POST OFFICE SITES BILL. (Hansard, 28 May 1902)

§ (5.43.) MR. CALDWELL

drew attention to the absence from the Bill of any clauses affording protection to the County Councils in the matter of breaking up the streets. He said he had no doubt the Secretary to the Treasury would have had this matter under consideration, and he might be able to say whether he could see his way to put some clause into the Bill which would preserve the rights of the County Councils, which had always been preserved in previous Bills, with regard to the breaking up of streets. No doubt the Post Office and the County Councils would work harmoniously together, but at the same time the rights of the County Councils ought to be preserved. He contended that substantial reasons should be given if the ordinary practice was not to be adopted. Then with regard to the works at Dulwich and Oxford Street, the House was entitled to have some information as to the estimated cost of the buildings and so on. One of his reasons for bringing these matters before the House was that Departments were apt to think they could get their Bills through very easily, and, in consequence, to be less particular as to the nature of the transactions. It was, therefore, well to ask for information, to let the officials know that such matters would not be allowed to pass sub silentio.

§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said his experience had not been such as to 827 make him think it an easy matter to get Bills through the House, or to encourage Departments unnecessarily to put Bills into his hands with a view to their passage into law. In his view, more harm was likely to be done by Bills being kept back because of the difficulty of getting them through the House, than by measures passing too easily. As to the points raised by the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire, he was quite willing to insert the clauses to which he had referred. The reason they were not inserted in the first instance was that the local authorities concerned had had the Bill communicated to them, and were perfectly satisfied with it as it stood. The only objection to the insertion of the clauses was that it was never desirable to cumber a Bill with unnecessary provisions. That, however, was no reason why they should not be inserted in this case if the hon. Member desired them to be, and, although not pledging himself to the exact wording, he would see that substantially they were inserted in Committee, unless in the meantime he was released from the undertaking. As to the property at Dulwich, that was a very small affair. It was a vacant site, belonging to the trustees of Alleyn's charity. The buildings would cost probably about £2,000, and the site was not likely to be costly. The site off Oxford Street was a much more expensive matter. The buildings at present occupied by the Post Office on lease were to be purchased, with other shops and houses, for the purpose of necessary extensions. The existing accommodation was small even for the present business, but, in addition to that, a telephone exchange was to be established at the office. It was impossible to give any reliable estimate as to the cost of the buildings to be erected, as the plans were not yet worked out in sufficient detail. The amount to be spent on alterations in the old buildings was £3,000 or £4,000, from which it might be gathered that the cost of the new buildings would come to a much larger sum.