§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £448,000, 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 day of March, 1914, for Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices abroad." [Note.—£200,000 has been voted on account.]
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI would like to draw attention to the considerable difference between the original total Estimate and the total Estimate now in the case of some of these building schemes. I find that in the case of the Birkenhead Post Office the revised total Estimate exceeds the original total Estimate by 170 per cent. When this matter was discussed last year by the Select Committee on Estimates, it was stated in evidence that an original total Estimate was really in most cases simply guesswork. The Estimate was not based on any reliable figures at all. What happens is that some Department wants to erect a building without delay, and they think it necessary to put down £2,000, £5,000, or £10,000, simply in order to get Parliamentary sanction for starting the work. Parliament, of course, looks upon that particular Estimate as a real Estimate for the whole of the scheme, though, as a matter of fact, it is not based on any reliable figures. In some cases the final Estimate is lower than the original Estimate, but in most cases the final Estimate exceeds the original Estimate. In the case of the final Estimate the House really has no alternative but to consent to the extra expenditure.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is going to deal with the general question of Estimates, or whether he is directing his remarks to the specific item with which we are now dealing. If he wishes to raise the general question, it will come more properly on Vote 26. I think the hon. Member must make his choice. If he were to speak on the general 665 question now, I would have to restrict him more closely on Vote 26. I give that warning of a friendly character to the hon. Member.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI will reserve the general remarks I have to make until we reach Vote 26. On this particular Vote perhaps the hon Gentleman will give some explanation why there is this enormous difference between the two Estimates. I wish to know whether the first Estimate was based on any reliable figures, or whether it was simply put in in order to be able to get something to start the work.
Mr. TYSON WILSONThis Vote is a pretty large one, and the carrying out of the work means employment for a large number of workpeople. During the past year I have had occasion to bring to the notice of the hon. Gentleman quite a number of cases where contractors were not complying with the Fair-Wages Clause. I have to thank him for what he is doing to compel contractors to observe it. I would suggest that in relation to the contracts under this Vote, and also with respect to future contracts, he should make inquiries whether employers are paying according to the Fair-Wages Clause.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat question would come more properly on Vote 26. If the hon. Member wishes to raise a specific point on this Vote, I think he would be in order; but if he wishes to enter upon the general question, his remarks would come more properly on Vote 26.
Mr. TYSON WILSONI am very much afraid that if I raise matters specifically, item by item, I would take more time than I wish to occupy. I will take the case of Peterborough Post Office. I brought that matter before the hon. Gentleman recently, and he stated that he was satisfied that the contractors were paying the standard rate of wages. My information is that they are not paying the standard rate of wages. If a firm does not pay the standard rate when doing work of this description, good employers are in consequence treated unfairly. I would like to point out the difficulty which the Department have in finding out whether or not a firm is observing the Fair-Wages Clause. Take the case of the firm who are carrying out the work at Peterborough. Their workmen are engaged three or four days a week on other work, and receive a lower 666 rate, and when they pass on to the post-office work they continue to receive the lower rate. I do appeal to him to make a strict inquiry in connection with these firms. I would also suggest, in connection with post office work, that the fittings in the post offices should be let to firms who pay the proper rate of wages in all cases. If you allow firms to differentiate in wages paid to men engaged in post office work and men engaged in private contracts, these difficulties will always arise and friction will continue.
§ Mr. GILLThere is provision made in the Estimates for the erection of a new post office in Bolton. It is four years since this was promised. I have had repeated questions on the Paper and promises have been made, but, beyond having the site boarded round, nothing has been done. There is a great deal of public dissatisfaction in the district over the delay. The post office has been promised for many years. The population of Bolton is 180,000, and the post office is suitable for a town of about 50,000 people. It is very unhealthy, and some of the post office servants have been killed with consumption. It is high time that something should be done. People are beginning to ask whether the Office of Works has abandoned the idea of building a post office and is going to sell the land. The work should be commenced at once, and I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would give us some satisfactory answer in regard to the matter.
§ Mr. WATTI desire to call attention to the alterations that have been taking place in the post office of Glasgow. The contract was placed some years ago to extend the post office, and the amount is £58,000. The work has spread over three years already, and, according to the items mentioned in this Estimate on page 40, it looks as if the work will extend over another three years. The building trade in Glasgow has been in a rather dull condition for some years, and therefore there cannot be the excuse that amen could not be obtained. The beginning of the work and the speeding up of the work would be of great advantage to the community. The extension of the post office was urgently needed. Complaints have been made of the great delay in carrying out the contract. For the Department of the hon. Member a £58,000 contract is by no means a large one, and there is no need to spend so long a time over it. I shall be glad to 667 have an explanation of the delay and I shall more gladly receive an intimation that the work is now to be speeded up and the contract finished in a reasonable time.
Mr. BENNThe delay in the case of the Glasgow Post Office is due partly to a Labour dispute and partly to the necessity for going carefully with the reinforced concrete, of which the post office is being constructed. But the hon. Member (Mr. Watt) will see our intention in the Vote for £20,000, a very substantial amount, which we are taking this year, all of which, naturally, we hope to spend in addition to over £17,000 which is charged to telephone capital account, so that I hope that during the year substantial progress will be made. In the case of Bolton, I am very sorry that the hon. Member (Mr. Gill) had to complain of delay in completing the post office. As we go on the postal requirements of places alter, and it would be very foolish of us, in order to get finished quickly, to put up a building which was not absolutely suitable. It is far better to suffer a little delay than to erect a building which is hardly suitable to the requirements of the district. It is owing to the alteration of plans and to revised Estimates being made that the delay has taken place. As my hon. Friend will see from the Estimate, a substantial sum is taken this year. That is not all, because a large item which does not come into this Estimate, but is chargeable to the telephone account, is also taken.
Mr. BENNIf the hon. Member will allow me to have this Vote at once without a Division, we shall be in a position to have Parliamentary sanction to start at once. As regards the wages question, I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) for calling my attention to the money. We have inspectors going about and looking into all these cases. We are really doing our best to see that a Fair-Wages Clause is enforced, but we are bound by the Resolution of the House of Commons, which only applies to workmen who are working under contracts placed by our Department, and does not apply to workmen who
§ are working for the same firm under other contracts.
Mr. BENNI see the difficulty very much indeed. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that his proper course would be to have the Resolution altered in a practicable form, if possible, by the House of Commons. As the Resolution stands we are bound by it and we shall observe it. The hon. Member (Mr. Goldsmith) asked a question about Birkenhead. The coal strike caused some delay there and the revision of Estimates made, not this year for the first time but for two years, was also a cause of delay. It was due to the same reason as in Bolton, not because the Estimate was not in the beginning for a certain building, but because when they got the plans roughly sketched out for building a post office they found that the requirements of the district involved a bigger and a better building, and that therefore revised plans were necessary.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI beg to move, "that this Vote be reduced by the sum of £100."
I would like to know whether there was a definite Estimate to start with before this Vote was sanctioned in the first instance. Of course, if the post office afterwards brought forward another much larger scheme than was contemplated by Parliament when they sanctioned the first Estimate, and then another Estimate was submitted for nearly three times as large an amount as the original Estimate, it is absurd to talk about Parliamentary control in a case like that. The first Estimate was for £2,000. Then another and a much larger scheme was brought forward, and the only thing Parliament can do is to sanction the addition because the work has already been started. The whole financial control is in the hands of the Department and not of Parliament, and it is against this state of affairs that I wish to protest.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £447,900, be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 168.
669| Division No. 22.] | AYES. | [8.58 p.m. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Cassel, Felix |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Boyton, James | Cautley, H. S. |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Hunt, Rowland | Stewart, Gershom |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Ingleby, Holcombe | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.) |
| Fell, Arthur | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Gilmour, Captain John | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Touche, George Alexander |
| Grant, J. A. | Perkins, Walter F. | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) | Pollock, Ernest Murray | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr Goldsmith and Sir J. D. Rees. |
| Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Sanders, Robert A. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Adamson, William | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | O'Malley, William |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Barton, W. | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Shee, James John |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Hazleton, Richard | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Bentham, G. J. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Boland, John Pius | Higham, John Sharp | Parry, Thomas H. |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hinds, John | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hodge, John | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) | Hogge, James Myles | Pointer, Joseph |
| Brady, P. J. | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Brunner, John F. L | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Radford, G. H. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Hudson, Walter | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hughes, S. L. | Reddy, M. |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford). |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Jowett, Frederick William | Robinson, Sidney |
| Clough, William | Joyce, Michael | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Keating, Matthew | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Kellaway, Frederick George | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Cowan, W. H. | Kelly, Edward | Rowlands, James |
| Crooks, William | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Kilbride, Denis | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Dawes, James Arthur | King, J. | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. |
| Delany, William | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Sheehy, David |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lardner James C. R. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Law, Hugh, A. (Donegal, West) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Doris, W. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Duffy, William J. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Strauss, Edward A, (Southwark, West) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lundon, Thomas | Sutton, John E. |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Lynch, A. A. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Thomas, J. H. |
| Esslemont, George Birnle | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Wadsworth, J. |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Millar, James Duncan | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Molloy, M. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Gill, A. H. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Gladstone, W. G. C | Mooney, J. J. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Glanville, Harold James | Morison, Hector | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Grelg, Colonel J. W. | Muldoon, John | Wing, Thomas |
| Griffith, Ellis Jones | Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Needham, Christopher T. | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Norman, Sir Henry | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Hackett, J. | Nuttall, Harry | |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Wedgwood Benn. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
Original question put, and agreed to.