HC Deb 27 May 1908 vol 189 cc1185-8

Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any Expenses, so far as not otherwise provided for, incurred by the Commissioners of Works under any Act of the present Session, to provide for the Acquisition of Land for the extension of certain Public Offices in Westminster and of the Patent Office, and for certain other public purposes."

Resolution read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

SIR F. BANBURY

said he did not wish to put the House to the trouble of a division over this Resolution, but he would like to have some explanation as to whether more than £600,000 was going to be expended. He understood that £600,000 was going to be provided out of the old Sinking Fund, which he thought was a mistake; but he would like some assurance that if they consented to the limit of £600,000 the Government would give notice of their intention to spend, more than that if it were found necessary.

MR. HOBHOUSE

said there was no intention of going beyond the sum specified.

LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)

said he had never been able to get a satisfactory answer to the question how much land was required beyond the amount secured under the original Act. In 1903 the Act was passed authorising the expenditure of money for sites for Government buildings and for the erection of those buildings on those sites. A great number of sites had been acquired under that Act five years ago, but not those in Great George Street for the extension of the present buildings. He had asked on two different occasions how much land remained unacquired for the purpose of that extension, but had not been able to get an answer.

MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)

said that his right hon. friend the First Commissioner of Works had asked him if this Resolution came up to-night to express his regret that he could not be present in the House owing to engagement on other official duties elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman was present on the previous day when this matter was discussed in Committee and he had answered all the questions then raised. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] He hoped the House would now allow the Report Stage of the Resolution to be taken.

MR. ASHLEY

said that the explanation made matters worse. If the First Commissioner of Works had other official duties to perform, of course he must perform them. But he complained that the Government should take their Resolution at a time when they themselves admitted that the First Commissioner of Works could not be present. Several important questions had been put to the Government with reference to the sites for the public offices and the sums of money which had been spent on them; but no answer had been given to those questions. It was hardly fair to the House to leave them without a clear and relevant answer to these questions.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he had been one of those who opposed the passing of the Public Sites Bill, to which the Report referred. As he understood, the Bill and this Resolution, had to do with the completion of the very important and uniform public buildings which were calculated vastly to improve the facilities for the public service, as well as to form a great improvement in an important portion of London. He had opposed the Bill because he thought that a considerable amount of money might have been saved by putting the public offices on another site. That, however, was not the point now. During the former discussion some confusion arose as to the provision and expenditure of the money. The First Commissioner of Works explained that a considerable portion of the money for the whole of the improvements had already been provided for, and therefore that did not need to be raised by this particular Resolution. In the course of the discussion, the right hon. Gentleman was asked what was the estimate of the total cost, but he was rot able to give that with certainty. Then he was asked what was the amount of total cost already provided for in other financial Resolutions, and which would not be required to be raised by this financial Resolution. The House got no definite reply. Now a third point arose: what was the total area of land which would be required on which to build the public offices? A certain portion of the site still required to be bought, including that occupied by the Institute of Civil Engineers, which beautiful new building was to be pulled down. What he and his friends wanted was a general idea of the number of square yards which would be occupied by the new building, the number of square yards already bought and paid for, and the number still to be acquired. If a considerable portion of the land necessary had still to be bought and arbitrated upon, then the Estimates laid before the House might be very considerably increased in amount. He also wanted to know whether the complete plans had been actually drawn, and an estimate made of the total cost, and whether they were going to spend on the buildings on these sites at a rate of £30 or £35 per square yard. Those were points which they did not get elucidated on the last occasion. He very much regretted in the interest of public business that the First Commissioner of Works was not present, for he thought the House was entitled to the information asked for before they passed an important Resolution of this kind.

And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, Further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.