, who was then Home Secretary, made an order to close the Coldbath Fields Prison from the 31st of October, 1885, and notified the Prison Authorities, the Justices of Middlesex, accordingly. Lord Cross also gave them notice that it was competent for them to repurchase the site, but that the cost would be £120 per cell, representing a gross sum of £186,960. At the same time, the Home Office had the ground valued by a competent valuer. The valuation of the prison and of a small section outside the prison walls, including houses of which the leases would fall in in 1894, was £96,417. This was rather less than half the amount which the Middlesex Magistrates would by Act of Parliament be required to pay for the land and houses if they wished to redeem it. Of course the Justices of Middlesex did not see their way to give £186,000 for the property, and they declined the offer of the Home Office. The negotiations between the Home Office and the Post Office began in March, 1888. A letter was received by the Post Office from the Home Office stating that the Prison Commissioners would be prepared to hand over on the 16th of that month that part of the site which was at that time proposed to be appropriated by the Post Office. Another communication was subsequently received from the Home Office conveying the whole site with the exception of a small portion, which the Bill provides is to be sold to the County Council, with the view of making a viaduct over Farringdon Street, but that portion was only valued at £1,700. Possession was taken of the site by the Office of Works in the month of March, 1888. Since that time about £14,000 has been expended under Votes of the House upon buildings—part of the buildings which it was proposed to erect. After this had been done there appeared to be some doubt as to the legal title of the Prison Commissioners to convey the site to the Post Office without a sale; and therefore the Government was advised to bring in a Bill to obtain the sanction of Parliament to a transaction which had already taken place under the authority of the Government. That was the origin of this Bill, which is intended practically to confirm, the title of the Post Office to the property which was acquired by conveyance without a sale. I may point out if the Post Office had gone through the form of a sale it would have been something in the nature of a sham. It is thought that, in the circumstances, the course that has been adopted is the simpler and the more dignified. The property has been valued at £96,000, or say roundly £100,000. The acquisition of it puts the Post Office in a position to dispose of premises in Moorgate Street, in Gloucester Road, and at London Bridge, which up to the present have been used either as parcels depots or as post office stores. The values of these properties are respectively £50,000, £9,000, and £28,000, making a total of £87,000, which it is proposed to realize for the benefit of the taxpayers of this country. But that is only part of the economy which has been effected. The acquisition of this property has also rendered it possible to abstain from making large additions to the new buildings at the General Post Office which otherwise would have been necessary for the Public Service: it will also be possible to dispense with new buildings in the East Central District; and in this way it is estimated by competent authorities that there will be a saving of not less than £226,000. Therefore by the acquisition of this site the country is a gainer of upwards of £300,000. It will also be possible to give up premises at great railway stations rented at £3,000 a year, representing in capital say £100,000. Considerable saving will in addition be effected by transferring the factory business to Coldbath Fields from Gloucester Road; but as I am not quite satisfied with the precise figures given me on this point, I do not include them in my calculation. On the whole, the acquisition of the site represents a saving to the country of something like £400,000. For the first time we shall have a central sorting office for dealing with the Parcel Post work, and anybody at all familiar with the conduct of a public office, and with the trade of a carrier, will realize the immense public convenience of getting together the whole of the work. The three places at which the work is now carried on are rented at a very considerable sum, and are rapidly becoming inadequate for the work we have to do. It would, no doubt, have been necessary in the course of a very short time very largely to extend these offices, and to rent fresh premises at a very considerable increased expense. I may point out that the number of parcels dealt with weekly previous to the acquisition of that site was 139,000. In the one year and a half which has since elapsed they have increased to 215,000, or 56 per cent. It has been found possible to dispense with that enlargement of the General Post Office to which I have referred. In addition to other Departments, it has provided accommodation for the concentration of the Store Department, and it has also enabled us to obtain a sufficient site for a new factory for telegraphic purposes, the old one in Gloucester Road being greatly cramped. The staff of the Money Order Office, at present in course of demolition, will also be accommodated. All these purposes put together make it necessary for the Department to retain the whole of the site. Besides the ordinary work there come times of enormous pressure. For instance, in Christmas week, an addition of 700,000 parcels are dealt with, or about four times the number in any other week in the year. In view of the growth of the last year and a half, it would be idle to suppose the Parcel Post business has yet reached the highest point. In all probability the work will go on increasing by leaps and bounds, and before 20 years have passed even more extended accommodation may be required. The School Board for London were offered one acre of the site.

MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, East)

Can you say what price was to be charged for that acre?

* MR. RAIKES

I believe that was to be settled by arbitration, and that no price was named. Now, Sir, I believe I have made out a good case, both on the grounds of economy and efficiency, for the acquisition of this site. Of course, I know there are objections on the part of some Metropolitan Members and others. I do not know whether any hon. Member thinks it should have been handed over to the London County Council without any payment whatever. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to have drawn that cheer, because otherwise the House might not have thought it credible that there was such an opinion. I would point out that this site is the property, not of the London ratepayers but of the taxpayers of the kingdom, and a more flagrant act of robbery and spoliation could not be committed against the taxpayers than to hand it over to the London ratepayers. The then Prison Authority declined to purchase the property.

MR. H. L. W. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

They did not decline to purchase it as an open space.

* MR. RAIKES

As far as the best information I can collect goes, they certainly declined to purchase the property at all. The only price at which the Government could possibly have parted with it to them would have been actually double or more than double, the amount which would have been offered. At the time the site was offered for sale the London County Council was not in existence, and if they had been, being men of business, they would no doubt have declined to purchase it at the price asked. The Government are trustees of the taxpayers' property, and it is the duty of the Government to see that the taxpayer is not fleeced or robbed or deprived of his rights. This principle has been so much recognised by the House of Commons in this very Parliament—that certain charges, which in former times were defrayed by the taxpayers at large in connection with the London Parks, have been transferred to, and accepted by the ratepayers of the Metropolis. In fact, if we were to hand over to the ratepayers the property of the taxpayers, we should be directly undoing the policy which Parliament has directly adopted in the treatment of this question. But I find that the ratepayers of the district most concerned are among the strongest supporters of this Bill. I hold in my hand a statement on the part of the Clerkenwell United Ratepayers' Protection Society to the effect that their society, as reflecting the opinions of the majority of the ratepayers of the parish, are strongly in favour of this land being utilized for the establishment of a postal department, in view of the great impetus that will thereby be given to business in the locality. They also state that the population of Clerkenwell is steadily decreasing, that the trade of watch-making is declining, and that it is becoming more difficult each year for the parish to support its poor. They further say that Clerkenwell at present has open spaces amply sufficient for its requirements, and actually larger in extent than those in Belgravia, and they add that the vestry on the 4th of this month expressed views in accordance with those held by the Society, and decided to memorialize the Government in favour thereof, and they most earnestly entreat for the benefit of the ratepayers, that the scheme will be carried through to completion. I think that where this is the opinion of the ratepayers, it would indeed be Quixotic on the part of the London Council to say that in the interests of the ratepayers in distant parts of London, they would add to the burdens and diminish the resources of the striving population of poor Clerkenwell. I am certain that if the matter were properly explained to the working classes they would sympathize with the reasonable demand of the ratepayers of Clerkenwell, a demand which is endorsed by no less than 26 to 1 upon the Vestry. I do not think that in the history of the Post Office or of the Government a more advantageous arrangement than this has ever had been made for the Public Service, and I think it would be difficult for any philanthropist, however amiable, or for any gentleman who has run away with an exaggerated idea of the functions of that interesting new body, the London County Council, to persuade the House to set aside an arrangement which is so much for the benefit of the Public Service and so greatly to the advantage of the locality where it is proposed to erect the new building.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Raikes.)

MR. J. ROWLANDS

In rising to move that this Bill be read a second time on this day three months, I shall try to traverse the statement of the case put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall not accuse him either in speech or action of being a philanthropist on this subject of the prison site in Clerkenwell. I think we have just been listening to one of the coolest statements ever put forward by a Minister of the Crown. It almost resembles the statement of a gentleman who has appropriated someone else's property and who wishes to show what great advantages have accrued to him from having got that which he never purchased. It would have been well if the right hon. Gentleman when he grew so eloquent about the interests of the taxpayers had told the House what the taxpayers ever paid for this prison site. Allow me to tell hon. Members that the taxpayers paid nothing. By the Act of 1877, passed when Lord Cross was Home Secretary, and which was one of the most confiscatory Acts ever passed, the whole of the prisons were taken over bodily for purposes of administration. The whole case of the Government is that either through negligence or wilfully, they commenced operations on the site of Coldbath Fields Prison in contravention of the Act of 1877. I say that under that Act the "surplus if any" alluded to in one of the clauses is to go not to the taxpayers of the country but to the ratepayers of the county. If that be so, it must at once be admitted that if the prisons are disused, the ratepayers have some claim to them. The Government think it a very good thing to annex this site for a very wealthy department, and thus to allow the people of London to provide them with a site. No doubt it would be an advantage to have the several departments referred to by the right hon. Gentleman concentrated in one place, but as they already have valuable property in the City and elsewhere, which it is proposed to give up, they could afford out of the proceeds of the property to purchase a new site where they require it. The Ratepayers' Association of Clerkenwell, whose memorial the right hon. Gentleman referred to, say that the population of Clerkenwell is decreasing. During the last few years, however, a number of huge blocks of model dwellings have been erected in the neighbourhood of the prison. Clerkenwell is, as a matter of fact, one of the most densely populated parts of London. It contains 340 acres, and its inhabitants number no less than 70,000. As to the open spaces, there are two small squares, comprising about 2 acres in all, on the estate of the Marquess of Northampton. There are other squares in Clerkenwell, but not one of them is at the disposal of the general population. The Vestry, in their Circular, speak of the New River Head as an open space—a reservoir surrounded by a high wall about 15 or 20 feet high! That is the sort of argument that has been pit into the hands of hon. Members. I am not ashamed to be called a philanthropist by the right hon. Gentleman. I am not aware that it is a term of opprobium, but if so, I am quite willing to bear it. I feel that the work I am carrying out is that of which no one need be ashamed. There is a history connected with these prison sites. In 1883, when the "Bitter Cry of Outcast London" startled the humanity of London, a Royal Commission was appointed to investigate the question of the housing of the working classes. That Commission sat for somewhere about three years. It was decidedly a strong Commission. It contained some of the most representative men of both political Parties, as well as gentlemen who are known to be conversant with the question outside both Houses. Among others on the Commission was H.R.H. the Prince of Wales. Well, the Commission reported that it would be well in their opinion that Mill-bank, Coldbath Fields, and Pentonville Prisons should be conveyed to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that in fixing the price due regard should be had to the purposes for which they were required. It may be said that the purpose was the erection of artizans' dwellings, but allow me to point out that the word used was "purposes," and it was distinctly suggested in the Report that those purposes should be either the erection of artizans' dwellings or, failing that, the creation of open spaces for the dense populations existing in the neighbourhood of the prisons. One of our charges is that virtually nothing has been done to carry out the Report of the Commission. The suggestion of the Report was embodied almost in its entirety in the Act of Parliament passed three months after the presentation of the Report in the summer of 1885. The first persons to whom the site was offered were, in accordance with the Act of 1877, the Justices of the Peace. They were offered it, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has told us, at a price that was ridiculous; that is to say, on the basis of £120 per cell.

It being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.