§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ 1."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
§ Mr. FELLI beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I would like some information as to the cause of this increase. The explanation given on the first point (A), where the initial sum is £2,150, is that the growth of business since the original estimate was framed has rendered it necessary to increase the staff of officials as well as to engage temporary assistance. I gather that there has been additional expenditure in the Office of Works in connection with Labour Exchanges, and that that is the real object for which this additional Vote is required. But the explanation does not go sufficiently far to enable us to see fully how the matter stands, and that is also supported by the next item. On this latter I should like to ask this: I presume that this additional sum we are asked to vote to-day is not for the construction of buildings for Labour Exchanges, or for alterations that may be necessary, but for supervision. That would account for the additional travelling necessary. I suppose it is a fact that this sum is not for the actual construction of buildings, but solely on account of the supervision given from the Office of Works and other assistance in connection with the construction of these buildings. In my own place I know it has been done, and done, I believe, efficiently. I suppose a surveyor was sent down from London to supervise the buildings and to say that the work was done efficiently. If I am right in these ideas, I shall not press the matter further, except 842 that I would be glad to have some small explanation as to what are the additional works and were they undertaken in connection with the Labour Exchanges? I beg to move.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONThe explanatory note given at the foot of the Estimate is quite insufficient. I should like to ask, with regard to Item A, what is the growth of business referred to? Is it a permanent growth, and is it a natural growth? If it is a natural growth why was it not provided for in the original Estimate? I notice it was necessary to increase the staff, and therefore I conclude a portion of the growth of business, at all events, is a permanent growth. The present Government seems to think it necessary to increase the staffs of every Department. We see at the present moment a never-ending increase in the number of officials. There is an item of £300 for outside surveyors. I always understood that this Department had its own surveyors. Has it been absolutely necessary that they should go outside and ask for surveyors to do the work which should be done by their own official? What is the meaning of the £250 put down for contingencies? What are these contingencies? And what is it that makes it necessary to put down a Supplementary Estimate for them? I come to the item for travelling expenses. It appears this Department has been making foreign tours. I did not know that these tours are usual, or why it is necessary to tour in foreign countries. There is no explanation, and I should like to hear one before the Vote is taken.
§ Mr. WILFRID W. ASHLEYI understand that the House of Commons is the body that ought to criticise Parliamentary expenditure. The primary duty of the House of Commons is to provide the finance of the country, and legislation is, after all, but a secondary consideration. If any hon. Member looks at the form in which this Vote is presented, I do not think that he can honestly say that the Votes, or the main body of the Votes, convey the slightest information as to how the money is spent, and therefore the Committee is prevented having any legitimate control over expenditure. The Estimate is thrown at our heads; we are to find this £2,900, and we are graciously told 843 that there has been an increase in the staff. That no doubt is very pleasant for those who receive the salaries. With regard to the outside surveyors, we are not told what they are doing—whether they have been looking after this or that building or the Labour Exchanges. There is an item of £250 for contingencies, but we are not told what the contingencies are. It is not so much to the increased demand that I object, as to the form in which the Estimate is presented to the Committee. If any hon. Member looks at the paper he will be unable to say whether the money asked for has been rightly or wrongly expended. Committees are not being treated with proper consideration—I do not say by this Government only, but by all Governments—to enable them to judge fairly of expenditure.
§ Captain JESSELI quite agree with the protest against the increase of staff. I should like to ask whether the increased staff taken on had to pass any examination. We find from returns presented from time to time that many of the officials taken on by the Government are appointed without any qualification at all. It is most important that the country should have the satisfaction of knowing that the men who are employed are qualified to do their duty. The other point to which I desire to draw attention is, as to whether any provision has been made to carry out the improvements of Buckingham Palace. We were told some time ago that if sufficient pressure were put upon the Commissioner of Works efforts would be made to renovate the Palace, which, as it stands, is a disgrace to London. We hope that in the Coronation year some steps will be taken to bring about those improvements, and I should like to know whether any of the money for the increased staff has been taken for the purpose of making an Estimate in connection with this matter.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYMy hon. Friend, who has just spoken, asked some questions about Buckingham Palace, and expenditure for its improvement. I am here for economy, and not to promote further expenditure, and, therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman in charge of these Estimates would be good enough to say that at this moment we do not contemplate the expenditure of any further money. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will see, on reflection, that when we are expending such very large sums, and when we on this side of the House are 844 doing all we can to restrain extravagance we should at least be united upon this subject as we are upon all others.
§ Captain JESSELI think the hon. Baronet will find that we are united.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend will prove one exception. The hon. Gentleman in charge of this Estimate, on the last occasion that he was in charge of the Estimates, gave us every possible information he could. He was rather in a difficult position, and was not able to offer very satisfactory information, but that was not his fault, but was the fault of his supporters. He did his best to give us information, and I am sure he will do so again, and we on this side of the House are indebted to him for his kindness and courtesy.
It is quite true that this Supplementary Estimate is not a very large one, on the original Estimate of £100,000, but it must be remembered that the increase is due to increased work at the Office of Works. I should like to know whether the staff increased is the permanent staff of the Office of Works, or whether it is an increased staff employed in construction or repairs or anything of that sort. The phrase used is rather vague, it might cover permanent officials employed upon these works, and supposing it is an increase in the permanent staff, I ask the hon. Gentleman how it was necessary. Surely in cases like this, where everyone knows what is going to take place, there ought to be sufficient knowledge of the work so that the Estimate first presented to the House ought to be sufficient instead of being obliged to ask for additional money. On the other hand, if it is not the permanent staff but simply people engaged in repairs, I want to know how it was' not foreseen. I do not know whether additional work was undertaken since this matter came up before. If fresh works were undertaken, the Committee ought to be consulted beforehand, because that would be a very easy way of getting fresh work done if hon. Gentlemen were first entitled to push them forward, and then came forward and simply ask for an additional Estimate. I do not say the hon. Gentleman has any desire to evade the control of the House of Commons, but we know that many right hon. Gentlemen opposite do things to evade the control of the House of Commons. I would point out that this mode of proceeding is not altogether a constitutional one, and would not commend 845 itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were in Opposition.
I notice the item "Temporary Assistants," what is that for? My hon. Friend (Mr. Ashley) said he could not understand the footnote. I do not think anybody can. It seems to be put there first of all with a pretence of giving information, and secondly with the object of giving no information. I should like to have some further information about this Temporary Assistants. Provision is also required for outside surveyors. I understood that we had a large staff of surveyors. Then there is the item for travelling expenses. I do not see why it was not foreseen if it was necessary to go abroad. That surely ought to have been foreseen, and certainly it should have been foreseen if the expenses were incurred in connection with Labour Exchanges. These Labour Exchanges were established more than a year ago. I cannot in the least understand why there should have been this necessity for travelling in connection with Labour Exchanges. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us satisfactory information upon these points.
§ Mr. MALCOLMI wish to put a question in reference to the unforeseen growth of these Estimates. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Captain Jessel) asked whether these outside surveyors were appointed by examination or patronage. I should like that question answered as specifically as possible. I observe from an Order in Council, dated 1870, that the Civil Service Commissioners may dispense with examinations and grant their certificate of qualification upon evidence satisfactory to them that the person appointed possesses the requisite knowledge and ability, and is duly qualified. Can the hon. Member representing the Government assure us that the Civil Service Commissioners have granted those certificates to those who are now employed to increase the staff. With regard to the item for foreign travelling I take it from the comma after the word "travelling" that it has nothing to do with the Labour Exchanges, but has been incurred with regard to Embassies. If that is so, I am bound to say that the money has been very well expended, because our Embassies require to be better looked after.
§ Mr. BOYTONWith reference to the expenditure incurred at Buckingham Palace—
Mr. DUDLEY WARDThe money asked for in this Vote is required not for the buildings but for supervision and travelling in order to supervise the buildings. The main sum is required for work in connection with the Labour Exchanges. That is a new work. Labour Exchanges have been established barely a year, and the amount of travelling which was necessary in order to choose the sites, supervise the buildings and the alterations of the buildings, made it quite impossible to foresee this expenditure. Another part of the money is required for extra assistance, rendered necessary by the large amount of variations in the contracts. Extra surveyors were required to assist the officials of the Office of Works in this work. The work was so heavy this year that it was found quite impossible to foresee the exact sum that would be required, and this large amount of work has necessitated extra assistance in order to assist those who were already in the office. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) asked whether there was any increase in the permanent staff. A small increase has been found necessary, and a first assistant engineer, a second assistant engineer, and one staff clerk have been added to the permanent staff, and that is the only increase. With regard to the item for travelling expenses, part of it has been incurred by foreign travel. In one case it was necessary to have a special journey to Mexico. There has been a large amount of Continental travelling this year, which could not be foreseen. The larger part of the sum is required for Labour Exchanges. About £450 was spent upon travelling in connection with Labour Exchanges, and the rest is for foreign travel.
§ Mr. W. R. PEELWhy was the Mexico journey undertaken?
Mr. DUDLEY WARDThe journey was undertaken for the new Embassy in connection with which it was found necessary to send out an officer of the Department to examine the building and the place, and it cost about £130 to send him. A good deal of money was saved in consequence.
§ Mr. W. R. PEELWhat was the total cost?
Mr. DUDLEY WARDI am afraid I do not know, but hon. Members may take it from me that a good deal of money was saved on that account. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) asked whether the surveyors appointed were subject to any examination, and whether they had received a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners. The men appointed were fully qualified in their profession, and were specially selected to carry out this work.
§ Mr. ASHLEYAre they appointed temporarily?
Mr. DUDLEY WARDYes, they are temporary surveyors. I think I have answered all the questions put to me.
§ Colonel GRIFFITH - BOSCAWENThe hon Member, representing the Government, has tried very courteously to answer our questions, but the real reason for the increase in this Vote has been left almost as vague as it was before. I think this particular item for works and public buildings is one which ought to be most carefully considered by the Committee and this House. Last Session there was no discussion on this Vote because it was closured, and this is the only opportunity we have of raising it. Probably the Committee will be surprised to hear that during the five years the present economical Government have been in power this Vote has gone up from £450,000 to £725,000. Under these circumstances I think it is high time that more details of this expenditure were given to the Committee. It is quite time the House of Commons should have a chance of exercising what after all is its principal function, namely, supervising the expenditure of public money and ascertaining whether there is any waste or not. On these matters we are left very much in the dark. Take for example Labour Exchanges. The hon. Member representing the Government has told us that the greater part of this additional expenditure is due to travelling in connection with Labour Exchanges. I think it is quite time we had a full statement as to what, these Labour Exchanges are costing.
The CHAIRMANThat question does not arise upon this Vote. The general question of the cost of Labour Exchanges does not come under this Vote, which is a Vote for buildings, part of which were required for Labour Exchanges.
§ Colonel GRIFFITH - BOSCAWENI was dealing with the special point of the amount required for Labour Exchanges, and I was referring incidentally, as we are dealing with this particular point, with the cost of Labour Exchanges, because I thought it was at least pertinent to inquire whether the Government could not give us a full statement as to what Labour Exchanges are costing.
§ Lord HUGH CECILIs it not reasonable to point out what is the general financial state of this Vote before we are asked to increase it? Surely the financial aspect of a Vote must be known before we can judge of the extra expenditure. It is evident that you cannot check extravagance if you are not to regard the whole amount of the Vote without going into the question of policy. Unless you do this you cannot judge whether a Supplementary is extravagant or economical.
Mr. BALFOURMay I ask, Mr. Chairman, if your ruling does not merely exclude the general cost of Labour Exchange buildings, and that it does not exclude the discussion of the part relating to buildings which is included in this Vote?
The CHAIRMANI think that would be in order. It was only because the hon. and gallant Member was asking for a general statement as to the cost of Labour Exchanges, including many items not in this Vote, that I interfered. In reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, it would be in order to argue that Labour Exchanges have already cost so much and ought not to cost any more.
§ Colonel GRIFFITH - BOSCAWENThat was very much the point I was coming to, but, unfortunately, I was unable to conclude my statement. I was going to point out that Labour Exchanges had already cost, according to the Estimate of last year, nearly £250,000. I am taking the entire cost of buildings and salaries, and apparently both those items are included here. I was going to ask whether we might have a statement on this Vote in order to see whether we were really getting value for our money. I am not opposing Labour Exchanges, because I believe as a matter of policy they are good as far as they go, but, after all, you can 849 buy things too dear. If this expenditure had been foreseen it would not have been necessary to ask for this additional sum. When we see the expenditure constantly growing in an unforeseen manner, I think we are entitled to call attention to it and ask what the Government really anticipate will be the full cost of Labour Exchanges in the future. Upon the question of salaries and wages, the hon. Member opposite really gave us no information. I am sure he told us everything he knew, and was most anxious to oblige as far as he could, but I wish to know what are the particular works unforeseen which have caused this large increase in the expenditure during the last twelve months. The question of Buckingham Palace has been mentioned, but I understand from the hon. Member that no money is asked for in connection with that on this Vote. May I ask if any money is included in the item under discussion for the Mall extension. In all Departments there seems to be a want of an intelligent anticipation of expenditure, and that appears to me to be a reason why practically on every Vote the Government have to come here and ask for these Supplementary sums. This occurs under a Government practically pledged to abolish Supplementary Votes altogether. I must press for a little more detailed information both in regard to the additional cost of Labour Exchanges and as to what particular works the additional sums for salaries and other expenses can be attributed to on the present occasion.
§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEYThe plea why more money is wanted for unforeseen expenditure on supervising the building of Labour Exchanges might be more impressive if we found any supplementary moneys were being asked for for unforeseen expenditure on building Labour Exchanges, but when we turn to the Supplementary Estimate already passed, we find, it is true, a large sum taken for unforeseen expenditure not upon Labour Exchanges, but rather upon Royal Palaces. It may be, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman has not informed the Committee that the bulk of this expenditure was occasioned by this expenditure on Royal Palaces which the House perfectly well understands in this particular year was quite to be expected, and I think the Committee is entitled to be told how it is, when no additional work has become visualised in the shape of the building of Labour Exchanges, we are to pay a lot of money on clerks, surveyors, and the like. It is more interesting to pursue this 850 subject when the Committee already bears in mind that we pay one Principal Architect and Surveyor in England and another in Scotland; seven Architects and Surveyors, fourteen Assistant Architects and Surveyors of the Third Class, and twenty-three Architects and Surveyors of the Second Class, totalling forty-six in all, with salaries aggregating already to £19,400. In the Engineering Division, to which the hon. Gentleman made allusion, we already pay one Principal Engineer, two Assistant Engineers of the First Class, four Assistant Engineers of the Second Class, one Senior Sub-Engineer, seven Sub-Engineers, and one Officer in Charge at the Generating Station at South Kensington, totalling sixteen officers, whose salaries aggregate £4,400. The public is already paying a good deal, and, as we are not getting any more in the way of concrete and substantial matter it seems rather strange that such little explanation should be given in respect of the Supplementary item for Labour Exchange buildings.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKI am sure we all acknowledge the care and courtesy with which the hon. Member has answered the questions put to him. There are, however, just one or two points I should like to mention. He said the increased cost was largely for the special work of surveyors and architects. There has certainly, so far as London is concerned, been no special difficulty in the building of public offices since 31st March last. The latest buildings were finished by that time, and something has not taken place which might, I think, have been expected to take place. Six months ago a large space of ground, about five acres, on the north side of the Great George Street was cleared. For six months it has remained unoccupied, so that now it has reverted to agricultural uses, and it is going back to prairie value. Surely, when the Office of Works pulled down the houses and cleared the whole five acres, losing rents amounting to something like £150,000, they must have expected they would begin at once with their building and require a large amount of surveyors' and architects' work. They must, therefore, have made a very large saving on their Estimates, because they did absolutely nothing during those six months, from 1st July to the end of November. Why did not that saving go to help to prevent this Supplementary Estimate? I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that is 851 quite a pertinent question. They must have contemplated building on that very large and valuable space of ground. When they did not, their expectations were not fulfilled, and they had no surveyors' and no architects' expenses. They must, therefore, have saved on architects' and surveyors' expenses, instead of requiring a Supplementary Estimate.
§ Mr. PEELThere are just one or two points in the reply of the hon. Member which require some sort of investigation. He told us a good deal of these expenses were travelling expenses. I presume officials were sent down to the provinces from the Central Office. I do not quite gather what they were to do. He said they were to consider the question of sites, but in several places with which I am familiar they have not built at all; they have simply started the Labour Exchanges in hired buildings. I do not quite see, therefore, why, in those cases, it should have been necessary to send down these officials. You want a very different degree of ability and experience to go and see whether a site is available and to say whether these rooms or premises will suit temporarily for the purpose of Labour Exchanges. I think it would be in order to ask where these Labour Exchanges have been built, and where the Government have contented themselves with merely hiring buildings, because I should be rather hurt if we in the country with which I am familiar were to be put off with merely temporary, hired buildings, while in some more fortunate places they were to have regular sites and more suitable premises built for their Labour Exchanges. The Office must have foreseen they would be necessary. Possibly, it is the usual practice to send down persons who have experience to make investigations of this kind as regards sites and buildings, but surely in some of these centres there are individuals on the spot perfectly capable of reporting both as to the accommodation and as to sites. If, instead of sending down no doubt some competent officials from head quarters they were to content themselves by getting the temporary services of some official on the spot, there would be some chance of economy. Speaking of some of these cases, I am sure the matter is a simple one, and, after all, the position and suitability of sites and buildings and a hundred things of that kind can be judged far more wisely by some individual familiar with 852 the needs and requirements of the place than by some no doubt extremely scientific, competent, and highly trained official sent down from London. I make that humble suggestion for effecting some economy.
I am still puzzled as to why this was unforeseen, unless, of course, there has been a change of policy. If this were the usual practice and knowing a certain number of Labour Exchanges were going to be set up, I should not have thought it beyond the ability of some of the competent financiers in this Department to have foreseen some sort of expenditure on travelling expenses. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman had told us that within the year they changed their policy and decided, instead of merely hiring buildings, to have sites and build themselves, that to some extent would have accounted for the further expenditure, but the hon. Member has not told us so; he rather assumed the policy was decided beforehand. Surely the effects of the policy ought to have been far better anticipated than they were. I suppose the hon. Member was not supplied with full information on the question of contracts. He said a great deal of expenditure was due to variations in contracts. That, after all, is not a thing which should have taken the Department by surprise. It occurs very frequently in contracts; in fact, there is hardly any large contract or even smaller contract which is carried out without some variation, and in estimating for this sort of work you always allow for variations. Why, then, is there this year this special amount for variations? I think the hon. Member might answer this point, and he might tell us on what class of contracts the variations occurred. Hon. Members familiar with these things know that, according to the class of building and contract variations are likely to occur one way or the other. It is a thing well understood in the building trade and by all those who have to deal with large contracts.
When I look at the Supplementary Estimate I find that the information afforded is meagre, but, when I look at the larger Estimates, I find more information, including the number of clerks, surveyors, their salaries, and so on. You know what they are paid, how many there are, and to what particular classes they belong. You get nothing of that sort in the Supplementary Estimate. The whole is lumped in one sum. One would have supposed that greater accuracy and more care would have been shown in the Supplementary 853 Estimate than in the general Estimate, because, after all, the Government, I suppose, are not boasting of these Supplementary Estimates. I suppose there is some lingering degree of shame on their part. There ought to be, considering the demonstrations they made some five or six years ago on very humble Supplementary Estimates. I presume, therefore, there is some sort of lingering feeling that Supplementary Estimates are not the right thing, and I think we ought all the more to have full and detailed information upon them. It ought to be far more full and fare more detailed than in the general Estimates. I make this appeal to the hon. Member with all sympathy for the position in which he is placed, and in the hope that he will really consider most favourably whether we should not have these Supplementary Estimates in a form far more simple and in more detail, so that we shall not be compelled, as we have been this afternoon, to ask a number of questions, and, I am afraid, inflict on the hon. Member a great deal of trouble.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI should like to say a word in support of this request for more detailed information on these Supplementary Estimates. It is impossible to fail to recognise the fact that the Supplementary Estimate is drawn as barely as possible so far as the giving of information is concerned. I will take, for example, the expenses incurred on buildings. Everybody acquainted with building matters is aware that they afford one of the most fruitful opportunities for extravagance in public expenditure. We hear, indeed, very remarkable stories of gross extravagance incurred in connection with public buildings. We are not given enough information in these Estimates to know whether there is extravagance or not. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill no doubt has given all the information in his power, but that is different from having it on the Estimates, and we do not know whether it is a case or not of spending money unreasonably. We have to form our judgment on the information we elicit in the course of debate. Now Supplementary Estimates are confessedly a great financial mischief, and in view of that fact would it not be possible to submit them in greater detail, or to have some sort of Select Committee to go through them before they come under consideration in the House of Commons. If something of that kind were 854 done on these occasions it might save much time.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI have finished all I had to say on that question. I hope nothing has been said which will lead the Government to build Labour Exchanges where they can possibly hire them. There is no greater source of waste of money than the putting up of new premises on some plan supposed to be theoretically better when existing premises are available. I believe that in matters of National Finance we should adhere rather to the second best. Let us have the thing which is adequate although not ideal. I hope that in this matter the Government will be satisfied to hire whenever they can possibly do so, and will not incur the great expense of pulling down existing buildings and erecting others on the same site.
§ Mr. IAN MALCOLMThere is a small permanent increase in the staff of the Office of Works, and although the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote told us that these officials had got certificates from the Civil Service Commission we want to know a little more about it. The Order in Council only allows the Civil Service examination to be dispensed with if the Lords of the Treasury are assured that the qualifications of the persons appointed are particular and not ordinarily to be acquired in the Civil Service, and if the Chief of the Department considers it will be to the public interest that the examination shall be wholly or partially dispensed with. No one can say if the permanent engineers and the surveyors added to the staff hold qualifications of such a very peculiar kind that it is in the public interest they should be appointed by certificate and not by examination, and it seems to me that in dispensing with the examination the authorities may have, unconsciously, of course, overriden the Order in Council. They are thereby opening a way to a real abuse of public patronage in various Departments. It seems necessary the Order in Council should be adhered to in the letter, otherwise a very large number of appointments now in the hands of Public Departments may be given by patronage where they ought to be given by examination to those who have spent a good deal of money in preparing for these examinations. I should like an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that in the case of these permanent engineers they have 855 high qualifications which justified the Chief of the Department in having them appointed by certificate instead of by examination.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am afraid I must say that the answer of the hon. Gentleman who represents the Government was unsatisfactory. No doubt he has done his best, but, owing to circumstances over which he has no control, his explanations to my mind were the reverse of satisfactory. The first of those explanations was that there had been a large amount of variation in contracts. I consider that to be a most unsatisfactory explanation. I have not had much experience in building, but what I have had has shown me that the moment you begin to vary the contract you add enormously to the expense. Whenever I have done any building for myself I have first said to the architect: "Let us be quite certain, before we ask for tenders, that we have made up your minds as to what we want. We do not want to go to the contractor and suggest a variation in regard to which we must accept practically what he chooses to charge for the work." When I have been building for myself or for other people my endeavour has been to get full value for the money I spent, but you cannot get full value if you start so badly as to find, when you get halfway through the work, you have to alter your whole plans and specifications. I think that is really one of the reasons for the Supplementary Estimate. There is not sufficient care taken in preparing the original plans and specifications, and it may be that an extravagant clerk or some other permanent official, while the work is in operation, asks the Office of Works for some improved accommodation, and the Office of Works, instead of maintaining an unbending front, and saying: "We have got our plan prepared and our specifications made and are not going to alter them," remark: "Oh, yes, there will be no discussion in the House of Commons; our serried ranks behind us will go into the Lobby with us; they will not dare to get up and criticise us, for all their professions of economy are merely vote catching professions; therefore you shall have better room or accommodation." Thus we get a Supplementary Estimate. We on this side are anxious to see economy and good management, which are identical and go together, and we view these increasing Supplementary 856 Estimates, on almost every item on the Votes, with apprehension. We therefore come down here and endeavour to inculcate habits of economy and business management in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I regret that the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) who is fond of talking about a business Government, is not here in his place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote will not only take what I have said to heart but will impart it to his official superior, who, by some extraordinary coincidence, happens to be in another place Why the Government should have put the Chief Commissioner of Works in another place which they are going to abolish, I do not know.
The next reason given by the hon. Gentleman was that there was an increase of three permanent engineers on the staff. We have been told that at the present moment there are sixteen engineers receiving a salary of over £4,000 a year. What do we want three more permanent engineers for? Surely if it were necessary the existing engineers might put in a little extra time. Perhaps, however, overtime is objected to. Still it could not have been necessary at this moment to have increased the permanent staff in this manner. I hope the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that we do not like these increases of permanent staffs of officials. Another item is the special journey to Mexico. The cost, £130, is not I think out of the way provided that the work which this special official did was satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman tells us that a considerable amount of money will be saved as a result of the journey, and, in view of that statement, I venture to say that is the only satisfactory explanation we have received on these Estimates to-day. I hope the hon. Gentleman will promise to take to heart the criticisms most courteously directed against these Estimates, and will in the future endeavour to impress on the officials in his office the desirability of finding out what they want in the first place, and of varying contracts as little as possible. I hope, too, that the heads of the Departments will bear in mind that their offices do not exist for the benefit of officials, and will attempt to draw a line in regard to the appointment of fresh officials, involving increased charges to the State.
Captain CRAIGI should like to know whether the new appointments covered by the Supplementary Estimates have all 857 been made in London only, or whether some of them have been made in country districts. I recollect quite well, when the Bill dealing with Labour Exchanges was before the House, suggesting that a certain number of inspectors should be sent to the country to ascertain whether, in various labour centres, there were suitable buildings available for these exchanges. At that time the present Under-Secretary for the Home Department who was in charge of the Bill said that, as far as possible it was intended to erect new buildings to house the clerical staffs and engineers in the various centres. I pointed out that in the long run an enormous amount of money would be saved if a regular service of experts were sent throughout the country to look at the public buildings lying empty, which could be refitted so as to make them suitable as Labour Exchanges. It is true that the Supplementary Estimate asked for at this moment by the Government is only £2,900—a very trifling sum for a Radical Administration, but when one looks back to the years 1909–1910, and discovers that the original Estimate was £92,000, it will be seen that since then the Estimates have increased by no less than £16,500. Therefore, although we are only discussing this item of £2,900, the country will readily understand what an enormous increase there has been in twelve months in this one Department of the Government alone. I really think that we ought to appeal to the hon. Member to give the Committee some further information, not alone as to what the exact figures are, but as to whether there is any prospect of this enormous expenditure going on from year to year, whether he hopes that this sum of £2,900 will be sufficient to carry the Government on for twelve months. There are two points that I am desirous of raising, one as to the continued and very extraordinary increase of the expenditure, and the other the fact that the Government appears in the appointment of architects, engineers, and so on, to keep the appointments in the Head Office of London instead of giving the provinces a fair share in connection with them. I would like to ask whether a single one of these new appointments has been made in Scotland, Wales, or Ireland, or whether the engineers and inspectors tabulated in the Estimates are all confined to the Central Office. I think if these points are cleared up, and if we get a satisfactory assurance in regard to them, and that this will satisfy these particular offices this 858 year, it may be possible for us to agree to the Vote, especially to the £750 odd, which was occasioned by the officials going into the country and saving building expenses there. Although the amount charged is large, still we may be saving more than what appears on that Paper.
Mr. DUDLEY WARDThe temporary assistance which the hon. Member for Croydon asked me about, was of such a character that it did not require a permanent addition to the staff, and the engineers did not require an additional sum because they were already Civil Servants, and they came from another Department. It was very necessary to appoint this extra engineering staff because the staff which existed were being overworked and one engineer had broken down in consequence of that overwork. I could not have made myself clear about the setting up of the Labour Exchanges, because, of course, in regard to them, existing buildings have been adapted in a large number of cases, but whether you acquire a site and adapt the buildings on it, or put up new buildings, you naturally have to send somebody down to examine into the question, and travelling expenses are incurred all the same. A number of variations in contracts which account for a sum in the Vote really are not due to the action of the Office of Works. That Department has to take into account the requisitions of the various Departments from which they are received and erect suitable buildings for them, and, of course, if the buildings require alteration, the Office of Works has to carry them out. Although these alterations are not under the complete control of the Office of Works, they must be carried out. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Glasgow University, the only answer I can give to him is, that the variations in public buildings all over the country were so great that no sufficient savings were effected in other branches of the Service to make up the difference.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYIt will be noticed that an expression as to the growth of business was the phrase used in the original Estimate in order to account for this increase, and there was nothing in the Estimate which would lead the Committee to suppose that all of this increase was due to the Labour Exchanges and the increase in the number of appointments of engineers. I therefore should like to ask whether the whole growth of business is due to the Labour Exchanges, and if not I 859 wish to know whether any of this growth of business is connected with work done in the London Parks, because it occurs to me that there is a good deal of unnecessary extravagance in management of the London Parks which are under the Department of the hon. Gentleman. I think greater economy might be exercised in that matter, though I should be the last person to suggest that they should not be adequately kept, because they afford great pleasure to all classes of people in this country, although their arrangements might be improved.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)I do not think there is any money for London Parks in this Vote.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI bow to your ruling, of course, Sir. You must have better sources of information than I have. I see that the original Estimate is asked for owing to the growth of business, and I am asking whether any of this growth of business is connected with the London Parks. I submit that I am entitled to raise and ask the question whether any is due to that cause, and it seems to me that it is the general growth of business of the Department which has accounted for these Estimates. Then I was saying if any of this money is due to the growth of business in connection with the parks, I think the details ought to be produced
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe Noble Lord has been told that there is a separate Vote for Parks.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYIn these Estimates?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIn the original Estimates.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI am sorry I am unable to make this point, but if you say I cannot discuss it on this Vote, I will leave it. All I say is, that it shows how carelessly these Estimates are put together, and what loose reasons are given for the increase of an Estimate, because I naturally supposed that the growth of business accounted for the increase in connection with the whole Department, and that the policy of the whole Department might be reviewed. If it is due solely to the Labour Exchanges, I think the Department ought to have put down the real reason, instead of a reason which is not the case. I wish to ask what other Department besides the Labour Exchanges and the appointing of 860 these engineers and engaging extra staff account for the increase in this Estimate?
§ Sir RANDOLF BAKERI do not think the hon. Gentleman has before answered the point which the Noble Lord has just put, and I think we are entitled to have some reply in regard to the facts of this Estimate. The hon. Gentleman has told us that two engineers who have been appointed come from some other Department, and I think he might tell us what other Department these two gentlemen come from. That seems to me to be a perfectly natural thing to inquire. We have here a Supplementary Estimate, but do the wages of these men appear in the Estimate for another Department, and are you putting upon this Department the pay of extra men which has not been spent? I think we are perfectly entitled to an answer to that question. If you tell us that some other Department has saved, then you ought to tell us how the money has been expended, I think we ought to be told from what Department these engineers have been taken and whether the Department in question has saved the money.
Mr. DUDLEY WARDMy explanation in regard to the growth of business is to say that this money is required entirely for the supervision of buildings and for sites in connection with the extension of buildings. The parks do not come into this Vote at all. The assistant engineers whom I referred to come from the Post Office.
Mr. BALFOURThe point I do not understand is this: In his original explanation the hon. Gentleman told us that there were a great many fresh buildings connected with the Labour Exchanges, and he also told us that most of the additional expenditure was in connection with those buildings. He said there were other buildings, but he did not tell us what those other buildings were, except the Embassy in Mexico. He did not tell us in what cases all this additional expenditure has been incurred.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI am very much obliged to the hon. Member for his answer to my question, and I am sorry I did not notice that part of his speech in which he said it was entirely due to buildings. I understood him when I asked if nothing else had been mentioned, that he gave confirmation, and agreed when I said it was ill due to the Labour Exchanges and in connection therewith. I understood he did not dissent, and, therefore, that is why I pressed to know whether anything else could come into these Supplementary Estimates. I do wish to protest against the conduct of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, who do nothing but jeer at my hon. Friends and those of us on this side who are trying to supervise these Supplementary Estimates. I think it is very unfortunate that they should adopt that attitude when the Committee well knows that the detailed examination of Supplementary Estimates is the only opportunity we have in order to keep a proper check upon Departments and prevent undue expenditure.
§ Mr. MALCOLMMay I just point out that some of the money is required for Post Office and other public buildings, but in another Estimate £420,000 is charged for Post Office buildings, and I cannot understand how that can be necessary, seeing that in this Class 2 we are asked for certain money and expenses of that Department. Some of the buildings for which money is required in this Class can have nothing to do with this other Class, which also goes to Telegraph and Post Office buildings. On the spur of the moment, I do not think they could possibly come under Class 2.
§ Question put, "That a reduced sum, not exceeding £2,800, be granted for the said service."
§ Sir F. BANBURYOn a point of Order. The Motion was to reduce item A.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have already put the Question the first time.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 241.
863| Division No. 35.] | AYES. | [5.30 p.m. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Gardner, Ernest | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J. | Gibbs, George Abraham | Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gilmour, Captain John | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Goldsmith, Frank | Pole-Carew, Sir R |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gordon, J. | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gretton, John | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barnston Harry | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.) | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Helmsley, Viscount | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury) | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Bird, Alfred | Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith- | Hills, John Waller (Durham) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Boyton, James | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Spear, John Ward |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Stanier, Beville |
| Burgoyne, Alan Hughes | Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Steel-Maitland, A. D |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Stewart, Gershom |
| Campion, W. R. | Hunter, Sir Charles Roderick (Bath) | Sykes, Alan John |
| Carlile, Edward Hildred | Jessel, Captain Herbert M. | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Cassel, Felix | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Korr | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kerry, Earl of | Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.) |
| Cator, John | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.) | Kirkwood, John H. M. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Knight, Capt. E. A. | Weigall, Cant A. G. |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lewisham, Viscount | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Clyde, James Avon | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wilson A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Mallaby-Deeley, Harry | Welmer, Viscount |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Morpeth, Viscount | Wood, Hon. E. F. L (Ripon) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred | Mount, William Arthur | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Croft, Henry Page | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Wortley, Rt. Hen. C. B. Stuart- |
| Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Newman, John R. P. | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Younger, George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Nield, Herbert | |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) | |
| Faile, Bertram Godfray | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fell and Mr. Malcolm. |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | |
| Forster, Henry William | Paget, Almeric Hugh | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) |
| Adamson, William | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Hayden, John Patrick | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Hayward, Evan | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Primrose, Hon. Nell James |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Henry, Sir Charles S. | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Higham, John Sharp | Radford, George Heynes |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Hinds, John | Rainy, Adam Rolland |
| Barnes, George N. | Holt, Richard Durning | Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Beale, William Phipson | Hunter, W. (Govan) | Reddy, Michael |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Johnson, William | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Mamlets, St. Geo.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T'w'r H'mts, Stepney) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Jowett, Frederick William | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Boland, John Pius | Joyce, Michael | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Keating, Matthew | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Kellaway, Frederick George | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Kilbride, Denis | Robinson, Sydney |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Lansbury, George | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Law, Hugh A. | Rowlands, James |
| Byles, William Pollard | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Leach, Charles | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Lewis, John Herbert | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Heywood) | Logan, John William | Schwann, Rt. Hen. Sir Charles E. |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Lundon, Thomas | Sheehy, David |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Clough, William | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Maclean, Donald | Smith, H B. Lees (Northampton) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Smyth, Thomas. S. F. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Snowden, Philip |
| Craig, Herbert James William | M'Callum, John M. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Soares, Ernest Joseph |
| Crumley, Patrick | M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Strauss Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Mathias, Richard | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Delany, William | Meagher, Michael | Tennant, Harold John |
| Devlin, Joseph | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | Menzies, Sir Walter | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Molloy, Michael | Toulmin, George |
| Donelan, Captain A. J. C. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Doris, W. | Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Duffy, William J. | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Walters, John Tudor |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) | Mooney, John J. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Morrell, Philip | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Munro, Robert | Wardle, George J. |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.) | Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. | Waring, Walter |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Nolan, Joseph | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Norman, Sir Henry | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Norton, Captain Cecil William | Watt, Henry A. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Webb, H. |
| Farrell, James Patrick | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Fenwick, Charles | O'Doherty, Philip | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Donnell, Thomas | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Fitzgibbon, John | O'Dowd, John | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas p. |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Grady, James | White, A. F. (Perth) |
| Furness, Stephen W | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Gill, Alfred Henry | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Glanville, H. J. | O'Malley, William | Wilson, W. T. (West Houghton) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Goldstone, Frank | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | |
| Greig, Col. J. W. | Parker, James (Halifax) | |
| Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not wish to prevent the right hon. Gentleman getting the Vote. His answers have not been satisfactory, but they have been given in a conciliatory spirit.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ 2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the services administered by that Department, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."
§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIGI do not intend to divide against this proposed Supplementary Estimate. In fact, the only ground on which I could possibly do so is that it is not sufficiently large. I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that once again we have to deal with a matter connected with the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland without the Vice-President of that Department being present.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat will not be in order on the Supplementary Vote.
§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIGI chiefly want to draw attention to the Estimate of £4,600 under the heading of horse breeding. There was no original Estimate for this purpose and this is the first time that this proposal has been brought before the House. Therefore I conclude that we are entitled to discuss the question and the policy of the Government, after we have found out what their policy is, as though this were the original estimate. Unfortunately I do not know the proposals of the Government, so I cannot very well criticise them, but I trust the statement which the Chief Secretary will make will show that this sum is not going to be entirely spent in the South and West of Ireland, but that a reasonable share of it will be spent in the North. I hope he will also explain how it comes that the whole of this £4,600 comes out of the Development Fund. With reference to grants to schools and classes of science and art and technical instruction the additional sum required is £500. I should like to know what sums have been and are being spent in assistance to local classes, especially to those which have been lately started in the North of Ireland. In my Constituency a 866 new series of lectures and classes have been started in three places. I should like to know where we can find, outside the report of the Departments, which is only published on very rare occasions, so far as I can make out, and generally so long after the facts with which it deals have taken place that it is practically useless, what allowances are being made to help on these very useful classes which are being started in the North of Ireland, and particularly in Antrim and Ballycastle, and what progress is being made generally in the matter of technical instruction in those places.
§ The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)This is really a new Vote, as the hon. Member has very accurately pointed out. The matter arises in this way. The Development Commissioners have agreed to give £10,000 from the Development Fund in aid of horse breeding in Ireland to be spent, if necessary, within a year. We already have from the endowments of the Department an expenditure for horse breeding of between £7,000 and £8,000 a year, and from the rates £3,000 a year. The operations in connection with horse breeding, as hon. Gentlemen from Ireland know very well, have greatly increased from year to year. The development was very much arrested by the unfortunate limitation of funds which presses so heavily on the development of Ireland in many other directions, and the Department approached the Development Commissioners for a sum of money to be devoted by them to this purpose, and they granted the sum of £10,000. The reason why we put down this Vote now is that the usual period for the purpose concerned is from November to March, and accordingly, as soon as we received the promise of this money, our operations began at once. We proceeded to purchase a number of stallions, and we are in negotiation for several others, and they will be sent out for service in April and May. Therefore, it was obvious that a sum would be required before the close of the financial year, which is the 31st of this month, and a Supplementary Estimate was necessary. The estimated expenditure is calculated to be £4,600. We make it up as follows:—Purchase of stallions, £3,500; expenses in connection therewith, including inspectors' remuneration, £600; remuneration and expenses in connection with Irish draught horses, £450; and clerical assistance, £50. The Supplementary Estimate of £10, which is a nominal 867 amount, has to be presented in respect of this expenditure. In the meantime we charge it temporarily to the Department. That is the course we propose to adopt with reference to this matter. For the past ten years we have administered these schemes in accordance with the schemes which have been published in our Reports. They are administered by the Department, partly from endowments and partly from the rates. For the year 1910 I noticed that the number of mares selected was 3,500. The additional grant which we have obtained from the Development Fund will allow, of £4,000 being set aside for additional free services to the mares.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYThis year?
§ Mr. BIRRELLDuring the next twelve months. The stallions that have been hitherto acquired have been all thoroughbred, and have been at different times resold to farmers in different parts of the country. I do not know whether the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) wishes me to give details as to the character of these stallions. I am afraid I am hardly now in a position to do that.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI understand they are thoroughbred stallions.
§ Mr. BIRRELLYes, that is so. We had some difficulty about certain Normandy sires. Having regard to the fact that great dissatisfaction was occasioned by the introduction of these sires in Ireland on the part of those who are interested in the breeding of horses, the Department have given an undertaking that they will not give out these sires and that they will be sold out of the country or used in their own farms for the purpose of private experiments.
§ Mr. KILBRIDEWas the suggestion that these Normandy sires should be bought originally made by a Scotchman who knew nothing about the matter?
§ Mr. BIRRELLIt may have been a North Briton who made the suggestion originally, but that is an old story, and we need not go into it. We need not add it to the historical sufferings of Ireland or Scotland in that way. We have restricted these animals in their operations to the farms of the Department for the purpose of private experiments. I was glad to notice that no objection was taken to the amount. We could very well have done 868 with a larger sum, but at the same time-we have got what we have got, and I hope we shall use it in such a manner as to encourage the Development Commissioners in future years to give us even larger sums. It is a fact that in the annual Estimate we under-estimated the annual Grants to schools of science and art and for technical instruction by the sum of £500. I do not think we need stand in a white sheet over that small deficiency, for, as hon. Gentlemen know, these Grants depend on circumstances over which the Department has no control, such as the number of students attending the classes. Therefore, although owing to increased local interest in the work, we have in that branch exceeded our estimate, there have been unanticipated savings under other heads amounting to £490. It is really a very small matter, and I do not think anybody, having regard to the number of classes starting up all over Ireland, could make an estimate more exact than that which was made, although it is wrong by £500. I cannot at present answer the hon. Member's inquiries as to the particular classes in which he is interested in the North of Ireland, but I will undertake to obtain the information and reply to him. I can assure the hon. Member that there is not the slightest desire or disposition in any way to expend money in one part of the country rather than another. I am very glad to have my attention called to the point, and I can assure him that I shall be no party to the spending of any part of this money in one part of the country rather than another, either for schools of science and art or for the purpose of horse breeding. One part is equally entitled with another to participate in the Grant made by the Development Commissioners. That is the reason why we have put down this Supplementary Vote. So far as horse breeding goes, it does not lie with the Irish Government. We have got £10,000 granted by the Development Commissioners, and a portion of it has been expended.
§ Mr. E. P. O'KELLYThe right hon. Gentleman has stated that the stallions purchased are thoroughbreds. May I say that a great many people in Ireland who are interested in horse breeding consider that other animals would produce a more suitable article for many purposes than thoroughbreds would do.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHI am sure we all congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on joining the ranks of those 869 interested in horse breeding in company with the Secretary of State for War. I have listened with the greatest interest to his remarks. He did not explain why it had been found possible to use only so small an amount of the money given for a purpose of this kind. In regard to the Development Grant, we have never had an opportunity of discussing in this House how the money is to be expended. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that of the £10,000, £4,600 will be expended in the course of the next twelve months.
§ Mr. BIRRELLThat is the estimated expenditure.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHHere is another example of propositions being carried into effect and money expended without the House having had an adequate opportunity of discussing the projects. This horse-breeding scheme is one of which this House has really no knowledge whatever, and yet this sum of money is going to be expended upon it. To my mind it is absolutely necessary that a scheme of this kind, on which there is great diversity of opinion, should be started on proper lines. We in this House should be positively assured that the money we are voting in this haphazard manner will be expended to the best possible advantage. In this connection, while I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having handled the matter in such a masterly manner, I should' like to say—and I am sure he will join in the regret—I am sorry that he has not got the assistance of Mr. T. W. Russell.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMANI have already ruled that that subject is out of order.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHIf you rule it out of order it must be so. This is a scheme brought forward by the Board of Agriculture, and I trust you will allow me to say that it is a matter of regret that the President is not here. It is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues to put this scheme of horse breeding before the House in the way we desire. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman deprecates the use of Normandy stallions. There is a great divergence of opinion with regard to thoroughbred stallions, and we should have liked to have the scheme put before us. I hope the hon. Gentleman sitting beside the Chief Secretary will go more deeply into the scheme of which at present we know practically nothing.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Captain CRAIGI notice that the right hon. Gentleman has a large amount of 870 carefully-prepared notes, and perhaps, if he cannot give us an outline of the scheme of horse breeding in Ireland which it is proposed to establish under this Vote of £4,600, he will be able to answer one or two specific questions. I think the Committee are agreed that it is not treating it fairly or generously to ask for this large sum of money without giving a very substantial account of how the money is to be spent, and what class of sires it is proposed to introduce into Ireland. There is no subject that causes more general interest in Ireland than horse breeding. The proposals that have been put forward by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction have not all met with approval. The Chief Secretary, in asking us to pass this Vote to-day, practically admits that he knows very little about it from the technical point of view. He tells us that £3,500 is to be spent on the purchase of these sires and £600 on the salary of some inspector who went to look at them.
§ Mr. BIRRELLAnd other expenses.
§ Captain CRAIGI think it is not quite satisfactory to the Committee to be told that it is for other expenses. Here is a new Vote with not a word of this extraordinary amount of £600 for the purchase of £3,500 worth of sires. There is not an hon. Member from Ireland who would not be delighted to go to buy horses to the extent of £3,500 if he were allowed £600 expenses and also £450 for examining some other sires I presume abroad.
§ Mr. BIRRELLAnd also mares?
§ Captain CRAIGThat is to say there is an expenditure of £1,100 for the purchase of £3,500 worth of sires. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the impression left on my mind. The Committee may have understood more than I did in the matter. Where are these sires purchased? What class are they? What are the Government aiming at in promoting this horse-breeding scheme? Are they going to breed horses suitable for Army purposes, and, if so, will they take steps to see that the Army get the horses, and that they are not purchased by foreigners and taken abroad? Will they make any regulations about docking their tails, and seeing that our buyers going across to local markets in Ireland have the same fair chance of acquiring them as buyers from France, Belgium, and Italy, because so far there has been no settled scheme placed before us? If my personal opinion had been asked as to the spending of £10,000, I 871 would have much preferred the scheme of the Government to have been to give a slight bounty on the purchase of horses, and allow the country people in Ireland to do, what no one knows how to do better than they, to breed suitable animals for agricultural purposes and army purposes on the ordinary Irish farms in all parts of the country. These inspectors earning this enormous salary dictate to these native-born people as to the proper kind of sire to produce horses that are later on to do the agricultural work of the country. The right hon. Gentleman admits that an undoubted mistake was made in the importation of the Normandy sires. I agree with him. I do not believe that any sensible horsebreeder was consulted before the Department framed its rules with regard to the Normandy sires. Then he goes on to say that although rejected by the horse-breeding section in Ireland these animals are to be kept on the farms of the Department, and I presume are to be used, and their stock will gradually be pushed out of the Department's farm into other parts of Ireland to the detriment of the ordinary Irish stock. I think that is a most dangerous thing. Either those sires should be in the country or out of it.
§ Lord HUGH CECILOn a point of Order. The Chief Secretary stated that this was a new Vote, and therefore I apprehend that the whole question of horse-breeding can be raised.
The CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Gentleman is dealing with what should be done with these sires which were acquired under the old Votes and do not come under this Vote at all.
§ Lord HUGH CECILIs it not within the question of the policy of horse breeding in Ireland whether Normandy sires should be removed or not?
The CHAIRMANYes, to some extent, but the hon. Member is discussing what has been done in the past. That does not arise under this Vote.
§ Mr. CRAIGI apprehend that my hon. and gallant Friend is pointing out that these sires are still being kept in the country on the farm belonging to the Department, and that the contention is they should be sent out of the country so that 872 the breed of horses in Ireland may not be contaminated by the presence of these Normandy sires.
§ Captain CRAIGI bow to your ruling, but I would like to point out the difficulty it places us in in discussing this scheme if this new Grant is to establish a particular scheme while at the same time the Government are adopting other methods as it were behind our backs on their own farm, of which we know nothing. I do not really desire to follow these wretched animals any further. They have been discussed in Ireland very frequently; but I do think we are entitled outside of that question to know how it is that such an abnormal amount as almost a thousand pounds has been expended on the purchase of £3,500 worth of horses. Why it was necessary to do so, and whether the people of the various localities in Ireland are consulted as to the class of horses necessary to suit the particular climate and surroundings of that part of the country? Everybody knows that in some very rocky parts, in some of the hilly mountainous districts, it is necessary to breed a horse that will not suit the somewhat soft ground in more agricultural districts. Is anything being done to perpetuate the hardy race of Cushendall ponies which are suitable for farms in the mountainous districts of Antrim and Down, or are they to be allowed to the out? Then there are other parts where the farms are of a different character, and where the Clydesvale is very much better suited than the smaller class of horses. Then we have the Army to be catered for. All these matters are of the closest possible interest to every farmer in Ireland. I do not object to this Vote, I only wish it were £20,000, but I do think that in an important matter of this kind we ought to have a complete scheme put before us, and not a few lines. I would like to know why the right hon. Gentleman, if he had the chance of getting £10,000 is only taking £4,600? He may say that perhaps he will get it next year. But other Departments will at the development for next year, and I certainly think that when he had the chance of getting £10,000 out of that fund and using it this year he should claim that amount, and next year also put in his claim.
I come next to the grants to schools for classes in science, art, and technical instruction. These schools have been started 873 all over Ireland. I wish them all prosperity, and I am very glad to see that they have a sufficient number of pupils to enable the Chief Secretary to claim even another £500. As he quite fairly stated it is impossible, when framing the Estimates, to tell how many of these young people will avail themselves of the classes, and therefore he cannot say, within a certain figure what exact amount will be necessary. But I think in claiming this extra amount he should have put down something that would be readily understood by every hon. Member in this House as to why it was required. It would have been very simple indeed if the right hon. Gentleman in framing his Estimates, instead of simply saying that the expenditure had been greater than was anticipated, had put down that the attendance at the classes had been greater, and therefore necessitated the raising of an additional sum of money.
These may be matters of detail to the right hon. Gentleman, and I presume he wants to keep as much in the dark as possible, lest something fresh is started in the way of criticism. We have given attention to this matter before. I myself within the last four years have pointed out how much time the Committee might be saved, and how much easier it would be to understand what the Minister in charge requires, if care were taken beforehand to put down in print what he is able to tell us in regard to these matters, and hon. Members would then be in a better position to criticise the amount which is asked for. The right hon. Gentleman has very kindly promised to explain how this money is to be spent, and if he is prepared to give that information to one hon. Member it would also be very interesting to know, not only how the extra £500 but how the whole of the £22,000 is to be allocated to the various schools throughout Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman would set the precedent of publishing exactly where the grants are to be made, their amount per head of the population, and so forth, it would afford the Committee and the House information which I am sure would be of great advantage to us in discussing the education policy of the Government. I, like my hon. Friend beside me, have no quarrel with the amount of money, except to say that the larger the increase naturally the more satisfied everybody would be, not only in regard to educational purposes but in reference to horse breeding. However, we are quite satisfied so long as we know 874 that the money is to be fairly and equally distributed, and not distributed under any method of favouritism. If the money be applied impartially throughout Ireland neither I nor my colleagues see any objection.
§ Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYI hope the Government will continue the grant of money for horse breeding, because in the south of Ireland horse breeding is a great industry among farmers who keep good mares; and it is a great boon to the small farmer to get the service of a good horse for his mares. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken pleaded ignorance about the way in which the Department carries out its scheme. It is a well-known fact that it is carried out by the Department in conjunction with the County Committees of Agriculture. I have seen the inspectors at work. They come into the town or county, and give notice to the farmers to bring their mares—the County Committee of Agriculture is represented as well as the Department. The mares are inspected and a number are selected. I regret that a very great number of splendid brood mares have been rejected simply because the Government could not give a greater sum of money. What we want in the south of Ireland are big thoroughbred stallions, something about sixteen hands high, of good bone. At the present time there is no price for small horses; but, with these big horses from a thoroughbred stallion and half-bred mare, a good class of hunters is produced. I may add that hunters do all sorts of work on the farm up to a certain age. The farmers train them up to two or three years, and keep them up to four or five years, and during all that time the horses have to do the work of the farm. I have known a farmer to get £100 for this description of horse, though up to within a few months it had been employed upon the farm. Hence, I say, this scheme is a great boon to the small farmers in Ireland. As I indicated, small horses are of no good at the present time; you get nothing for them.
What is wanted, whether for the Army, for hunting, or for harness is a more than medium-sized horse, about sixteen hands high, with small mares, and in that way you produce big hunters. Further, such horses could be guaranteed stock. It is also most essential that the sire should be thoroughly sound in wind, and another point is that the Government in buying horses should be careful that they are 875 clean limbed, with no spavins, or splints, or side bones, or anything of that kind. Most of these diseases are hereditary, and the horses turn out badly. I repeat that it is most important that the sire should be thoroughly sound in wind and limb. I do hope that the Department and the Government will continue to give encouragement to this scheme of horse-breeding in the south of Ireland. If any hon. Member visited the south of Ireland he would be astonished on the occasion of a hunt to see farmers and their sons turn out on horseback. So great is the love of horses in that part of the country that there is no readier way of approaching a farmer than to ask how his horse is getting on; and from that topic of conversation you can get to other topics, even politics. The hon. Member above the Gangway (Captain Craig) need not be in the slightest afraid about how this scheme of horse-breeding is carried out, because it is connected with the county committees of agriculture, and all we want is sufficient money to make it a success. I am exceedingly glad that this extra Grant is being given.
§ Mr. NEWMANAs one who has bred many horses in the South of Ireland I heartily welcome this extra grant of £4,600, though the Vote is all too small. We have a very good and strong veterinary branch in Dublin at the present moment. I see we have got a chief inspector, a superintendent inspector, four other inspectors, a staff officer, a temporary staff officer, a clerk in charge of the Register, and other officials, and I understand that £1,100 more is to be spent upon them in the way of extra salary. I am very glad to know from the Chief Secretary that the Grant is not to be spent in buying hackneys or the much-abused Normandy sires. I am very glad to know that a small maiden speech which I made last year has had the effect of driving out this unfortunate class, and I like to think that those horses are to be confined to the farms in the North of Ireland, where I hope that their energies will be expended rather in another way. I join with the hon. Member who has previously spoken in urging that the merits of the three-parts stallion should be considered. I have at the present moment a horse which I bred myself from a three-parts-bred stallion, and my experience is that of a great many others, that this breed of Irish horse, from three-parts stallion, ought to be considered 876 as well as the thoroughbred horse. The Chief Secretary mentioned the Irish draught-horse scheme, and I hope that in his reply he will make some allusion to that matter. It has been very truly remarked how important this horse breeding industry is in Ireland. So it is, but it ought to be more important still. We ought to have more horses in Ireland; we ought to breed more, and we ought to supply more than we do. Last year, in Ireland, we had 600,000, and I find that in England that the number was 28,653. In a small agricultural country like Denmark, which is about half the area of Ireland, they had more than half the number of horses that they had in Ireland. If Denmark can have so large a number of horses, then Ireland, with its greater area, ought to supply many more horses than she does now. We ought to be able to supply the English Army with all the horses they require. We have got the horse which is not quite right for hunting, but which makes an admirable horse, either as a charger or as a horse for carrying a trooper. I do not suppose there was any better horse in South Africa than the Irish horse. They were bought and sold in very queer ways. I sold some of them myself. Some of the mares were in foal, and foaled on board ship. Yet those animals did better work than the Canadian, Australian, or Hungarian horses. Therefore I say that if we can increase the number of horses in Ireland by a horse-breeding scheme, we shall be doing a good thing, not alone for Ireland, but for the British Army. I am only too pleased that we in Ireland are to have this money for horse breeding. I wish it were more. I hope it will be spent well and wisely and that the Chief Secretary will tell us something of the draught-horse scheme.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI do not know whether I ought to apologise for intervening in this Debate, as I do not often intervene in Irish questions; but this is not purely an Irish question. A Grant for horse-breeding in Ireland is closely connected with the industry in this country and with the whole horse supply. Although we do breed horses in England, anybody in England would probably go to Ireland for the brood mares. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Agriculture (England) present to hear the criticism on the Irish scheme, because I cannot help thinking that the Irish scheme is in some ways a good deal superior 877 to the scheme which is being advanced in this country. I am also curious to see whether hon. Members representing the Labour party like the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) are going to make the same kind of speeches against this Grant in Ireland as they made when the Grant for England was under discussion. They then said that the Grant was purely a grant to go into the pockets of the landlords. I very much question if they are going to take up the same attitude to-day, especially after the speech of the hon. Member for West Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), who has pointed out how important this matter is in his country. As to the allocation of this Grant, I understand £3,500 is being spent in the purchase of stallions. Are those stallions to remain the property of the Department or are they to be resold to private individuals. I understand from the particulars of the Irish scheme published in 1909 that part of their system is to buy horses, then resell them on easy terms, a five years' loan I think, to the private individual. I must say that is a most admirable and excellent scheme. I commend it to the hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Strachey), and I wish it could be done here. I should like to know how is the money treated which is received from the resale of the horses by the Department to private individuals, because it is obvious the purchase price is refunded to the Government. Does the money come back to the Development Commissioners, or is it left in the hands of the Department in Ireland, or with Congested Districts Board, or where? It seems to me that if the difficulty as to returning the money can be got over in Ireland there is no reason why it should not be got over in England by the Department here. It would be interesting to English Members if the Chief Secretary would tell us what happens. The refunded money, the purchase of thoroughbreds out of Government money in Ireland makes it more difficult in a way for other people to get horses which are good enough. I very much doubt if there are sufficient horses in the country, thoroughbred or three-parts bred, sufficiently good stallions for bone and size required to carry out the amount of horse breeding that we should like to see carried out. The Department of Agriculture in Ireland a short time ago initiated what I think is a very good scheme to increase the number of stallions Available, that is the three-parts bred. I 878 would like to know how that experiment has gone on. I find in the Report of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland for 1910 the following:—
With a view to meeting a demand for half-bred sires free from any strain of cart-horse blood, yet likely to produce good useful farm animals.I do not see why the Department does not say hunters, because that is what is meant.The Department began an experiment in 1906. For this purpose they purchased in Ireland twelve yearling half-bred colts. These were kept on Department's farms until they were three-year-olds, when they were examined with a view to registration, nine were found to be up to the standard required, and were sold to farmers in various parts of the country; and the remaining three were disposed of as geldings. Twenty-one colts were bought in 1907, of which fourteen were ultimately placed on the Department's register. Twenty-eight animals were secured in 1908, and a like number in 1909. Those not up to the Department's standard of suitability and those unsound are castrated. The experiment has proved so successful in hunter breeding districts, that the Department propose to greatly extend their operations in rearing young sires of this type.That is a very interesting experiment, and so far appears to have given the Department satisfaction. I would ask if any of this money is going to extend that experiment, because it seems to me that it is a very good way of providing the stallions which are required in all those districts of Ireland. I do not wish to say one word against the thoroughbred sire. Far be it from me to do so as I am a great believer in them, especially for a certain class of mare; but I do think there is room for the sires bred in the way described in those words I have just quoted. If the mare is known to be well bred this is a direct way of increasing the number of stallions available and also putting the hall-mark of the Department upon them to show that they are good enough to go into the country districts as service stallions. I should like to know if the Department are going to spend any of this money in repeating and extending that experiment, and also whether breeders in Ireland share the optimism with regard to it as expressed by the Department. It would be interesting to know if breeders think those colts good colts, and if this experiment is thoroughly agreeable to the breeders of the horse breeding districts. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (England) will bear in mind these points from the Irish scheme. Although I quite approve of the provisional way of spending the money this year by the Board of Agriculture in England, yet I think they have a good deal to learn from the Irish Department, and they might certainly improve their scheme in 879 this country by taking a few hints from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI quite understand that having to deal with this question is somewhat difficult for me, but it often happens that hon. Members have to speak on subjects on which they are not profoundly versed. I remember listening to an admirable and excellent speech by an hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite about St. Thomas Aquinas. Perhaps he will forgive me for saying that I know as much about stallions as he knows about St. Thomas Aquinas. I should have been very glad listening to the speech of the Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) because, though some hon. Gentlemen opposite did not show all they knew, although they have the knowledge, he has been reading the reports of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland. Those reports show that it is no new thing for the Department to concern itself with horse breeding, and to make experiments in horse breeding, as I pointed out in my opening remarks. The Department spend from £7,000 to £8,000 from their own endowment, and they get some £3,000 from the rates for these operations, which they have explained in their Memorandum, and from which the Noble Lord quoted to show that they know about this business. We have been at it for ten years, making mistakes, no doubt, about Normandy sires, but cheerfully recognising them, and proceeding on lines which have earned the commendation of the Noble Lord. I can only wish some of my colleagues were here to see how well I am managing all these things. The Department in Ireland works with county committees. The whole of this horse breeding scheme goes on in the light of day, and is subject to very pertinent criticism, because everybody from Ireland, except the Chief Secretary, knows all about horses, and has theories about them, which points to the fact that in that matter you have a highly educated community. This new grant is supplemental to the work that has been going on for ten years. With regard to what was said by the Noble Lord as to this grant of £4,600, part of it will be devoted to the purchase of thoroughbred stallions. All the experiments he refers to will go on from the other endowments and other income of the Department as before. I think I am right in saying that it is the intention of the Department to devote this extra money which we get from now to 31st 880 March in the purchase of thoroughbred sires; but we will certainly conduct experiments as already made. With regard to giving back the money, that is not at all an Irish custom. Having got the money we deal with it in what we conceive to be the best and most economical way. We sell the stallions on the five years' annual instalment system, and, having got the money, we use it again for continuing the work. It goes back into the till, and we turn it over in that way. With regard to the amount being only £10,000, I do not think the hon. and gallant Member ought to find fault with me for not getting more. I got £10,000 not without difficulty—
§ Captain CRAIGI understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that £10,000 was promised, but that the Department got only £4,600.
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo; the financial year makes the difficulty. We got £10,000 for the twelve months, but we want the Supplementary Estimate because £4,600 will be spent before 31st March. We got £10,000, but we asked for more. I cannot, however, press one thing more than another, and there are many other claims upon the Development Commissioners. I think we were fortunate in getting so much because it is, after all, supplementing other moneys already being spent for this purpose. An hon. Member was anxious about the Irish draught-horse scheme, and he spoke about "hairy heels" in a way which filled me with alarm. The draught-horse scheme is one which the Department have been working for some time past.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYIt is confined to certain districts.
§ Mr. BIRRELLYes; where draught horses of that kind are required for the particular needs of the locality. It has not been adopted without consideration, and the Department think it is a scheme which requires to be continued. I am much obliged to the House for its kindness in listening to one who does not pretend to be an expert in these matters.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not in the least complain of the amount of money which the right hon. Gentleman has obtained. If he could have got more no doubt he would have done so, and I think my hon. Friends ought to be satisfied with what they have got. It is a very fair amount to make a start with. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the £4,600 were to-be allocated in the following manner— 881 £3,000 to the purchase of stallions, and £650 and £450 to inspection. £1,100 seems a rather large sum out of £4,600 to devote to these expenses. It would be much better to spend a far larger proportion of the £4,600 upon the purchase of stallions than upon fees to inspectors, who really cannot give any encouragement to the breeding of horses, which is the object we all have at heart. As to my intervening in an Irish Debate, I would point out that at present this is still the United Kingdom, and as long as we continue to be a United Kingdom I maintain that an English Member has as much right to intervene in an Irish Debate as an Irish Member has to intervene in an English Debate. I think the right hon. Gentleman is doing quite right in purchasing thoroughbred stallions. I do not quite agree with what my Noble Friend said with regard to the half-bred stallion. They are very difficult to get, and there are great difficulties in the way of getting rid of the colts.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI think the hon. Baronet is misinterpreting what I said. The very consideration which he is urging as to the difficulty of getting them and the inconvenience to private breeders were exactly the considerations which made me urge the Government to keep them, so that they might produce more and save the inconvenience to private breeders.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI did not understand that the Noble Lord was advocating that the Government should make these experiments. If the Government are to make these experiments—
§ Mr. KILBRIDEThey have made them.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWere they successful?
§ Mr. KILBRIDEYes.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMy hon. Friend says not, or that you cannot tell. What you can tell is that a thoroughbred stallion generally gets a very good class horse, especially if it is put to a half-bred mare. It gets the class of horse which is wanted in Ireland and other parts of the country; therefore, I think, the right hon. Gentleman has done right in devoting this money to the purchase of thoroughbred stallions. An hon. Member who expressed the hope that the stallions would be purchased free of limb, without spavins, and so on, cannot have noticed that £1,100 was to be spent on inspection. With regard to draught 882 horses, I was under the impression that there were not in Ireland any heavy draught horses. I do not see at all why shire horses could not be bred in Ireland just as well as in England. But, at any rate, that is not the sort of horse which the Irish like, and if that is so, I think we should confine our purchases of stallions to the horses which they are able to breed and to the class of horse which Irishmen like. In this particular case, I am all for Ireland having Home Rule, and if she likes a lighter class of horse she ought to-be encouraged in so doing. My Noble Friend asked where the Independent Labour Party was. The Independent Labour Party, with a line under the word "Independent," seems to have vanished' into thin air. They denounced a grant from this very fund when the grant was-for English purposes, on the ground that the landlords were going to benefit, and' that no work would be provided for working men. All these denunciations seem now to have vanished, and we see present only five representatives of the Independent Labour Party, who sit with folded arms, saying nothing. I do not think that is quite consistent, because they went to-a Division on the English Vote, and the very objections which they raised then apply equally to the Vote now before us.
§ Mr. KILBRIDENo; half of the Irish landlords are sold out.
§ Sir F. BANBURYSurely this Vote is encouraging the other half to remain. That interruption only intensifies the necessity for the Labour party to speak up if they desire to maintain their reputation for independence.
§ Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYIs the hon. Baronet aware that for a farmer to get the free service of a mare his land must be-under a certain valuation? If his valuation is over a certain amount, the scheme-does not apply to him. It is wholly for the-benefit of the small and middle-class farmer.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI was not contending that the Labour party were logical in what they said in the last Debate, or that-they would be logical if they spoke now. I do not think any of their contentions are right. Therefore I do not think there is any point in the remark of the hon. Member. I do not intend to offer any opposition to the Vote; it seems to be fairly well carried out; but I do not think so much ought to be spent on inspection.
§ Mr. KILBRIDEI think the right hon. Gentleman left the House under a serious misapprehension. He said that £3,600 of this money was to provide stallions previous to 31st March, or the period when they are usually bought for use in the coming breeding season. He left the House under the impression, which, I think, is absolutely wrong that £1,100 was to be spent on inspection. As the Vote appears here, there is no provision for the expense of bringing these horses from wherever they are brought to wherever they are to stand. There is such a thing as travelling expenses. I have no doubt that if the Department bought a horse from the hon. Baronet, he would, out of his regard for Ireland, have the horse sent over at his own expense; but for every horse the Department buys there will be an expense to the Department of about £25 for travelling expenses.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BIRRELLA good many questions have been asked. No doubt they were quite justified. The £1,100 may seem a somewhat extravagant sum, but the figures are really as follows: Purchase of stallions: amount required for purchase, £3,500, and, in addition, expenses in connection with purchase: one temporary inspector, remuneration, travelling, and subsistence expenses, £320; keeping horse and insurance on carriages, and outfit of veterinary's office, £280, making in all £600. Then, for the Irish draught-horse scheme there are two temporary inspectors, whose remuneration and expenses come to £300; one veterinary inspector £150, making £450—which sum has nothing whatever to do with the purchase of stallions, but is connected with the draught-horse scheme. Miscellaneous expenses come to £50, made up of clerical assistance by second division clerks, £17, and advertising expenses £33, so that the hon. Gentleman will see that these sums admit of explanation, and add up to £1,100, and are, of course, independent of the £3,500.
§ Mr. ASHLEYMay I ask the Committee for one moment to turn their attention to the accounts for the classes of science, art, and technical instruction. An additional sum of £500 is required for these classes, making a total sum of £23,000.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI have explained those.
§ Mr. ASHLEYI do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this point. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the amount is too small. I wish to 884 point out that it is inadequate. Take the case of the teachers in each school. I do not know what their salary is, but I know it is not very large. No provision is made by the Government for the proper housing of these teachers, and therefore this £500 is absolutely inadequate to enable them to get decent lodgings. They are sent to some congested district in the West of Ireland, where, in fact, they cannot get decent lodgings; where in the village where the school is situated there is perhaps no lodging to be obtained. I know of one case, that of a woman who is a teacher in a day school. She married a sergeant of the Royal Engineers, whom she met when he was surveying the country. She is absolutely and totally unable in the place to get any lodging except an upper room in a public-house. Surely that is not the right way to treat a respectable woman, and one of considerable culture!
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)That question does not arise on this Vote of £500.
§ Mr. ASHLEYI was trying to point out that owing to the increased number of scholars, an increased grant, as I understand, had been given, and I therefore presumed there would be an increased number of teachers. Hence I was endeavouring to point out that this remuneration offered by the Government was insufficient. I do not want to elaborate the matter at all. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look into it.
§ Mr. BIRRELLYes, Sir.
§ Mr. ASHLEYIt is not only in one district, but all over the West of Ireland, and not only in the case I have pointed out. Certain grazing land is going to be cut up, and the lady I referred to is going to get two acres to enable her to build a house.
§ Mr. BIRRELLI will look into the matter.
§ Mr. MOOREMay I ask why it is necessary that there should be a new veterinary inspector at £320 a year? There is a most admirable veterinary staff under Mr. Headley in connection with the present Department. That considerable staff has worked exceedingly well, and has the confidence of everyone in Ireland. Because a new scheme of draught-horses is brought forward, then, forsooth, we are to have a new inspector! Has the right hon. Gentleman any suggestion to make that the present Department are either lacking in public confidence or are overworked? I 885 have not heard a word as to why an additional inspector should be appointed now at another £300.
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo, no; £150.
§ Mr. BIRRELLA difference in the figures is of some little importance.
§ Mr. MOOREIf this scheme is of importance enough to necessitate a new inspector we will not get so good a class of man at £150. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House what the present veterinary staff consists of? Before the Committee votes an additional officer some statement should be made as to whether or not the Department under Mr. Headley is overworked, or that there is some special duty which the existing staff are unable to do.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGIt is a most unusual thing on my part to intervene on behalf of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has told us on many occasions—I do not share his views on this point—that the work of the Chief Secretary is so strenuous and exacting that it is quite impossible for any one man to do it. However, Parliament took that view in regard to certain branches of the Irish Administration some years ago, and deliberately—and with the concurrence of all Irish opinion—enacted that in future a large share of the work connected with Irish Government should be carried out by a Department, and that that Department should be represented in this House, and that a Vice-President should be directly responsible—
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid the right hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the absence of the Vice-President.
§ Mr. LONGNo, Sir; I am not going to discuss it; but the absence of the Vice-President is a very great difficulty in dealing with these cases. Anybody who knows Ireland and has studied in Ireland the question of horse-breeding knows that what the Chief Secretary said just now is literally true. Almost everybody in Ireland who takes an interest in this question has his own separate views, and each one thinks if his plan were adopted it would be more successful than any other plan. I believe very strongly in the policy of buying thoroughbred horses. I believe that it is almost that vital importance in Ireland that you should use thoroughbred 886 horses to a much larger extent than otherwise if you desire to be successful. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London caught a remark from me which he quoted—not quite correctly. It is impossible to tell what results will be that will follow the employment of half-bred horses. Nobody knows better than my Noble Friend who has spoken so wisely and so well on this subject that our knowledge of the results of half-bred horses are of an extremely dubious character. It is impossible, when you use half-bred horses, to tell what the result will be until you have been using them for some time. First results form no indication at all. I think it will be a most valuable thing if the Irish Government find themselves in a position to carry out more of their experiments in regard to the purchase of half-bred horses. For this reason: if the farmer, the horse breeder, believes that he can get a fair market for half-bred stallions he will be likely to give more time and attention to them than hitherto, and it may be that you will find from this a very valuable addition to your horse-breeding resources in Ireland. At the same time, I hope that nothing will be done in connection with the use of stallions in Ireland that will tend to diminish in any degree the most important quality that the Irish horse possesses—that is its great powers of endurance. Some years ago, when the party to which I belong was responsible for the Government of Ireland, a Commission was appointed. One of the recommendations of this Commission was that hackney stallions should be used particularly in Connemara, because it was felt that would be more useful to the small Connemara mare than more thoroughbred horses. I did all I could to oppose that suggestion. I firmly believe that the general adoption in Ireland, or even the adoption to any considerable extent of that recommendation, would be a deathblow to one of the greatest and best industries in Ireland—the breeding of horses. My Noble Friend knows well—for he speaks with almost unequalled authority—that one of the difficulties in breeding half-bred horses is to make absolutely certain that you get those qualities which you do get in the thoroughbred horse, among them those most valuable powers of endurance for which the Irish horse has been so famous. The Irish mare has been famous all through her history for her wonderful powers of endurance. This industry is, I think, one of the two most important industries in Ireland outside 887 agriculture. The breeding of grazing cattle and the breeding of horses are two flourishing industries, which now represent a very large sum of money in Irish affairs. Either of them will be very materially injured by careless handling. I think the Irish Secretary and the Irish Government are pursuing what is on the whole the best course in the circumstances. I am delighted that they propose to take this extra money. I am sure the Chief Secretary will be the last to blame my Noble Friend for expressing his views, for it is only when critics get up and attack the Government on the ground that the money voted is not sufficient that the Minister can go to his colleagues and explain how well he has done in defending the adequacy of the smaller sum. The right hon. Gentleman, too, need not unnecessarily depreciate himself, because he has talked quite as interestingly on the breeding of horses as he talks on the many other subjects upon which he has so frequently discoursed. I earnestly hope that the Government will do nothing to in any way diminish the high qualities which have hitherto made the Irish horse famous all over the world.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI think the right hon. Gentleman should reply to the science and art question put by my hon. Friend. He said—and it rather surprised me—that he could not say what money was actually spent on the science and art classes. It is rather a surprising thing that the science and art Vote should have turned out disappointing, because classes are very definite things.
§ Mr. BIRRELLMy point was that it was impossible to know beforehand how successful your effort was going to be. The expenditure in many parts of Ireland increases with the size of the class, and therefore it is quite impossible definitely to estimate beforehand what expenditure would be necessary.
§ Lord HUGH CECILMay I ask whether any of this money is going towards the teaching of the Irish language?
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo.
§ Lord HUGH CECILBecause I have a very strong opinion that money spent upon the Irish language is wasted, and if any of this was being used for that purpose I should have to divide the Committee.