§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,750, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st clay of March, 1914, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings." [Note.—£35,000 has been voted on account.]
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI should like to refer to a matter which concerns, not only this Vote, but other Votes dealing with the erection of new buildings.
The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member was good enough to consult me on that point. I have looked into it, and I find that he can only raise it on this Vote to a very limited extent, whereas he would have a free hand on Vote 26.
§ Sir J. D. REESThere is an item under the heading of "New Works"—"Nottingham County Court: Improved Accommodation."
§ Sir J. D. REESThen why is it now in the Vote?
Mr. BENNit is the practice of the House. At the desire of the Public Accounts Committee, the Estimates include, in italics, the items of last year's Estimate, although no money may be asked for this year.
§ Sir J. D. REESThen this work is completed?
§ Mr. WATTI should like to refer to another item under the heading of "New Works," and that is the Glasgow Justiciary Court. The original estimate was 655 £38,000. The revised estimate is £41,240. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain why the estimate was revised and the reason for the additional sum? I understand that new and more expensive plans have been adopted.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI also should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the difference between original total estimates and the revised total estimates, not only in this case, but in various cases in subsequent Votes. Shall I be in order in doing it now, or must I wait for each particular case?
The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member can only raise a point of that kind on each Vote as it comes along. Does he wish to raise it on this item?
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHNot if I can raise the whole question on Vote 26.
The CHAIRMANI understand the point the hon. Member desires to raise has reference to the employment of architects, and the policy adopted in regard to architectural work.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHThat is one point. The other point is the great difference between the original total estimates and the revised total estimates in all these Votes.
The CHAIRMANI am not quite sure I quite understand the point. I take it the hon. Member's argument is directed towards securing a better system in regard to preparing plans, and the employment of architects.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHNot exactly. That is a different point. The one I want to raise really concerns all these Votes.
The CHAIRMANThere is no means of discussing a number of Votes together, unless it be on the Report of the Estimates Committee, over which the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London presides, or on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr. BENNI wish to answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt). I am afraid this is not a case of the variation of plans. We made rather too low an estimate of the cost of the work, and when we got the actual tenders in, we found it necessary to revise the estimate.
§ Lord A. THYNNEI only want to call attention to a serious extravagance and inconvenience in the practice of the Board of Works in the matter of legal buildings. Every year we are getting a larger number of Government buildings in our provincial towns, and in my opinion they are not sufficiently concentrated. This lack of concentration undoubtedly makes it necessary for larger provision to be made for maintenance and repairs, and in regard to caretakers and other expenses, and much might be saved if all the Government buildings in a provincial town were concentrated under one roof. This Vote particularly concerns County Courts and other legal buildings, and I submit that under it considerable economies could be effected if the County Courts and the offices of various Government Departments which find it necessary to have branches in provincial towns were concentrated in one big building. I pointed out last year that it would not only lead to a reduction in this Vote, but that it would also bring about greater convenience for the public, and make it possible, in some cases, for an imposing public building, possessing commanding architectural features, to be put up in some of our towns. I do not like to instance my own Constituency, although it is the town I know best, and, as one of my hon. Friend's remarked, it is one of the most beautiful, and possesses most distinctive architectural features. But I submit that if all the legal buildings were concentrated in one central spot with such offices as the Labour Exchange, the Insurance Offices, and other Government Departments, it would be a great advantage—
The CHAIRMANA general question of policy like that must be taken on the Vote for the First Commissioner's salary. It does not appear to attach to any particular item in this Vote.
§ Lord A. THYNNEThe whole trend of my argument was that, owing to this want of concentration of Government offices in provincial towns, and this lack of co-ordination between the various Government Departments, we are asked to make unduly large provision under tins Vote, especially under item "B" for maintenance and repairs, and item "C" for rent. We are paying unnnecessary rent, which might be avoided if such concentration as I have indicated were effected. I think it will be clear to the Committee that great economy would be effected under this Vote if all these various Government Depart- 657 ments were to come together and concentrate their branches in one imposing building. I submit that for the consideration of the Government. I quite see the great inconvenience of not having a responsible Cabinet Minister to speak on behalf of the whole Government. I make no reflection on the Member for St. George's-in-the-East. Of course, he cannot commit the Government on an important matter of policy of this kind. I sympathise with his position, but I do wish to emphasise the inconvenience under which we are labouring in conducting this Debate in the absence of a responsible Minister.
The CHAIRMANThere is no other Department responsible for this Vote. The hon. Member's remarks rather seem to indicate that the point he desires to raise is out of order.
§ Mr. MORTONI would like to press the hon. Gentleman for a little further information with regard to the necessity for the revised Estimate in the case of the Glasgow Justiciary Court. It is becoming too much the practice to start at a low amount and then find it necessary to make provision for an increased amount. This is not fair to the House or to the Committee; we ought to be told in the first place the whole cost of a building. Of course, there may be occasions when an increase is necessary but it should only be sanctioned on good reason being shown. This is evidence of a bad system in the conduct of public affairs. I press for further information, and I would urge that it is no excuse for the failure to give it to say that Scotland is a long way off. Why has the original Estimate in this case been increased in this way?
Mr. BENNI am afraid I cannot add anything to what I stated in reply to the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt), but when Vote 26 arises I shall be very glad to discuss the matter of the difference between the provisional Estimates and the actual cost. It will be better discussed on Vote 26.
§ Mr. MORTONCan the hon. Gentleman say when that will come on?