INSURANCE AND LABOUR EXCHANGE BUILDINGS. (Hansard, 13 June 1913)

§ Sir F. BANBURY
This is a Vote amounting in all to £233,000, but the total amount expended is not shown. There is a note on page 43 at the bottom which says that additions to accommodation for insurance and Labour Exchange buildings will be found in "various public buildings." I have not been able to find what that amounts to. At any rate, it is certainly a larger sum than appears on the face of it. I want to draw attention to what took place when the Labour Ex- 1999 changes Act was passed, because I conceive that this Vote is a direct infringement of the understanding which was given to the House by the First Lord of the Admiralty at the time the Act became law under which the Vote is authorised. On 2nd July, 1909, my hon. and learned Friend said that in his opinion it would not be advisable to spend large sums of money on purchasing and erecting buildings for Labour Exchanges, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) then President of the Board of Trade, said:— I think we have got to work gradually in the matter of permanent buildings. The proposals which I have submitted do not provide for building permanent premises for even the first Labour Exchanges. Until ten years have passed the new buildings will not be completed, and meantime the Exchanges will be housed in hired buildings. He concluded his speech in these words:— I have tried to give the fullest information to the House to-day, and in addition to that we are not launching out in any ambitions scheme of bricks and mortar, but we have tried to develop a plan which in a humble and modest way will enable us to put our project into operation, and not commit the country to any undue expenditure until it has been proved by the working to be a necessary part of our social arrangements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1909, col. 749, Vol. VII.] I moved a Resolution later limiting the amount to be spent in any one year to £200,000. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he was not going in any one year to spend more than £210,000, and that it would gradually diminish down to £180,000. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to be so desirous of being economical and feeling his way gradually in the expenditure on these Labour Exchanges that I did not press my Amendment to a Division. Now, when we come to look at the Vote, we find that all the promises of the right hon. Gentleman have been broken, because, instead of proceeding economically and only spending small sums of money, he has been spending money right and left. This year the expenditure is £223,000, to which we have to add expenditure which is included in other Votes which I have not been able to find, and the expenditure last year was no less than £350,000. So that in two years, instead of having expended what he said we should, something like £210,000, we have actually spent, without including the sums which have to be added, very nearly £600,000. It is a very serious matter, because it shows that you really cannot place any reliance upon the statement of Ministers that they will administer their different Departments in an economical spirit.
2000 I am perfectly well aware that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) is no longer responsible for this Vote, but whoever has succeeded him should bear in mind the statements which were made by the Minister on the faith of which he was granted the Act of Parliament. I certainly should have divided in favour of my Amendment in 1909 unless I had really believed that the Act would be administered in an economical manner and that we should not commit ourselves to large payments for the purchase of freehold property and for the erection of buildings until we had really satisfied ourselves that the policy of the Labour Exchanges was one which was good for the country and which it was necessary to maintain. The righthon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) is supposed to be the watch-dog of finance, and to see that no unnecessary money is spent. I hope he will endeavour to see that, at any rate, in future we shall endeavour to be a little more chary in our expenditure on permanent buildings for this particular Vote. It is evident that if the Labour Exchanges were to be unsuccessful a great deal of this money would be wasted. Buildings would have to be readapted to another purpose, which would cost a considerable amount of money, and it would have been far cheaper to rent the building—you can rent buildings cheaper than you can buy the site and put them up—until you had found whether or not it was going to be a successful policy. I feel very deeply upon this matter because we shall never be able to run this country economically unless Ministers endeavour to spend money in a proper and careful manner.

Mr. BENN
Of course the hon. Baronet will not expect me to enter into the wide question of policy involved in the registration of unemployment or Labour Exchanges. What the Office of Works has to do is to build as economically as possible for the other Departments. I may set his mind at rest with regard to the note about "accommodation elsewhere in various public buildings." It is nothing considerable. It is the accommodation of perhaps half-a-dozen post offices, so it does not make any addition worth speaking of to the amount of the Vote. The reason that the amount exceeds the figure named by the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1909 is of course obvious, because since 1909 unemployment insurance has come into force and a great deal of work has to be done in these buildings which was never 2001 contemplated by the First Lord of the Admiralty when he named that figure. Two and a half million persons are insured against unemployment and all the necessary office work in connection with that insurance is done in these buildings, and it would not be reasonable to suppose that the same building which would do for one scheme would do without any addition for a scheme involving such an enormous amount of additional labour. There is, however, as the hon. Baronet observed, a reduction in this year's Estimates. The greatest possible care is taken not to commit ourselves more than necessary in buying or erecting buildings. The figures which appear in the Estimates show that we are following the policy of not committing ourselves in the way of providing buildings which the movements of the working population might make unnecessary.

§ Sir GEORGE YOUNGER
I think the most careful course to follow in this matter would be not to provide buildings which may not be required. It is perfectly obvious that these Exchanges are still on their trial, and no one can say how they will succeed. It is not desirable at present to expend money on the purchase of permanent buildings for Exchanges. In many cases the Exchanges have failed, and it would be a very stupid thing to provide buildings which may not be required. One cannot go into the policy of the Labour Exchanges on the present Vote, but on the question of fact it may be stated that the Labour Exchanges are not serving the purpose they were intended to serve. They are boycotted by employers who want good and high-class labour. Therefore, the providing of permanent buildings to carry out the scheme might not be worth the money expended. That would be bad policy. I hope the Office of Works will not spend any more money in that way. I think the House should narrowly look at any proposals of that kind.