§ MR. LEAI beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what was the amount expended by the Hammersmith guardians at the opening ceremony of their now workhouse it Wormwood Scrubbs; whether this amount was charged in the capital expenditure on the buildings; whether the architect, the clerk of the works, and the engineer each drew percentage on this amount, and, if so, what was the amount so paid to them, and were these amounts passed by the auditors of the Local Government Board.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea)The clerk. to the guardians informs me that no sum was expended by the guardians themselves in this matter, that whatever expenditure was incurred was met by the contractor, and that no particulars have been furnished 459 to the guardians of any expenditure which has been charged against them in the contractor's accounts, as all payments were made upon the architect's certificates for total sums. He adds that everything included in the architect's certificates has been charged to capital. I learn from the inspectors who held the recent inquiry that the expenses of the opening ceremony have not been divided from those connected with the laying of the foundation stone, and that the do-tailed quantity accounts contain items for these purposes amounting to £826 3s. 3d. The architect's commission is 4 percent. on the sums certified by him, but it has not yet all been paid. The clerk of the works is paid by salary, and there was no engineer concerned. The sum above mentioned includes a commission of 10 per cent. to the builders on most of the items. There are also percentages payable to the quantity surveyor, but some of these are in dispute. I do not understand that percentages to the quantity surveyor are included in the sum above mentioned. So far as I am aware, no amount payable as commission on the expenses of the opening ceremony has been passed by the auditor. I understand that the matter has not yet come before him.
§ MR. LEAAm I to understand that the expenses of this luncheon did fall, directly or indirectly, on the ratepayers?
§ MR. JOHN BURNSUltimately, the £826 3s. 3d. was intended to fall upon the ratepayers.
§ MR. LEAMay I ask if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin was present on the occasion?
§ *THE SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Member is now proposing to ask part of the Question which he knows perfectly well was struck out by my direction.