§ 7. Colonel H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the First Commissioner of Works 886 if he will explain why his Department, in carrying into effect the repairs to the houses affected by the explosion in the East of London, has renewed floors over foundations of wet mud instead of concrete; and, seeing that this action on the part of his Department is calculated not only to endanger the health of the inhabitants but to involve a waste of public money, will he say what action he now proposes to take?
§ The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond)The object of the work undertaken by my Department on behalf of the Ministry of Munitions was the most rapid possible reinstatement of the damaged property, and that object was undoubtedly achieved. I made inquiries as to the possibility of compelling owners to contribute to the expense of effecting certain desirable alterations to their property, but the powers were limited and it was not the duty of my Department to reconstruct or alter the character of private property at the public expense; concrete underfloors were therefore not put in in those houses where they did not exist before. As regards the last part of the question, I deny the assumption that any action on the part of my Department has endangered the health of the occupants of tine houses or has involved any waste of public money. I have personally visited the property on several occasions, and to my knowledge this property hag been very materially improved in many respects.
§ Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKIn consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer I shall draw attention to this matter on the Adjournment of the House.
§ Mr. W. THORNEDid the borough surveyor of West Ham have this matter under supervision or not?
§ Sir A. MONDThe local authorities were fully cognisant of what was being done all through.