HC Deb 15 March 1889 vol 333 cc1807-10
SIR J. COLOMB (Tower Hamlets, Bow, &c.)

I beg to ask the hon. Mem- ber for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, whether tenders for the construction of a portion of the Blackwall Tunnel scheme have been, or were to be, opened by the Metropolitan Board of Works on this day; and, whether, in view of the fact that this Board will cease to exist in a few days' time, it is their intention to take any action which will commit the County Council with reference to such tenders?

MR. TATTON EGERTON

In answer to the Question I have to inform the hon. Member that the Board have, after a discussion of two hours and a half, opened tenders for the Blackwall Tunnel, and have approved the lowest. They have so informed the contractor. The contract will come up for sealing at the next meeting of the Board.

LORD R. CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

May I ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in view of the fact—and notwithstanding his strong expression of opinion yesterday—that the Metropolitan Board of Works have proceeded to consider tenders for this project and have accepted one of them, he is prepared, as President of the Local Government Board, to intimate either to the County Council or to the ratepayers of the Metropolis any measures which may be open to them to take to render absolutely nugatory what appears to be a very gross abuse of authority?

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Motion in favour of the acceptance of this tender was first negatived, but that by some strange ruling it was put by the chairman and carried; whether the tender accepted is £38,000 over the estimate formed by the chief engineer; whether the contract is to be confirmed next week; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will exercise his powers under the Act to arrest this shameless action.

* MR. RITCHIE

After what took place last night I at once caused a letter to be written to the Metropolitan Board of Works. It is to the effect that the President of the Local Government Board wished his opinion to be conveyed to the Metropolitan Board of Works that action, such as that suggested, would, in the circumstances, be very inexpedient, and expressing a strong hope that the Board would not proceed to bind their successors in a matter of so much importance; but that they would leave the matter open for the consideration of the London County Council on their resumption of office. I have no knowledge of what took place other than that of which the House has been informed by the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire. I would point out, in reply to my noble Friend, that section 109 (1) of the Local Government Act is as follows— Subject as in this Act mentioned, the appointed day for the purposes of this shall, in each county, be the 1st day of April next after the passing thereof, or such other day, earlier or later as the Local Government Board (but after the election of County Councillors for such county on the application of the Provisional Council or County Council) may appoint, either generally or with reference to any particular provision of this Act, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act, whether contained in the same section or in different sections or for different counties. In the circumstances of this case, I think, if the Local Government Board were to receive from the Provisional Council of the County of London an application to advance the appointed day, either with reference to this particular power of entering into contracts or generally, prior to the contract being sealed—which I understand is to take place on Friday next—it would be the duty of the Local Government Board to give such application their most careful consideration.

MR. LAWSON

To elicit the truth, I should like to ask the hon. Member for Knutsford Division of Cheshire whether the tender accepted by the Board was for £318,000, and that the estimate of the Chief Engineer was £280,000, thus making a difference of £38,000 between the estimate and the tender?

MR. TATTON EGERTON

The hon. Member's figures are perfectly correct. But I should like to remind the House that the estimates of the Engineer did not include the liability which the contractor has to undertake of any accident taking place in the works, which are unprecedented and which have never been tried on so large a scale before.

SIR J. COLOMB (Tower Hamlets, Bow, &c.)

Did the Metropolitan Board of Works receive from the County Council a request not to accept the tender?

MR. TATTON EGERTON

Yes, it is so.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, as representing the Metropolitan Board of Works, whether the Board will postpone the consideration of any further grants of pensions to officers of the Board, and leave the question to be decided by the London County Council?

MR. TATTON EGERTON

The Board of Works have no further applications for pensions beyond those which are on the Board's agenda paper to-day, and which have been recommended for approval.