§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £70,900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the 644 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 the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens." [Note.—£53,000 has been voted on account.]
§ Mr. CASSELI desire to raise a point in regard to the employés in the London parks, which I hope will receive sympathetic consideration from the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote. The facts I want to lay before him—and they come within my own knowledge—are chiefly in regard to Regent's Park, but I think the same circumstances apply in a very large measure to all the employés in the parks in London. The first class to which I desire to call attention are the park-keepers. The wages of a park-keeper at the present time are 26s. a week. Recently they have been granted an increase of 1s. a week, if they have served five years in the parks. I must say at once, on their behalf, that they are grateful for such increase as has been made, but it is a very small increase indeed when you consider the circumstances. In the first place, it does not apply at all to men who have not been five years in the service. These men have got no increase at all. The increase is based upon the increase in the cost of living. These men have to live in London; their rents are high, and there has been no increase in their wages since 1887. Upon budgets actually obtained from these men the cost of living has gone up by more than 20 per cent., and the cost of living has gone up in regard to the men who have not been five years in service as well, yet they have got no increase whatever. What justification can there be for that? If the reason for granting an increase is that the cost of living has gone up, surely you ought equally to give the rise to those men who have not been five years in the service. Take the case of those who get 1s. a week rise. A shilling upon 26s. is less than 4 per cent., whereas the cost of living has gone up by more than 20 per cent. There are two points of view which I want the hon. Gentleman to consider: First, that half the men get no increase at all; and with regard to the other half, although the cost of living has gone up by more than 20 per cent., the increase in wages is less than 4 per cent.
I should also like the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind what class of men these are. They are mainly men who have been in the Army, and who filled a rank not 645 lower than that of sergeant. They all join under forty-five years of age; their characters must be exemplary or very good, and they have to obtain a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners, and they have to pass a severe medical examination. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that 26s. a week, having regard to the fact that they have to live in London, is not a decent or a sufficient wage to pay these men. Most of them are married men; they have to do six-and-a-half days' work a week; they do not get one day's rest in seven; they get one Sunday in a month, and they get one week-day in a month.
§ Mr. CASSELIt seems to me that to pay men of this description only 26s. a week for that class of work is not over-generous. In these matters I am personally an economist, but I do not carry my economy so far as to think that the Government should not appear as a model employer paying decent wages to their men. It may be said that lower wages were given to these men because some of them received pensions in respect of their Army service. That is an entirely erroneous system, and the present Colonial Secretary, when he was First Commissioner of Works, admitted that it was erroneous. On this point Sir Edward Ward said:—
A pension is for work done, and it ought not to be regarded as for work to be done in the future. The ex-soldier who gets a post as messenger or other civil employment should be paid the market rate and no less than the civilian.The same attitude was adopted by the predecessor of the present Colonial Secretary when, in answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool in 1907, he said:—Pensions ought not to be taken into consideration in fixing wages.It may be said that they do get full pay during sickness and free medical attendance, but that really is only a very small advantage, and it does not amount to more than twopence on the actual calculation of the benefits they receive. These men get less wages than the so-called labourers. I agree that the employés who are called labourers are really gardeners, and they are called labourers in order to pay them a lower wage. The park-keepers get less than the gardeners, and I think there is a very clear case for considering whether the increase ought not to be given to these men irrespective of their five years' service, and those who have 646 served five years ought to be treated a little more liberally. There are other classes who have received no rise at all, in spite of the fact that the cost of living has increased. With regard to the labourers, they have had an increase similar to the park-keepers of one shilling a week after five years' service. They have had a rise from 27s. to 28s., and their wages are higher than the park-keepers. The same considerations apply to the men who have not been five years in the service, and they are not receiving any increase at all, notwithstanding the increase in the cost of living. I think the hon. Member representing the First Commissioner will agree that the description "labourer" is not an accurate one, because a great many of these men really do the work of gardeners.There is one other matter I wish to raise, and that is the question of the night patrol in Regent's Park. Previously there were two night watchmen permanently employed, and now the First Commissioner has done away with those two men, and instead he has divided the work amongst sixteen of these so-called labourers, who are really gardeners, and each of them has to take a month's night work every eight months. These men entered the service to do day work, and they are now being compelled to take this night work, which means very long hours and as much as 11 hours 44 minutes on the average, and many of them find it affects their health, because they had not intended to enter a service in which it was necessary to do night work. I think it is very hard on men employed for day work to lay down that for a month they must be up all night for eleven hours. Some of them find their health is affected by having to be up through the night in all kinds of weather. I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should revert to the previous system of having persons regularly employed as night watchmen. It may be necessary to have two shifts, but it cannot be right to take the people who engage for day work and compel them to take a month's night work. Perhaps the hon. Member may not consider these matters of as great importance as some of the others in this Vote, but they are of great importance to the men concerned, and I hope this matter will receive his sympathetic consideration.
Mr. TYSON WILSONI wish to join with the hon. Member opposite in the appeal he has made to the First Commissioner of Works with regard to the 647 wages paid to the men employed in the Royal parks. The men whose wages are least suffer most from the increase in the cost of living. I think the increase of one shilling per week is too little, and it ought certainly to have been half-a-crown. I hope the hon. Gentleman will get a larger Grant to enable him to do this. I wish to appeal to the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the class of men who are called propagators. They receive 31s. per week; they are expert gardeners, and I think they are entitled to a higher wage. I also wish to draw attention to the case of the mechanics employed in the Royal parks and gardens. May I point out that those engaged in the building trades in London have recently had an increase in wages. The men employed in the Works Department have also received increased wages, but those employed by the Parks Department are working for three shillings a week less than those employed in the Works Department. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to put the men who are doing work of the same description on the same level so far as wages are concerned. I also appeal to the hon. Gentleman to do his best to secure an increase of wages for the labourers employed in the Royal parks.
§ Mr. BOYTONI desire to support the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) in the plea he has made in favour of better wages for the men working in Regent's Park, seeing, as I do, these men early in the morning and late at night. Some nine months ago a question was raised in this House about the encroachment upon the park by the Office of Woods allowing a very great deal of building to be carried on, and in particular I desire—
The CHAIRMANHas the hon. Member discovered any item in this Vote dealing with that matter? I am not aware of it, and if that is so it would come on a later Vote.
§ Mr. BOYTONIt arises out of the general administration of the Royal parks.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHThe Office of Woods and Forests replied for that particular matter.
The CHAIRMANThe questions put in the House have been addressed to the Treasury as representing the Office of Woods and Forests.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHThe questions have been addressed to the President of the Board of Agriculture as representing the Office of Woods and Forests.
§ Mr. BOYTONThe Minister for Agriculture answered last time, and we understood that he dealt with the matter for the Office of Works.
Mr. BENNThe Office of Works has control of the amenities of the parks, but no control over the leases of these villas, and I submit that the matter of granting these leases and dealing with the land should come on the Vote for the Office of Woods under the Board of Agriculture.
§ Captain MURRAYI wish to ask a question with regard to the Queen Victoria Memorial. I noticed the other day that some ugly wooden balustrades have been erected on one side, and there is an opening of some six feet to allow people to pass up the steps. I want to know what is the particular object of these wooden balustrades? The steps were evidently made for the people to walk up in order to examine the face of the Memorial, and I think it disfigures this Memorial, and perhaps the hon. Member can inform the Committee the particular object for which these balustrades have been placed there.
§ Lord A. THYNNEI wish to thank the hon. Member for the steps he has taken to allow the children attending the council school to make better use of the Royal parks. I think everybody is grateful to the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. W. Benn) and his predecessor in office for what they have done in this matter, and I hope the hon. Member will continue the good courses he has taken and afford still greater opportunities for the playing of organised games by the council schools children in the Royal parks. Although a considerable use is being made of the Royal parks for this purpose a far greater use might be made of them without any inconvenience to the ordinary public. It is of exceptional importance that special facilities should be given for this purpose in those parks, because the existence of a large Royal park like Regent's Park absolves the county council from the necessity of providing open spaces in that neighbourhood. At 649 the present moment the Royal parks are not thrown open to the same extent to the children of London as the council parks are, and I suggest it would be possible for the hon. Gentleman to do a great deal more in this direction in the future than has been done in the past. I am sure nobody realises better than the hon. Gentleman the great importance of affording increased opportunities for recreation and for the playing of organised games. I should like to thank the hon. Member for what he has done in persuading his colleague who represents the Office of Woods to rearrange some of the leases in Regent's Park so as to throw three acres more open to the public. I think everybody sees the great inconvenience of having this dual control of Regent's Park. It is surely rather an absurdity in administration that part of the park should be under one department and part under another. We should be far more satisfied if the whole of the park were under the administration of the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, and we should feel far more confidence as to the future of the park. I hope the hon. Member's success in the past will be an incentive to him in the future to try and persuade his colleague to withdraw still more land from the letting on private leases in order to throw it open to the general public.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI quite agree with my Noble Friend that it is absurd that the Royal Parks, and still more the Quadrant in Regent Street, should be under the jurisdiction of the Board of Agriculture. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the First Commissioner has considered the advisability of removing the speed limit on motor traffic in the Royal Parks? Why does he consider it necessary that there should be a speed limit in the Royal Parks when no speed limit is considered necessary in any other part of London? The hon. Gentleman can perhaps also tell us whether he is responsible for the numerous traps which have been set in the last few weeks for the unfortunate motorists who have to use the Royal Parks.
The CHAIRMANI think that question will arise on the Vote for the First Commissioner's Salary and not on the Vote for Works.
§ Mr. GRANTI endorse what my Noble Friend has said with regard to the increased use to which the parks have been put for the children in London. I desire to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the growing tendency to plant thorn trees and bushes in the open spaces in the centre of the parks. I think the more we keep these spaces open the better it will be, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will see that this planting of trees and bushes is not overdone. There is another small point to which I wish to call attention, and it has reference to Achille's statue at Hyde Park Corner. It is quite impossible to see it owing to the trees around until you come close up to it, and I should like to know whether it would not be possible to remove at least one large tree in front of it so that it might be seen in the future as it used to be in the past.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEI desire to raise the question of the existing Admiralty Arch at the end of the Mall. The Arch at the present time is the appropriate end of the Memorial that was designed and carried into effect.
The CHAIRMANCould the hon. Member direct me to the item in this Vote to which the question is relevant?
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEI am submitting this as a point of Order for your instruction. I am speaking of the Arch in the Royal Park, and I desire to deal with the policy of regarding that as the end of the Mall instead of a new Arch forming a tunnel.
§ Captain MURRAYDoes it not arise on the general item "Royal Parks"?
§ Lord A. THYNNEIf we are to discuss the Arch I hope we shall be able to discuss it all in one piece, because a part of the Arch is undoubtedly in the Royal Park and part of it is not in the Royal Park. There are two sides of the Arch to discuss: there is the side facing the park, and there is the side which faces the Strand which is not in the park. I presume, if one side is in order on this Vote, that the other side would not be in order.
The CHAIRMANI do not see that it is proposed to do anything even to one side of the arch, and, if that is so, it does not arise on this Vote.
§ Mr. LYELLI understand a small addition has already been granted to the pay of the park-keepers at Holyrood, Edinburgh; but I would like to point out that this addition, which, I believe, is common to the park-keepers both at Holyrood and in London, is nothing more than an instalment to meet the serious rise in the cost of living which has taken place in recent years I do not want, however, to look a gift-horse in the mouth, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for the consideration he has already shown to these men. I believe an allowance of 5s. per week is made to the park-keepers who are not supplied with a house, and I wish to ask whether that is not really inadequate. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it must be very difficult for these men to find a suitable house for anything like 5s. a week, and it would, I am sure, be very acceptable if the allowance could be increased in view of the great difficulty in getting sufficient accommodation.
Mr. BENNThe figures which the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) gave with regard to the wages of the park-keepers were perfectly accurate, and, of course, it is only natural that a request for a further increase should be made; but I would point out that the cost of the increase which has already been granted has been considerable. It will operate in the case of all park-keepers and labourers of five years' service, and will apply, as from 1st April, to sixty men out of one hundred and thirty-eight. The other men, as they acquire five years' service, will also become recipients of the additional 1s. I very much dislike standing here to oppose any increase to people who do their work well, but I would ask the hon. Member to remember that we have done something very considerable, and to rest content with the shilling for the moment. It would not be inappropriate to mention in connection with this, as showing that the Office has no desire to oppose the proper treatment of its work-people, that in the month of March we have in no less than ten cases come down on our contractors for not observing the Fair-Wages Clause. I mention that in order to show that we are doing our best to be vigilant guardians of the rights of the people who work for the Office. The night patrols and the day men all receive the same wage, but the day men work six days a week and the night men seven days a week, so that the night men get an additional day's pay; and, so far from being 652 unwilling, they are very glad when the month arrives and they are able to do the seven days instead of the six. I understood the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) to raise a question about the halfpenny rise which was granted as the result of the agreement between the master builders and their employés.
Mr. BENNThere have been cases of dispute—there is one going on now—in which certain people have endeavoured to participate in the rise of a halfpenny which was granted by agreement between the masters and the men. The position of the Office of Works is very clear. It is merely a question of fact. If the men can show that there are men receiving the halfpenny who are doing the same work, then it is our duty to see that the employés working on our contracts get the halfpenny, but, if they merely think they ought to participate, then under the terms of the Resolution of this House, which we have no right to exceed, we have to wait until it is the general practice.
§ 8.0 P.M.
Mr. BENNThat is a point on which I am not quite sure. I have gone into this question at some length, and I think the hon. Member will find the position is as I have stated. My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (Captain Murray) raised a question about the fence round the Queen Victoria Memorial. At present people are allowed to go up the Memorial steps up to six p.m. in the summer and up to dusk in the winter. I think it is undesirable to allow the public to go right up the Memorial steps during all the hours. If my hon. Friend allows that, he must also agree that it is necessary to keep the people out during prohibited hours, and a wooden fence has accordingly been erected. Sir Thomas Brock has designed movable bronze posts, and as soon as they are complete they will be placed in position to take the place of the present rather unsightly wooden fence. I thank the Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord A. Thynne) for the remarks he made, and I can assure him that he has the deep sympathy of the First Commissioner in his desire to extend the area of the parks in which the London children are 653 allowed to play. I noticed also what the hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. Grant) said about the trees round Achilles statue, but I am afraid I cannot hold out much hope of cutting down the trees, because hon. Members are very jealous about the removal of any growing thing. I should not be in order, I understand, in referring to the question of the speed limit imposed on motor cars in the Royal Parks, but, if I were in order, I am afraid I should not be very sympathetic towards the hon. Member's request. The hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Lyell) referred to the house allowance for the park-keepers in Scotland. They receive 22s. per week, and have either a residence or 5s. per week allowance in lieu thereof. I do not know that my hon. Friend is quite right in making a comparison between the allowance of 5s. and the actual rent of a house. I think one ought to regard it rather as a graded payment. No doubt, as houses become vacant, the men, who now receive an allowance, will be promoted to a house; admittedly the allowance does not adequately represent the rent. With regard to the Admiralty Arch, and one or two other interesting matters which hon. Members desire to discuss, it would be very convenient if we could get rid of the Vote for materials, and go on to that for salaries, as upon that all these matters may be raised.
§ Mr. CASSELI think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to one of the points I raised. He seemed to be under the impression that the labourers who do day work like to be put on to night patrols. I can assure him that that is not my information.
Mr. BENNI very much dislike differing from the hon. Gentleman on matters of fact, but I would remind him that only two days ago he put a question in which he appeared to complain because two men were removed front doing night work and put on to day work.
§ Mr. CASSELBut that is quite a different case. Those men were originally employed as night watchmen and not as labourers at all.
§ Mr. BOYTONDo the park-keepers, who are mostly pensioned men from the Army, get superannuation in respect of their employment under the Office of Works?
§ Mr. BOYTONBut other workmen engaged in the park under the Crown get superannuation, do they not?