MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT.—Class I. (Hansard, 15 July 1915)

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I think the Committee is entitled to some explanation on this Vote. The Committee will remember that last year, only, I think, a few months 1071 before the War began, an Act was passed through this House providing for this particular improvement, and under that Act a contribution was to be given by the Imperial Government, another was to come from the Westminster City Council, and a third contribution from the London County Council. The three bodies were all to contribute to the cost of the improvement. I understand that under that Act the land and buildings which were involved, and the acquisition of which was necessary for the purposes of the improvement, have actually been acquired. The question now is, I believe, the carrying out of the work under the Act. It seems to me that it is important the Committee should understand what precisely is being done to carry out this work. The property acquired under the Act includes some buildings which are actually in occupation and are producing very large sums in the way of revenue. Obviously it would be a mistaken policy at a time like this for the country to demolish the buildings, which are actually a source of revenue, and to start upon these improvement works which would cost a great deal of money and absorb a large amount of labour; so that in both ways, if the work is carried out, the country is likely to lose. The country is first of all likely to lose in respect of the revenue which will be lost if the buildings are demolished; and, secondly, there will be a loss in carrying out the improvements at a time when the cost of this kind of work is the highest. I hope, therefore, this work is not to be done. If the £.32,000 which the Committee is now asked to vote is for the purpose of carrying out work where it need not be carried out, I shall certainly oppose the Vote.

§ Mr. BECK (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household)
In the absence of my right hon. Friend I may be allowed to try to explain exactly what this figure means. May I first say that no unnecessary work of any kind is being carried out as regards this improvement, but one of the bargains which was necessitated by the Mall improvement was made with the Phœnix Fire Insurance Company, and that company has actually procured other premises. Therefore it is only fair they should receive the money which it was agreed they should receive for the premises they are giving up in connection with this improvement. I understand that the sum to which they 1072 are entitled is some £70,000, and, as my hon. Friend has rightly said, this House last year approved of a scheme by which one-third of any cost was to be borne by the London County Council, one-third by the Westminster Corporation, and one-third by the Treasury. That, therefore, nearly absorbs the whole of this Vote, but I am happy to assure the House that the Phœnix Company, realising the difficult position that has arisen, has agreed to accept the entire sum due to it in the form of War Loan stock, in order to obviate the necessity of spending public money at a time like this. I can only end by assuring my hon. Friend and the House that no money that can possibly be avoided is to be spent on this improvement.

§ Sir W. ESSEX
I should like to ask a question or two on this Vote. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Office of Works Vote said that the Phœnix Insurance Company had agreed to accept stock in the War Loan in lieu of cash for the amount of indemnity to which they were entitled under the contract of settlement for their premises. Does that mean for the whole £70,000 odd? My second question is: Have the contributions agreed upon as between the other two parties in the contract, the London County Council and the Westminster City Council, been paid; and, further, have proper arrangements been made to meet the inconvenience owing to prospective disturbance of the other insurance company, whose case was under investigation by the hon. Member who was at the Department at the time? I am with the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) in this, that I think spending a large sum of money, even on such a matter of decorative importance to London, would be inopportune; but, as the hon. Gentleman opposite said, obligations would be kept, and I should be glad if, to that extent, the hon. Gentleman would tell us whether the acceptance of War Loan Stock is for the whole £70,000 and whether the contributions have been paid into the common fund on the part of the other parties?

§ Mr. L. JONES
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £7,000.
The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote has accounted for one-third of the £70,000; there still remains a large amount of this Vote which, I gather, is not going to be spent. I do not see the smallest purpose in voting money which is not to be spent in the course of the financial 1073 year, and the reduction of the Vote by £7,000 will leave the Government a margin for small legal expenses.

§ Mr. C. E. PRICE
I desire to ask whether any arrangement has been entered into with the Phœnix Company on the ground that they will be enjoying the interest on the capital which is to be handed over to them and, at the same time, enjoying the benefit of the building they occupy? If they are going to get the £70,000 for this property and still remain in possession, shall we, in handing over our proportion of the capital, also derive some portion of the rent?

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I wish to ask whether the amount which we are asked to vote represents one-third of the cost, not only of purchasing the buildings referred to, but also the pulling down of the buildings and the completion of the Mall improvement? I understand the Vote is for one-third of the cost, not only of taking over the buildings, but of completing the Mall improvement. Whilst we do not wish to interpose any obstacle in the way of completing the agreement entered into, we do not want the buildings pulled down and the rest of the expense undertaken at this stage unless it is absolutely necessary.

§ Mr. BECK
The Treasury has nothing to do with this work, except to keep obligations which this House has entered into. The London County Council is actually responsible for the performance of the work. With regard to the other holders of offices in the neighbourhood, I am informed that the Phœnix Company was the only company which was committed to the new arrangement that it was possible to withdraw, and they would have been left in a most unfair position.

§ Sir W. ESSEX
Are we going to pay our contribution before we are assured that they will pay theirs? I know that one of these bodies is the acting instrument with the Phœnix Company, and I would like to know if we are anticipating their payment. What is the amount which the Phœnix Company will take up? Is it one-third or two-thirds?

§ Mr. BECK
I understand that they have agreed to take the whole amount in War Loan Stock. As regards the other matters, may I point out that we are only fulfilling a bargain, and the London County Council is carrying out the actual work? The Treasury would not part with this money 1074 before it is actually needed, and I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) not to press his Amendment. This is a bargain entered into by this House last year, and I do not think it is becoming in a time of difficulty like this to go back on such a bargain.

§ Mr. L. JONES
I only moved a reduction of this Vote because I understand that there is no intention of spending this money during the year. I know we have to fulfil our bargain, but if the hon. Gentleman can show me that this money is necessary for that purpose I will withdraw my Amendment. I understand, however, that he only wants one-third of £70,000, and in that case £25,000 is quite enough. As at present informed, I do not see my way to withdraw this Amendment.

§ Mr. W. ROCH
As I understand the explanation which has been given, we are going to vote £32,000. The explanation of the Vote is that one-third of £70,000 is a liability which has to be paid to the Phœnix Insurance Company, and that is just under £25,000. What does the other part consist of? Is the balance to be left for the Department to pay? I think we might know what is in the mind of the Department on this point. I certainly think that when the House of Commons for once is showing a little interest in the saving of expenditure it will hardly be inclined to hand over to a Department £7,000 to spend as it thinks fit. I think we must have some kind of explanation.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
May I ask for a reply to the point which I have raised? My own position is that I am willing to assent to any sum that is necessary to enable the agreement with the Phœnix Company to be carried out. But I want to know whether the balance is not intended to be applied to the demolition of these premises, and the completion of the Mall improvement?

§ Mr. BECK
I can assure hon. Members that not a single bit of unnecessary work will be performed, and I am assured that that is definitely so. I am not fully acquainted with this particular bargain, and the part which the £7,000 plays in it, but I am sure it is part of the bargain with the two great local authorities, and I again assure hon. Members that not a single unnecessary penny will be spent this year in this connection or until after the close of the War. I ask the House not to insist upon reducing this Vote.

§ Mr. C. E. PRICE
I think my question was a very simple one. If you are going to hand over this money to the Phœnix Insurance Company, surely it should be on condition that they give up something in return. At present they are enjoying the benefit of this building, and at the same time we are going to give them this money.

§ Mr. BECK
No.

§ Mr. PRICE
That is what this Vote is for. This company are still retaining possession of the building, and you are going to hand over this money before you get possession. I want to know, will the company pay back an equivalent in rent? And that is my simple question.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I think the various explanations leave the Committee in a complete state of mystification. We have been told that no money will be spent upon any unnecessary work, and that it is not the Office of Works that will be doing the work. We arc told that we have merely to carry out a bargain, and the way the work is done depends on the Westminster City Council and the London County Council. I think the Office of Works might have given us some further details in this Vote. In the past the Office of Works has not been in the habit of treating the House of Commons with great courtesy, and it has regarded us as a rather subservient House, and probably this is justified, in view of its former treatment of the House. I think we might have been told what the exact amount due from the Exchequer is under this bargain. We are told, in a note to the Vote, that— The works are to be carried out by the London County Council under the provisions of the Mall Approach (Improvement) Act, 1914. It is provided in the Act that the Commissioners of Works shall contribute one-third of the net cost of the work, or £38,333, whichever is the less; and that this contribution shall be defrayed partly out of moneys provided by Parliament, and partly out of other moneys at the disposal of the Commissioners. In addition to the expenditure out of this Grant the proceeds of the sale of securities available under the Metropolitan Improvements (Fund) Act, 1914, will be applied towards the post of the improvements. Surely it would only have been courteous to the Committee if the Office of Works had drawn up an account showing how this £32,000 was arrived at, and what is the complete sum. The hon. Gentleman has told us that it is something over £70,000. I think they might have given us a simple division sum showing what was available under the Metropolitan Improvements (Fund) Act which was to be deducted," dividing the balance by 1076 three, which I assume accounts for the total liability of the State. The hon. Member is not able to do this for us, although he has been brought down to reply to our criticism. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe has shown that the only amount really due is £23,000, and yet we are asked to vote £32,000, and no explanation is given to us as to what is to be done with the balance. I think the Committee should insist upon having a definite account as to what is going to be done with the balance before we part with this Vote. The hon. Member in charge of the Vote says that the Phœnix Company made arrangements to go into other premises, and on account of having made those arrangements this money has to be paid to them. If that is so, why do they not vacate the present building? I would like to know if on their vacation of the present building, the London County Council intend to demolish the building, or do the Office of Works intend to make representations to the London County Council that the building should not be demolished, but should be temporarily let to another tenant, so that there will be some revenue to the parties concerned in this bargain? That is a consideration which the Office should have in mind, and we should have an undertaking that we are not going to have this building waste-fully demolished and the revenue lost to the parties concerned. At a place like Trafalgar Square, obviously a building can be let for a very considerable rent at the present time. Even the Government might find this building very useful, because you are putting up temporary buildings, and this building might be occupied in order to save the expense of some temporary building.
These considerations seem to be absent from the mind of the Office of Works. We have a Cabinet Minister representing the Office of Works who has been relieved of the greater responsibilities of the Colonial Office, and seeing that we have only one day for all these Votes, I think the right hon. Gentleman might have spared some little of his extra leisure for the House of Commons. We remember that the first day we came back after the Whitsuntide Recess the Government besought us to pass a Bill to secure the re-election of Ministers without going to their constituencies, in order that they might be here in the House of Commons to answer our criticism—and we have never seen them since. They got the Bill and 1077 "pooled" their salaries, and then disappeared except at Question Time. Now we have a sort of omnibus Committee of Supply covering nearly every Department of the State, and the only Cabinet Minister who gives an answer is the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Of course he did better under the "pooling," and in the circumstances he is showing his gratitude by increased assiduity in this House. I think the First Commissioner of Works might have been here to explain. I remember in the days when the right hon. Gentleman was First Commissioner of Works before he used to be most efficient and give the elaborate explanations of all the Votes. I remember the first occasion on which I saw Committee of Supply in this House. His explanations were of the most complete character, and he satisfied all the most elaborate inquiries which arose, and even the inexhaustible curiosity of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). But now the right hon. Gentleman has vanished. I thought when the right hon. Gentleman had returned to his old office we should once more have clear explanations, but as he is not here I had almost intended to move to report Progress. I do not think the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck) has any connection with the Office of Works. He is merely the conduit pipe between those under the Gallery and the Committee. Surely that is not the proper way to treat the Committee of this House? Failing a more sufficient explanation how the £32,000 is arrived at, and how the balance over and above the money actually payable to the Phœnix Insurance Company under the contract is to be dealt with, and failing any statement that the building vacated by the Phœnix Insurance Company is to be put to some profitable and revenue-bearing use, I shall either vote for the reduction or move to report Progress.

§ Sir W. ESSEX
I hope my hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) will be good enough to allow me to ask him to withdraw the reduction. There was a block of three premises, one in the occupation of the London, Liverpool, and Globe Company, one in the occupation of the Phœnix Insurance Company, and one in the occupation of India-rubber merchants; and in order to make a decent entrance to the King Edward Triumphal Arch the opening was 1078 to be widened by the removal of part of this block. The question arose in Committee as to who should go out, and after long negotiations—there were a great many conflicts of opinion between the interests of the London, Liverpool, and Globe Company and those of the Phœnix Insurance Company—it was decided to buy these three premises with joint funds provided by these three contributory parties. After the improvement had been satisfactorily made by setting back a certain part of the buildings, the London, Liverpool, and Globe Company was to be rehoused, and their new building was to include a small fragment of their own old site and a considerable portion of the site of the Phœnix Insurance Company which was to be surrendered. Then, on the remainder, being the site of the India-rubber shop and warehouse and a portion of the old site of the Phœnix Insurance Company, the Phœnix Insurance Company itself was to be housed. There were three buildings which were to be remade into two, and a large slice was to be given to the road way. The litigation and expense with lawyers and surveyors and the rest of them must have been enormous in the whole of this inquiry, which occupied a large amount of time, and if you have got a definite assurance from the Treasury—and in these times the Treasury are to be trusted —that they will not spend a single penny more than is necessary, you are bound, these two big companies having acted in a high, public-spirited fashion, and having entered into a contract with them—

§ Mr. L. JONES
made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

§ Sir W. ESSEX
The contract was only as concerns the Phœnix Insurance Company. That is true to a point, but we are under obligations to the other company, and the whole has to be taken en bloc. Therefore I think my hon. Friend should, in the interests of the honour of this House, waive his objection and trust to the promise that he has obtained as a reward to his assiduity and acuteness from the Front Bench and let this Vote pass.

§ Sir GEORGE TOULMIN
The question is not whether the House of Commons is prepared to carry out a bargain, but whether it is going to pass a Vote having imperfect information upon it. I have very great sympathy with the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck), because he is obviously insufficiently 1079 informed. He was evidently under the impression that the House had got into the way of passing whatever was before it, and he had not got the information. I am not sure that we have not to blame the Scottish Members, who let the Secretary for Scotland off too easily and without sufficient heckling—

§ Mr. HOGGE
That is coming on.

§ Sir G. TOULMIN
And without sufficient heckling when one of his Votes was taken in the early part of the day. Consequently, the Chief Commissioner of Works, who is doubtless engaged on some other Cabinet Committee, has not had sufficient information that this Vote was on. Still, I do not think that has anything to do with the House of Commons at the present moment. This afternoon's occurrence ought to be an indication to the Departments that their Estimates must contain full information for the House. I must say I am very glad to notice that the House is getting into the humour for a very detailed examination of every Vote and every penny that comes before it. That will have to be the spirit in which it reviews these Estimates in the future. It is not sufficient for Ministers to come down here and say, "Oh, trust us; give us a large enough Vote, and we will see that we do not spend more than is necessary." We ought to know how every penny is going to be spent. Of course, all our undertakings will be carried out, but we are entitled to know the exact details on which this extra £7,000 or £8,000 is going to be spent, and unless that information is given, I for one am not prepared to vote this money this afternoon.

§ Sir GODFREY BARING
I think the whole of this discussion would be brought to an end if the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck) could assure the Committee that the whole of this £32,000 is required to carry out a bargain made by the Government. If that is so, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) will withdraw the reduction. There is at the present time some £7,000 or £8,000 which I can only describe as doubtful. We are not told for what purpose it is wanted, and until we are told I must support the reduction.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for 1080 Stafford (Sir W. Essex) on the fact that he is now in a position to answer for the Front Bench. There was a very Front Bench tone, both in the manner in which he spoke and in the method by which he made his announcement to the House. I desire to ask for a little further information, but I am not quite sure whether I should address my remarks to the hon. Member who sits on the Front Bench (Mr. Beck) or to my hon. Friend on the second Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "To the Chair."] Through the Chair, of course. I desire to ask for information in regard to the manner in which this £75,000 is to be paid to the Phœnix Insurance Company. We are told that they have agreed to take it in the form of War Loan, which is certainly a patriotic thing to do at the present time, but I am a little bit mystified as to how that is to be accomplished. I thought that the list of the Loan had been closed, and that the Loan was completed. In these circumstances, I should like to know how this War Loan is going to be issued to the Phœnix Insurance Company. The list of the Loan itself is completed, and the only part which is now open are the £5 bonds issued through the Post Office and the 5s. vouchers. Is it proposed that this £75,000 should be taken out in the form of £5 bonds and 5s. vouchers? If that is proposed it is a very bad bargain on the part of the Department. It would be far cheaper to take some of the money which they have already raised at 4½ per cent, and to pay them money, instead of issuing notes and bonds on which 5 per cent, would be payable. Or is it proposed that this £75,000 should be used to purchase War Loan in the market, and having purchased it in the market that it should then be issued to the Phœnix Insurance Company? If that is proposed, I do not see what is the advantage to the Department or to the National Exchequer We ought really to have some further explanation as to the meaning of the statement we have heard that this payment is to be issued to the Phœnix Insurance Company in the form of War Loan.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I think that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck) has been very unfairly treated by the Committee. This is a matter which was settled by the Act of last year. If anybody will take the trouble to turn to that Act I think he will see that a great injustice is being done to a new Member of the Government. It seems to me to be a decided matter, and this discussion, which undoubtedly would 1081 have been relevant to the Act of last year, is certainly not relevant to the present Vote. The Act consists only of thirteen Clauses, and it begins by setting out:
"Whereas with a view to enhancing the dignity of the approach to the Mall from Charing Cross and the East, it is expedient that the London County Council should be empowered to acquire the lands and execute the improvements by this Act authorised."
Then there are provisions giving power to the Council to take the lands incorporating the Lands Clauses Acts, giving power to the Council to make the improvements, giving protection to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and limiting the period for the completion of the improvements to five years, and then this Clause follows:
"The Commissioners of Works and the Westminster City Council shall each contribute towards the net cost incurred by the council in the execution of this Act a sum amounting to one-third of such cost, or thirty-eight thousand three hundred and thirty-three pounds, whichever is less.
The contribution of the Commissioners of Works under this Section shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament and out of other moneys at the disposal of the Commissioners in such proportions as the Commissioners, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine."
Apparently, in pursuance of the powers of this Act, the Commissioners of Works have made their bargain with the county council and with the Westminster body, and this Vote now merely implements that transaction, and we have no escape, as I understand it, from paying.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
There is more in the Vote than the amount necessary for that bargain.

§ Mr. HEALY
The figure in the Vote, as I understand it, is £32,000, whereas Parliament authorised the sum of £38,333.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
Or one-third, whichever is less.

§ Mr. HEALY
Quite so. It must be at all events perfectly plain that a sum has been agreed by the county council, and that we have to make our contribution in order to carry out that bargain. Therefore it seems to me that any discussion as to the position of the Phœnix Company or any other subsidiary matters hardly arises 1082 on the Vote, because all the hon. Member for Saffron Walden is doing is simply to-carry out a bargain which Parliament, sanctioned last year.

§ Mr. HOGGE
The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) has not quite grasped the point that some of us are trying to make. We may be wrong, but may I make it again for the benefit of him and the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck)? We are by this Vote-providing one-third of the amount. We are told that the whole amount is £70,000. A third of that is obviously £23,333 6s. 8d. That leaves a balance of £8,666 13s. 4d., which is not absorbed by the one-third1 which we are entitled to pay. We are concerned with the one-third, which is our legitimate debt, and to pay which we propose to vote the money. What we are asking the hon. Gentleman is: What does the Board of Works want with the extra £8,666 13s. 4d.? This House has had a very painful experience of leaving the Board of Works power to spend money. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) will remember we had a discussion here the other day as to who was responsible for spending between £4,000 and £5,000 on a tea-room downstairs, for which there is no use and for which a use has still to be found. The answer given by the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Works now was that this was done when he was not at the Department. But no information has ever been given to the House as to who was responsible for spending money on that tea-room. An hon. Member who was a member of the Kitchen Committee, in the course of that Debate, told the House of Commons that the Kitchen Committee asked for something entirely different, and did not want that tea-room.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is going rather abroad in his remarks.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I was only trying to illustrate my argument that it is not wise or safe to leave the Board of Works in possession of £8,666 13s. 4d., unless we know exactly what they are going to do with it. They spent money on a previous occasion without any explanation; but if the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, with that painful experience before him, in this rather wooden discussion will give an assurance that there is necessary work to. be done in pursuit of the bargain to which we are committed, the Committee will give 1083 him the money. If he cannot give us that information, if he cannot tell us that the money is required for necessary work at that particular corner, why should we vote it? That is the whole thing in a nutshell, and this Debate can be brought to a close quite easily if the hon. Gentleman who has now had time to consult his expert adviser under the Gallery, will say what work is necessary to be done. We can then approach the realm of law on the Votes in Class IV.

§ Mr. BECK
I am sorry I did not make myself clearer over this matter. I understand the position to be this. I explained to the Committee that, as regards the Phœnix Company, the money is actually due at this moment; and, in reference to the not very important point as to how the War Loan is to be arranged, in order that there may be no further mystery on that question I may say that the London County Council have subscribed for War Loan to the extent required and the Treasury will repay one-third of the amount so subscribed. As regards the main point, I do not know if anything further is necessary, after the remarks we have had from my hon. Friend behind me (Sir W. Essex), and from the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. T. M. Healy), but I may give this pledge as to the money beyond the amount immediately due to the Phœnix Company. It is believed by the parties that this money is necessary in order to fulfil the bargain Parliament made last year. There are negotiations going on with the London County Council with a view to cutting out every avoidable penny of expense, and I can give the Committee a most definite pledge that, while we feel it essential the money should be available in order to fulfil our bargain, yet any possible sum that can be saved will not be spent. That is a definite pledge, and I do not think hon. Members should press the Government further.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I only rose to reply to the hon. and learned Member for Cork, and to say that, so far as I, at any rate, am concerned, there is no desire to avoid our bargain. We want to carry it out; but we do not want to do more than we are obliged to do. The bargain is that a certain sum—the hon. Gentleman said £70,000, I think—was settled upon.

§ Mr. BECK
It is immediately due.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman could not tell us how the money in excess of our one-third share is to be spent. That is not a new experience. Very often hon. Gentlemen on that Bench are unable to give the Committee information asked for. But we have had a long discussion. We are indebted to the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division for having raised the question, but as the point involved is not very large I think now the Vote might be agreed to.

§ Mr. L. JONES
The amount involved may not be large, but the principle at stake is one of considerable importance. I do not know still whether or not the Government are going to spend this money, and I strongly object to voting in the Estimates money when the Government cannot tell us exactly for what purpose it is to be used. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden has given an absolute guarantee that the money will not be spent except so far as our commitments go at the present time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Mr. PRICE
May I have answer to my question as to whether the Government or the Treasury is going to derive some benefit from the occupancy of the premises for which they are advancing this money. Are we to retain possession of the money until the buildings are pulled down, or will rent be derived from the premises for their temporary occupation?

§ Mr. BECK
The Treasury have already written to the London County Council saying it will demand one-third of any revenue that may be derived from these premises.