§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £57,050, 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, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."— [NOTE: £44,000 has been voted on account.]
§ Captain CARR-GOMMI should like to ask my right hon. Friend if he can make any statement with regard to Royal Parks, especially St. James's Park, or rather what was formerly St. James's Park. There have recently been put up, in addition to temporary buildings, structures of rather a permanent character in that open space, and can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether these buildings of a permanent character have been erected owing to the fact that he is unable to obtain the necessary material for putting up temporary buildings? It seems to me that even during the War those who have an interest in these open spaces should seek to draw from the Minister some statement as to the future. We are to hear nothing about the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's Department until after the War, but I think the Committee would like to know in regard to the Royal Parks whether there is to be any limit to this covering of open spaces with buildings. Is there any intention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to increase 581 the covering of St. James's Park, or any other open spaces? St. James's Park has almost wholly lost its former pleasant character, and we would like to know whether other spaces and parks are to be utilised for temporary buildings in a similar way? I do not know whether the Minister will say anything about his agricultural undertaking in Richmond Park. I would, however, only remark that if potatoes obtain as serious a growth as public buildings have done under his sway, the crop will be an undoubted success.
§ Mr. WATTI desire to draw attention to the subject of the Royal Parks and to the right hon. Gentleman's experiment in the way of breaking up grassland in Richmond Park to grow cereals. He broke up the grassland there and planted oats. I believe that the experiment was very unsatisfactory, and that a considerable amount of money was lost, notwithstanding the fact that the seed was presented to the nation by a generous donor. We must take it that if the seed had been purchased in the ordinary way the loss on this transaction would have been much greater. I want to know whether it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to pursue this policy, and whether he intends to break up further grassland in our open spaces and parks, notwithstanding the extensive loss to the country which has already occurred. I do not know whether his experiences in agriculture has led him to abandon these experiments, and that he will no longer cut up grassland in the parks, but, if he proposes to continue the policy, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to-day to explain how it is that agriculturists are supposed to be making money and that there is a loss in his Department? I think it is an indication that Government Departments cannot enter upon these undertakings and make them commercially successful, and we get an example of the unwisdom of Government Departments trading on their own account and losing money.
§ Sir GODFREY BARINGI beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
4.0 P.M.
I am glad attention has been called to the really deplorable use which has been made of St. James's Park and other parks, which are necessary to the health and enjoyment of the people during the summer months. It is to be regretted that 582 a place like St. James's Park should be disfigured with such buildings as have been erected there. I cannot believe that in this huge Metropolis there were not other spaces more suited to buildings of this hideous character than is St. James's Park, one of the most beautiful in the country. It is most desirable, from the public health point of view, that public parks should be kept as free and open as possible during the hot weather. I should like the Board of Works to be more vigilant custodians of all the open spaces in London than they have been during the War. I believe that if the Department had looked about them more than they did, they could have found many spaces where public offices could have been put up without prejudice to the people's enjoyment of their open spaces and parks. I think it is time this House marked its dissatisfaction with the present policy being pursued.
§ Sir J. BOYTONI desire to emphasise what hon. Members have said about St. James's Park, but however well laid their complaint may be with regard to St. James's Park, I think the conditions there are quite outdone by what has been done in Regent's Park. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, or the War Department, but we have had large offices, a post office and an ordnance office, and also a large factory, put up there. I will not describe, for obvious reasons, what kind of factory, but we have two factory shafts set up, and many acres of park land has been given up to buildings of a substantial kind. I have been approached by many of my Constituents to know whether there is going to be any limit. We do not want to quarrel unduly as to the reasons which may have compelled the Government's Departments to use these parks, but we think some limit should be put upon them. We have not many acres for the public use, but one particular green, which I should think is 10 or 12 acres in extent, has been permanently shut off. There has been a huge post office set up, and the whole of the inner circle is a stable for motor lorries. The amenities of the park have been entirely destroyed. That is not the only complaint from my Constituents. There is the peril they feel themselves in from the fact that particular enemy attention may be paid to-the class of buildings that has been set up. 583 Considerable alarm is displayed, and while of course we have to put up with discomforts and inconvenience, we should like to feel that other parks were having their turn. Why is Hyde Park so sacred? You wreck Regent's Park and St. James's Park, but except for a few trenches over by Kensington Gardens, you have done nothing in Hyde Park. Give Hyde Park a turn, and take your attention from some of the other places. If you are serving some of us badly, try to serve everybody alike. Do not regard that immediate neighbourhood as a holy of holies, never to be touched or entrenched upon. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say that we shall not have our pleasures and delights in Regent's Park and other parks move encroached upon. I do not hear that much has been done in any of the parks south of the Thames. For goodness sake give some other people a turn, and do not visit all the sins upon one particular park and upon my Constituents.
§ Sir A. MONDNo one could sympathise more heartily than I do with the complaints made in regard to the condition of the parks. I assure the hon. Member for East Marylebone that I am not responsible for the buildings going up in Regent's Park, but I am quite sure those buildings are of vital importance to the conduct of the War. The hon. Member says, "Why do you not use Hyde Park? "I should have thought he would be grateful that one park had been spared, but as a matter of fact Hyde Park is practically reserved for military purposes, and the military authorities object to any part of Hyde Park being used either for building or cultivation. There has been a question recently about allotments in Hyde Park for a certain number of enthusiasts who wanted to dig and delve and produce food there, but the military authorities most sternly opposed, for military reasons, the details of which it would not be proper for me to disclose. With regard to St. James's Park, I can assure hon. Gentlemen that nobody suffers more than I do from the condition of St. James's Park. As chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Accommodation, I had to spoil the view from my own window in order to put up a building urgently required for the Admiralty Headquarters Staff, and I can assure hon. Members that that was not done without 584 the utmost reluctance. What speakers do not seem to realise is the importance of proximity to some of the important Government Departments. The reason why buildings are put up in St. James's Park is because the offices there are in close touch with the Government offices in Whitehall. There is a building at Storey's Gate for the Headquarters Staff of the Admiralty, and the Admiralty claim, with a good deal of force, that it is vitally important that this staff should be close to headquarters. Then there is the Shipping Controller. One of the buildings is an annex to his office, and he is connected intimately with the Inter-Allied Maritime Council. On the other hand, there is the War Trade Intelligence Department, which is closely linked to the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Rotherhithe, so far as I can give any undertaking, certainly my Department will at the earliest possible opportunity remove these buildings and restore the park to the beautiful condition in which it was before the War. I know the buildings recently put up give the impression of being put up to last for ever, but that is not the case. As I have explained before, the only reason why the places have gone up with the material that has been used is absolutely the shortage of timber. It was impossible to put up the buildings with any other materials than those used.
§ Captain CARR-GOMMCan you give an undertaking that there will be no more such buildings erected in the park?
§ Sir A. MONDI do not think it is quite fair to press me to give an undertaking of that character. Accommodation is not a subject for the Office of Works but for the Cabinet Committee, and, therefore, I do not think it fair to ask me to give an undertaking. I will say this, however, that at the present moment I do not know of any projected further buildings—it is certainly most undesirable that any further part of the park should be occupied with buildings—unless possibly it may become necessary to extend some of the buildings, say on the bed of the lake in St. James's Park, which does not interfere with any part open to the public or where children play. I sympathise most earnestly about these encroachments being made upon open spaces, but hon. Members know as well as I do that owing to the demands of the War and the difficulties of 585 providing accommodation we have to take what we are very reluctant to take. With that assurance I hope the hon. Member for Barnstaple will not press his Amendment. One word in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow. He referred to the cultivation which was carried on at my instigation in Bushey and Richmond Parks last year, and he pointed out, as I have stated in my return, that there was a loss at Richmond, although he quite forgot to state that there was a profit at Bushey.
§ Sir A. MONDThere was a net profit of £105. That is not a bad profit. It must be remembered that there was a good deal of land ploughed up last year which did not give any better results. But I did not take up these operations to make money but to provide food, and I would remind hon. Members that any food produced in this country and any tonnage saved is of value during the present time. It reminds me of a story I heard many years ago of an unsuspecting southerner who met a drover in Scotland, driving his beasts to the local market. He asked the price which would be obtained, and then informed the drover that he could get three times the price at Smithfield. The drover looked at him very scornfully, and replied, "And if you had Loch Lomond in Hell it would be worth a guinea a drop."
§ Sir A. MONDYes; but it is very apposite. The hon. Member asked what are we doing this year. When this scheme was first commenced, obviously, I had in my mind at the time the question of how long the food shortage was likely to last. I came to the conclusion that it would last, at any rate, several years. That was one of the reasons that induced me to undertake these operations. Obviously, ploughing up relatively poor land and planting late in the year is a rather dangerous agricultural operation, but it was largely a preparation for future seasons; and having prepared the land last year, I am proceeding now with the operations for this year. I am cultivating in Richmond Park the same acreage, 79 acres. There are 21 acres sown with wheat last October. That is coming up very well. Thirty-three and a half acres will be under oats, 10½ acres under beans, and 9½acres of potatoes. In Bushey Park 27 acres were sown with wheat, 30 acres with oats, 7 acres with beans, and 5 acres of potatoes. 586 Reasonable crop conditions did not exist last year; last year was notorious, and if you take the returns of oats last year, not only on new land but on all lands, it was exceedingly bad. With reasonable crop conditions I see no reason why the results this year should not turn out as good as those under any other agricultural operations.
§ Sir A. MONDCertainly. It is a continuous policy, which was embarked on when there was a food shortage. I think the hon. Member, in endeavouring to make a point, made a very unmerited reflection. The "people carrying out this work are practical agriculturists—people used to farming—and the work is being done in a very workmanlike way. I certainly think we have every reason to hope that we shall recoup some of the loss incurred last year, and certainly add to the food supply of the country.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI am sure the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is very satisfactory on the whole. Even if the interference with the amenity of our parks goes much further than it has, I do not think we shall raise the slightest objection. But I wish to take special note of what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the restoration to their former state when the time comes. I say this purposely, because the right hon. Gentleman must remember that the record of his own Department in this respect is not entirely without a stain. Parks are made for the cultivation of grass and trees, and not for buildings, however much may pieces of masonry suit the taste of his Department. Under the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the parks suffered rather severely from the erection of rather depressing masonry. I remember about seven years ago, when the new public buildings were being erected in St. James's Park, and there was a considerable slice of the park surrounded by a hoarding, I put a question to the late First Commissioner of Works, now Lord Harcourt, asking him to give a pledge that the trees in that slice of the park would be preserved and the amenity of the park not disturbed. Mr. Harcourt, as he was at that time, gave me a very definite pledge that the trees would be preserved. That went on until the building was nearly completed, when one week 587 the whole of these trees disappeared, I asked for an explanation from Mr. Harcourt, and he said the plans of the architect had involved some different arrangement. In place of those trees there has been now substituted one of the things which I, myself, consider the most hideous eyesores in the whole park a piece of grass surrounded by obtrusive, clumsy, balustrades of stone, the most artificial, ugly thing that could be done in a park, and in the place of two broad and very convenient roads leading in two directions with a line of greenery, there has been substituted a hideous avenue, three times too wide for any traffic that ever passes, and inconvenient in the way it emerges upon the street at Storey's Gate. Let the right hon. Gentleman carry out his pledge to us that the parks will be restored at the right time, when the emergency is past, to their pristine simplicity and rusticity, and not be restored on some new-fangled plan according to modern ideas, which seem to me to be as nearly as possible a mixture of Selfridge's shop with the latest monstrosity of a Berlin avenue.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI share the view which has just been expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities in regard to the parks. I think the Government are entitled in a time like the present to make certain use of the public parks for emergency buildings. It may be that the multiplicity of Departments has caused the growth of a larger number of buildings than were absolutely necessary, but that, I suppose, is a matter for which the right hon. Gentleman is not quite responsible. The main consideration, I think, is that advanced by my right hon. Friend, namely, that immediately the War is over and these Departments are consigned to oblivion, which all loyal subjects heartily desire, the parks will be restored to their old condition of simplicity and rusticity, as my right hon. Friend has so happily phrased it. I think it is hardly for London people to complain of this. These parks are supplied to London by the whole country. London is the only city in the, country which has parks such as St. James's Park, Hyde Park and Regent's Park, supplied and maintained out of public funds, and I am quite sure that many provincial cities which bear expenditure on account of public parks 588 out of the rates would have been quite pleased to allow their parks to be used for public purposes in an emergency like the present, and the experience of some of these cities has proved that when such parks have been used for emergency purposes it has been quite possible to restore them to their old condition. Therefore, I think, the main consideration is that at the earliest possible moment, we should have these parks restored.
I would like to recall attention to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt), and that is the vagaries of the Office of Works in the matter of land cultivation. My right hon. Friend seemed to me to be rather misled by the analogy of the Scottish story that certain water would be very valuable in a certain place. If his analogy had been perfect, his scheme of land cultivation ought to have been a tremendous success. If the necessity of food in this country was comparable to the scarcity of water in Seoul, then, instead of having £105 profit out of Bushey Park, we should have ten times or a thousand times that amount, and I thank that, in view of the prices last year for cereals, and for other agricultural products, it is rather a remarkable thing that that Department should get such a scanty return, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman cultivated land which he got for nothing with seed he got for nothing. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to recount his agricultural exploits next year, will be able to show a more satisfactory balance-sheet.
There is a different point to which I wish to call my right hon. Friend's attention, and it is a matter which recurs in several places. I notice on page 12 of the Estimates one of the numerous footnotes says:
A certain number, averaging about 110, of the park-keepers and labourers employed in the Royal parks are in receipt of pensions from Army or Navy Votes or police Funds, ranging from £6 to £52 per annum. The visual pay of park-keepers in London is 26s., and in the country 25s. a week.That is not a very large payment in these days, but this point as to the receipt of pensions is constantly referred to in these footnotes. Why should this be mentioned in the footnote? Is it by way of excuse for the wages that are paid? If this is to explain the meagre remuneration given to Government servants, surely it is a matter against which we in this Committee should protest The Government, I understood, 589 were to take up the position of a model employer, and to hold themselves up as an example to all private employers all over the country. I think, if there is one thing which has aroused indignation in the country, it has been the endeavour on the part of private employers to exploit the labour of pensioned men by obtaining them at lower wages because of the pensions they were receiving in return for services rendered to the country. This footnote, if it means anything, simply indicates that this is the policy which the Government is itself pursuing. How can we preach to private employers if the Government are doing exactly the same thing? If it is the case that the footnote is inserted as an explanation of the small wages., then obviously the Government are taking the pension into account for the purpose of reducing the wages of the men in their employ. They are ceasing, therefore, to be model employers. They are holding up a bad and an unpatriotic example to private employers, and I am asking this question now so that the right hon. Gentleman may clear the character of the Government in this matter, for if he is not able to clear the character of the Government he ought at once to put an end to this practice, so that the Government may be able to restore the old example of being a model employer.
§ Mr. HOGGEI am glad my hon. Friend who has just sat down has raised this question, because, curiously enough, I have got it marked myself in the Estimate we are considering. After all, this is an occasion when nobody cares to attend the House of Commons, except those who are interested in spending the money of the nation efficiently. As we are not many present, and there is a great deal of time in which to do it, we can look at these things rather more closely than we otherwise would. I notice two members of the Labour party—one in the House and two outside the House — who may be interested in this question, because we hear a good deal from the Labour party about the remuneration of labour. If hon. Members will look at page 12, they will find, under the heading of "Park-keepers and Gatekeepers," we are spending £8,654, and that the wages vary from 20s. to 32s. a week—that is to say, there is some park-keeper or some gate-keeper who is receiving a wage from the Government of 20s. a week. On present prices that is 590 probably not above 10s. a week. If you look at the footnote to which my hon., Friend has just referred, you will. notice, that it says that these men arc in receipt of pensions ranging from £6 to £52 per annum—that is, ranging from an extra 2s. a week to an extra £l per week. So that plainly the remuneration of labour in this case depends, to an extent, in the maximum, of 50 per cent. on the pension of the man, and as my hon. and learned Friend has just pointed put, one thing which the Government is contending for, and certainly which Members of this House are contending for, is that no man's pension shall be exploited. In fact, we have the Ministry of Reconstruction, one of whose main objects, amongst other aims, is to prevent this. The Minister of Reconstruction has definitely given a Government pledge—I do not know when he spoke whether he was pledging the whole of the Government or any considerable part of it—but he definitely said that the Government would take steps to prevent the exploitation of a man's pension in the engagement and remuneration of his labour. Now, here we find my right hon. Friend, who before he joined this Government was a keen Radical, interested in labour questions, representing a large labour constituency in Wales—perhaps, after all, the most important labour constituency in Wales.
§ Mr. HOGGEI think so—the industrial capital of Wales. I should like my right hon. Friend to appreciate the situation. I should like to see him going down to Swansea, and explaining on a public plat form, as one of the large employers of labour under this Government, this progressive Government, this "Do-it-Now" Government, that, as a large employer of labour, he is exploiting these men's labour by taking advantage of their pensions to engage them at 20s. a week.
§ Mr. HOGGENo, it is only in Scotland they get 25s. a week. If my right hon. Friend will look at the Edinburgh Section dealing with the Royal Botanic Garden and the Arboretum he will find that the park keepers get 25s., or 5s. more than those in England, and living is not so expensive in Scotland—so I am told—as it is south of the Tweed. Those representing English constituencies will really, I think, 591 have to endeavour to secure the extra 5s. for the men who serve, and I hope serve well, south of the Tweed. If hon. Members will do themselves the justice of examining these figures with assiduity they will find that a female typist, unmarried, gets from 20s. to 26s. per week— that is to say, Is. more than she gets in Government offices in London when, under present conditions, she begins work. It is monstrous, surely, that a Minister like the First Commissioner of Works, who himself is a large employer of labour, who has done so much to ameliorate the conditions of labouring people, and who has done so much to bring capital into friendly relation to labour, should be forced into the position of defending such an extraordinary set of accounts as are printed on page 12. How, for instance, can he defend the payment of 26s. per week to a female typist who is unmarried, or who, if she is married, is probably drawing separation allowance in respect to her husband who is fighting at the front, while a park-keeper, a married man with children, whom he could never otherwise get but by compelling the men, who cannot resist the stress of economic circum-stances, to take a smaller wage because they are in receipt of a pension, gets what I have stated? Unless my right hon. Friend can give us some satisfactory explanation, we shall have to take some drastic steps in connection with this Vote before we can allow it to pass from this Souse. This is just one of those occasions when we are not troubled with the large political questions which have swept through the House during the last week, and when we can address our minds to questions which do matter—the questions of bread and butter of the people who work.
I should now like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to a matter in which I am more personally interested as a representative of one of the divisions of Edinburgh. Page 10 of the Estimates deals with Holyrood Bark. I notice that under col. D the park is still having spent upon it £750 for police and park-keepers, and £l,200 for maintenance and repairs—which are the two considerable items. But Holyrood Park is largely closed. The park has been in possession of the military for a couple of years, and anyhow, so far as I recollect, the public are not given access to that park at all except under very limited conditions. I 592 raised the point during the year with my right hon. Friend as to the question of the access to this park, which is one of the great open spaces in Edinburgh, and which is surrounded by some of the moat densely populated parts of Edinburgh. My right hon. Friend promised, and so so far as I understand, kept his promise, that he would make arrangements, in spite of the military restrictions that were placed upon Holyrood Park, that those people who live in the adjacent areas should have access to the park, and that they would at least open two gates from the neighbourhood of Dumbiedykes into Holyrood Park. I should like to be assured that these have been opened, and kept opened; and I should like to know whether what has been done has met the case I put to him, whether that access to the park has been maintained and is to be maintained, and whether he can tell us how soon the park can be restored to its general condition for the use of the public; whether, also, in view of the fact that it is largely under the control of the military, this charge is being put upon, or ought to be put upon, the Office of Works or transferred to the military?
§ Mr. LEIF JONESIt is hardly for me to explain the action of the First Commissioner of Works on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, and the remainder of his party—
§ Mr. PRINGLENo!
§ Mr. JONESWell, those with whom he is associated—in regard to the mention of pensions as a footnote. It is due, I think, to the very simple cause that every extra payment made from Government sources to anyone employed in any particular Department must be made in a footnote. I hope, and believe, with my hon. Friend, that the fact that you are at present using pensioned men does not mean that you are taking advantage of their pensions to employ them at a lower rate of wages. I think we are perfectly agreed upon that point. I hope, too, that my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, when he answers, will be quite explicit on that point. Nothing could be more unfair at the present time than to take advantage of people pensioned and retired who come forward to do public work to cut down the scale of the wages given to them because they happen to be men who have earned their pensions. I rise, however, to ask my right hon. Friend: 593 a question with relation to page 11. I refer to two items under the head, "J. Appropriations-in-Aid." Is the Department going to receive a larger sum on account of rent? Last night we had introduced into the House a Bill to present the raising of rents. That Bill was given a Second Reading. I want to know from my right hon. Friend on what grounds he estimates that his Department is to receive from rents, including free bond rents and way leaves, £1,720 in the coming year instead of £l,500, and for grazing rents £900 instead of £700? May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is taking advantage of the public necessities to raise rents?
§ Mr. PRINGLEI seem to be correct that they are explointers!
§ Mr. JONESI want some explanation of these figures. I should like to have the thing in detail. Are these first the rents of houses which are gradually rising? To what is the increase due? The other item is as to grazing rents that are let year after year. I suppose the farmers are putting sheep into the parks? Is this by tender, or what? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will explain what I desire to know when he rises in view of the admonition addressed last nights to the landlords in various quarters of the House. I do trust that a Government Department has not been guilty of the offence of raising rents at a time of national distress.
§ Mr. BOOTHI wish to ask with regard to Health Insurance, for I cannot reconcile with what appears on page 4 of the Estimates with what appears on page 10, I notice that the figures on page 10, Health Insurance (Employers' Contributions) are distributed this way: Salaries and wages, £15; police and park keepers, £30; maintenance and repairs, £380. What is the necessity for that in this Vote? On page 4 we get Health Insurance (Employers' Contributions), allocated as follows: Salaries, wages, and allowances, £40; police, £10; maintenance and repairs, £10. Does it mean that £380 is being spent of buildings in which that Department is housed? I reserve anything I have to say until I know something more about these unintelligible items.
§ Sir A. MONDThe hon. Gentleman is usually very shrewd. As to the items, the £15 comes out of salaries and wages, and £30 out of the salaries to the police and 594 park keepers. The £380 relates to the salaries of people employed in maintenance and repairs.
§ Mr. BOOTHI am afraid I did not make myself quite clear. What is the meaning of the items coming in here? Have they anything to do with buildings?
§ Sir A. MONDIt has not to do with buildings. It is part of expenses and wages. It relates to employers' contributions, and is under the various sub-heads.
Sir A. MONOWith regard to the question raised by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Jones), I must say that I feel sad that such a champion of the economic direction of public funds desires to get more money out of the public purse.
§ Mr. JONESI hope my right hon. Friend will not misunderstand me. I am not going against the Governments' policy last night, neither do I sympathise with the remarks addressed to the landlords. The contrast I am trying to put is between the admonition addressed by the Government to the landlords, and the Government's own action.
§ Sir A. MONDWith regard to the increase on rents for grazing lands, these lands are let out mostly by tender, and the tenders are on different bases. No doubt some of the tenders have been higher in the past year than formerly. But in addition to that the amount of land let has varied, because the amount available for grazing has increased. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) and East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) they involve a much more important point. I entirely agree it would be a wrong thing on the part of the Department to take advantage of a man's pension in order to get cheaper labour. I am very sorry the hon. Members did not think it worth while to give me notice that they intended to raise this question, but I would point out that the figures with which the hon. Members made such great play do not tell the whole story. They do not, for instance, include the war bonus, and these men are all receiving a substantial war bonus. Again they do not take into account the fact that the men get their lodgings. I do not want the 595 impression to go out that the Government employ any people at a very low and bad rate of wages. They do not do so. The hon. Member drew a comparison between Edinburgh and London, but he forgets the difference in the cost of living at these places. Consequently, the case he makes out must be accepted with qualifications. Still, on the main principle I am in agreement with him, and I shall certainly use my influence to ensure that no men who are in receipt of pensions or may hereafter receive pensions shall suffer in any way by having that pension considered in fixing the remuneration for their employment.
§ Mr. WATTI want to refer for a moment to the raising of rents this year. The Committee must be aware that a grievance exists throughout the country at the raising of rents. The Government are exerting great pressure on owners and tenants of land to break up grass lands, and they say it is their duty as patriotic agriculturists to do that. As a matter of fact those who refuse to break up their grass lands, are now getting an exorbitant rent for grazing lands, and I am bound to say that large landowners throughout the country are guilty of this conduct. It is an extraordinary thing for the Government to set a bad example in this respect, and to be demanding much higher rates for grazing lands while it is bringing pressure to bear on agriculturists throughout the country to do away with grazing land. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department should be guilty of this inconsistency. I repeat that large landowners who refuse to obey the call of the Government to grow food for the people by breaking up their grass land are deriving great financial benefit by reason of their exorbitant charges for grazing, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman's Department should be guilty of similar conduct.
§ Mr. BOOTHI am sorry to again press my point. The real question which I wish to raise is as to this item of £15. I can quite understand that the Government as an employer is contributing its proportion of insurance payments. What I want to know is, What is this £15 paid for exactly?
§ Sir A. MONDIt is the Government contribution on behalf of its employés.
§ Mr. BOOTHMy real point is, Is any part of this payment due to the fact that the 596 Government do not pay a sufficient wage to their employés? It is well known that where the wages fall below a certain point the employer's contribution increases, and I want to know if it is within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that in this case the employer's contribution has increased because the wages are below the standard.
§ Sir A. MONDI do not see how the wages could be below the standard.
§ Mr. BOOTHI mean the standard of the Insurance Act.
§ Sir A. MONDI am pretty certain that that is not the explanation, but I cannot, of course, give a definite answer.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.