§ *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's) moved the Second Reading of this Bill, the purpose of which was, he said, to acquire the Carrington House site in Whitehall for the purpose of the erection of a War Office. The building space thus afforded would more than accommodate the War Office, but it was not more than sufficient to provide for extensions which might be necessary in a few years. The Bill was based on the unanimous Report of a Select Committee which sat last year to consider the question of sites for public offices. The freehold of the property was vested in the Crown, but it would be necessary to purchase the site from, the Commissioners of Woods, which would make no difference from the taxpayers' point of view, because revenue would be obtained, instead of from the Consolidated Fund, from the land revenues of the Crown, which were administered by the Office of Woods. So far as he knew, the Bill was approved on all sides of the House.
§ MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.)desired to have further information about the scheme, and particularly as to what offices were to be built upon the site, what was to be the total cost, and whether it was intended to provide for the Board of Trade, which, though one of the most important Departments of Government, was at present very inadequately housed. The House ought to know what was the whole programme of the Government in this matter.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWISremarked that the right hon. Gentleman had said that the acquisition of this property would 328 practically make no difference to the taxpayers. He should like to know whether the Commissioners of Woods and Forests at the present time received any rents in respect of the property under discussion. If they knew this, they could then ascertain, as a matter of fact, how much these buildings were to cost the nation. Again, the tenants on the property ought to receive some consideration, because for the last 20 years they had been under notices of various kinds, and they never had any idea of what was going to become of the property. He considered that Amendments ought to be moved providing that the interests of the tenants should receive due consideration.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)wished to know what the buildings were going to cost, and what proportion Ireland would have to bear. He had made up his mind that, so far as he could help it, the Government should not get any Bill for erecting buildings, however desirable from the British point of view, in London to the cost of which Ireland would have to contribute, without knowing how much Ireland was to contribute, and whether she was to be treated as a separate entity or as a county of England in these matters. The Government had made up their minds that they wanted time to consider the matter of Imperial contributions, and they had decided to appoint a Commission to investigate the question of the expenditure—
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe remarks of the hon. Member are out of order.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid his point was that he objected to any further expenditure towards which Ireland had to contribute without knowing what benefit she was to derive from it. The Government had appointed a Commission to inquire into the whole question of Imperial contributions (although he submitted they had full knowledge on the subject already), and until that investigation had taken place he considered the Government should withdraw this Bill.
§ MR. JAMES DALY (Monaghan, S.)supported the hon. Member for Kilkenny in opposing any further stages of this Bill at the present time. He objected to Irishmen having to contribute to the beautifying of the streets of London when the money could be much better spent on the hovels in the poor parts of Ireland. He should also like to know whether 329 or not there were to be any evictions in this case, and, if so, what compensation was to be paid the tenants so evicted?
§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea), as a member of the Sites Committee, supported the remarks of the First Commissioner of Works, and assured the hon. Member for Monaghan that there were to be no evictions. It must be admitted that the present location and relation, both administrative and architecturally, of all their Government Departments in or near that House was a reproach to the Government of this country, and had long been an administrative scandal. The House of Commons had frequently expressed a desire that the block of buildings in Parliament Street should be swept away altogether, and in the interest of the public traffic, and to some extent to carry out the pledge given to London, that at the same time the obstruction to Parliament Street should be removed. Another matter the Committee had to consider was, how they could improve the connection between administrative centres, the different portions of which were spread over a number of buildings not closely connected with each other. The Committee came to the conclusion that, for administrative and economical reasons, the Admiralty and all its buildings should be located on or near where the new Admiralty buildings had been recently erected, and where another wing was in the course of erection. They had to choose whether the War Office should occupy the other side of the Parade quadrangle. He was in favour of that view, but he was beaten by the Committee, and he loyally fell in with the defeat he sustained. The decision of the Committee was, that, failing the new War Office, which was necessary, being placed opposite the new Admiralty buildings, the War Office should be transferred to the Carrington House site. Not a single Member of the House had raised any objection to the site of the new War Office, either on the ground of location or relation to the Admiralty buildings now being erected, and he ventured to say that, failing the eviction of the Treasury—to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would strongly object—the Carrington House site was the next best site they could have for housing the War Office. The Committee decided that the Admiralty buildings should be completed 330 where they were now being located; that the War Office should be transferred from Pall Mall, where it was insufficiently and improperly housed, to the Carrington House site, which would secure that that particular Department should be concentrated in one building. Then the question arose as to what should be done with the Board of Trade. The Committee were roughly of opinion that when the Parliament Street block was removed, they ought to have a block of Government buildings from the corner of Parliament Street and George Street, running so far down as nearly to Storey's Gate, or on that part of the land that the Government had either a whole or joint interest in. He believed that if they carried out that rough scheme, the details of which the Committee to be appointed would thrash nut, they would have a clear view from Trafalgar Square to the House of Commons, and the War Office would be properly housed. Then they would be able to properly group the Board of Trade, the Irish Office, and the Labour Department of the Board of Agriculture in buildings which would be compact and beautiful in external appearance. He expected to hear the Irish Members object to the government and administration of Ireland from the mean and disgraceful Irish Office in which its business was now transacted. The Committee had been compelled to consider this accommodation, but they could not do more than they did. This Bill was brought in as a preliminary instalment in order to prevent money from being wasted, and in order to give to the Government offices that accommodation they had so long demanded.
§ MR. J. J. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N)thought that the hon. Member who had spoken last was a Scotsman.
§ MR. CLANCYsaid, at any rate, the hon. Member was of Scottish descent, though he had discussed the question from the point of view of London. He could not see any question from the point of view of London, and he refused to discuss any question either from the point of view of London, or of England, or even from the point of view of the Empire. He discussed this question entirety from the point of view of Ireland. He did not 331 cave whether the Irish Office was grouped or whether or not it existed. He wished it were abolished from the face of the earth and the Government that sustained it. Who was going to pay for this land? Was Ireland to help in paying it? Ireland had no interest in buying this land or in building these offices, or in carrying out the work after they were built. It was said that the buildings were necessary for the Army. Irishmen did no want the Army. What Ireland wanted was to be protected from the British Army; therefore, he did not see why Ire-laud should be asked to contribute anything at all. This was an Imperial charge, and he should like to know in what column of the Treasury Return would the expense appear? Every penny spent would go into the pockets of Englishmen. Would the Government put down to the account of England alone the cost that would be incurred by the passing of the Bill, or would they charge the Empire, and thereby cheat Ireland of so much money? This was a, very vital matter. Every Irish Member who had any regard for the material interests of his constituency ought to oppose every Bill by every means in his power which proposed to add to the existing burdens of Ireland.
§ MR. W. ALLAN (Gateshead)said he looked at this question from a business point of view. The question was, "Are the offices required?" [Mr. CLANCY: "Not by Ireland!"] The bonds between the countries were not yet broken, and as things were the hon. Member ought to know that all portions of the United Kingdom must bear their share of this expense. [Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: "We bear too much!"] The protest of the hon. Member was not altogether sound. The money would not go into the pockets of Englishmen, for a large amount of Irish labour would be employed. The First Commissioner had overlooked one grand site in connection with his scheme. A more contemptible set of offices for Government to do its work in he did not think existed; and he asked why the right hon. Gentleman should not continue the present Privy Council buildings, abolish the antiquated buildings called the Scotch Office and the Horse Guards, continuing the site of the Government offices in one group right up to Charing Cross, instead of scattering them.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELL (Cavan, W.)said Irish Members were justified in criticising this Bill because Ireland was interested in it to the extent of £45,000. For the last three days the House had been occupied in discussing the Financial Relations of Great Britain and Ireland, and during the Debate it was shown that Ireland contributed an eleventh of Imperial taxation. The fourth clause of the Bill sanctioned a, charge on the Consolidated Fund of £500,000, of which Ireland would supply £45,000. He protested against Irish money being devoted to the service of the War Office, a department from the administration of winch his country derived no advantage. So far as he could understand the land to be appropriated for this site was the property of Her Majesty, and it seemed to him an extraordinary thing that the State should pay Her Majesty half a million of money for this purpose. The hon. Member for Battersea informed him that in the sense in which Her Majesty's title was used the Government was meant, and if that was so it would seem to be but a transfer of the money from one Government pocket to another. But perhaps Her Majesty did get some substantial sum from the amount. He did not wish to speak with any disrespect of the Sovereign, but he did not think that anyone could bring forward an instance in which Her Majesty had parted with property for the benefit of the State without reasonable consideration. This building was to be raised by Englishmen in England for English purposes, and he joined in the protest of his hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin against a large contribution being demanded from Ireland for such a, purpose. Ireland received no quid pro quo, and no cause had been shown why Ireland should be required to pay £45,000 for a purpose in which she had no shadow of interest. he associated himself with the protest of his hon. Friend. It had been suggested that Irish labourers would find employment in the building', and he hoped it might be so, but the First Commissioner would give no guarantee of the kind.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid the question of what employment would be given on the building had nothing to do with the purchase of the site.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELLhoped a Division would be taken against the Bill.
§ * MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid be would, with the permission of the House, answer one or two questions which had been put to him. The hon. Member for Islington asked as to the whole scheme. The Bill, of course, dealt only with the War Office, a part of the scheme considered by the Committee last year. It was proposed eventually to deal with the whole of the offices not now properly housed. The building for the Board of Trade, the Education Department, and the extension of the Local Government Hoard would occupy the site in Great George Street, and certain smaller offices would be in Downing Street. But the principal Department to house was the War Office, and the Committee decided unanimously that this was the only site large enough. The hon. Member for Battersea had expressed a preference for the Horse Guards Parade site, but it was considered that did not afford space enough now and for future extension, and the idea of utilizing that site was reluctantly abandoned. They were guided by the Reports of various Committees which had considered the subject in years past, and all recommended that the War Office should be placed, if not under the same roof, then as near as possible to the Admiralty. The question of tenants' compensation did not arise at all. The price of the land and contingent interests was mentioned in the Bill as under £300,000. The hon. Member for North Dublin asked under what column in the Treasury Accounts the money would be found. The terminable annuities would be provided for annually in the Estimates, and the amount of the Sinking Fund would appear in the Treasury Account.
§ MR. CLANCYasked whether the expenditure was to be regarded as an English charge or as an Imperial charge?
§ * MR. AKERS-DOUGLASCertainly as an Imperial charge. As to whether the site was a sufficient one, the net building area required for the new War Office was 67,000 square feet, and the site provided 74,000 square feet. With regard to the question of the existing accommodation, he need only point mil that at present the War Department occupied eight or ten buildings extending from Victoria Street to Pall Mall.
§ MR. CALDWELLthought the matter ought to be looked at from a Scotch point of view. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not 334 think the people of Scotland wished to be parsimonious in regard to Government buildings, but there was another aspect of the question under which Scotland and Ireland were treated unfairly in the matter of taxation by the city of London with regard to these buildings. He did not object to their putting up expensive buildings, but he thought that when they woe choosing a site there should be some kind of understanding with the local authorities that the Government should not be mulcted in a large amount of local taxation.
§ MR. M. J. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)felt bound as an Irish Member to protest against this Bill, under which £45,000 of Irish money was to be expended without, conferring any benefit direct or indirect on the Irish people. He would give an instance of the ungenerous way in which Ireland had been treated. In the county of Kerry a fatal calamity occurred, and eight lives were lost—
§ * MR. SPEAKERThat is not relevant to the matter under discussion. The hon. Member is entitled to make his protest, but he cannot go into foreign questions.
§ MR. FLAVINsaid he only desired to point out that when an appeal was made to British charity in the case of the Killarney disaster Her Majesty the Queen contributed £5; and he believed it would have been £100 if the accident had happened in Germany.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes, 2o.—(Division List, 156.)
§ Bill Read a Second time.
§ *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS moved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, three to be nominated by the House and two by the, Committee of Selection."
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)commented upon the system which had grown up of referring Bills of this kind, which were really private Bills, to a hybrid Committee. The experience they had had of hybrid Committees in regard to quasi private Bills made it somewhat doubtful as to the rightfulness of referring an important matter of this kind to such a Committee.
§ * MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the practice followed here was the universal practice where the Government brought in a Bill which sought what he might call private Bill powers.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he would not oppose the Motion, but the fact of allowing it to pass on this Bill must not be taken as a precedent in regard to the Kingstown Harbour Roads Transfer Bill.
§ MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)asked how the costs of this inquiry would be shared. Before an ordinary private Bill Committee the costs were shared between the parties. In this case would the costs be shared between the Treasury and the Crown?
§ * MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he understood the fees to which the hon. Member alluded were paid out of the Vote for Committees, which was taken every year in that House.
§ Bill committed to a Select Committee of five Members, three to be nominated by the House and two by the Committee of Selection.
§ Ordered,—That all petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel or agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
§ Ordered,—That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
§ Ordered,—That three be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)