MINISTRY OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE AND INSURANCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I think this is also a Vote which requires some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. The first sub-head A deals with new works, alterations, and purchases. In the note at the foot we are told that III. relates to urgent and unforeseen works, that in England and Wales £18,000 has been spent, and that in Scotland £2,000 has been spent. I am not going to enter into any question as to the relative amounts spent in the two countries, but one naturally desires to know why it should have been necessary to estimate for £20,000 in respect of urgent and unforeseen works since March of last year. Everybody knew that the new Ministry of Labour had been established before the Estimates for the year were drawn up. It was known also that the Ministry of Labour had charge of the Employment Exchanges, which were formerly called Labour Exchanges, and that as the Ministry of Labour had little other work they would naturally endeavour to glorify themselves by making the Employment Exchanges as considerable a feature as possible. With this knowledge before them, it is extremely remarkable that it should have been necessary to put forward a Supplementary Estimate of £20,000 for "Urgent and Unforeseen Works." I notice also that there is an Estimate of £4,000 for furniture, which I expect naturally arises from the urgent and unforeseen works, because as they have put up urgent and unforeseen buildings, therefore there has been an urgent and unforeseen demand for furniture, carpets, and so on for those buildings.
The increased provision is said to be caused by the extension and improvement of Employment Exchanges. I should like to know whether there has been any change of policy in connection with these Employment Exchanges since the original Estimates were prepared? I understood that the whole policy in regard to those Exchanges was announced a considerable time before the Estimates were prepared Consequently, the Department and the Treasury should have been in a position to estimate exactly the expenditure which would be incurred. There is a further Estimate here for National Health Insurance buildings. I am somewhat surprised to find that there should have been any alterations, additions, and purchases for national health insurance purposes. As 523 I understand the matter, the tendency has been rather to restrict the staffs engaged on national health insurance during the War. I know, for example, that there has been rather a concentration than an expansion in regard to this matter. I have no doubt that the Comptroller of the Household will be able to confirm that, and he will no doubt have some explanation why there have been demands for £5,000 in England and Wales for urgent and unforeseen works and in respect of alterations, additions, and purchases. I understand that the National Health Insurance Commissioners have surrendered part of their central offices for the purposes of another Government Department, which will be discussed at a later period this afternoon, namely, the Department of Propaganda in Enemy and Neutral Countries, and that a gentleman we used to know very well in this House a long time ago, and who unfortunately has never returned—Mr. Charles Masterman—has a comfortable office there. It is remarkable that after the National Health Insurance Commissioners have surrendered a large part of the sumptuous hotel—I think it was the first hotel obtained for Government buildings—to Mr. Masterman, they should now be asking us to vote a Supplementary Estimate of £5,000 for urgent and unforeseen works in connection with national insurance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a clear and more convincing explanation of these items than he was able to do on a previous Vote.

Mr. PRICE
I find on examining these figures that the original Estimate for rents, etc., was £68,000 which is now increased to £72,000. I believe the original Estimate was £19,000. The present figure, therefore, shows an enormous jump from the original Estimate. Usually we find that the original Estimate is a big one and that the Supplementary Estimate is a small one, but in this ease the Supplementary Estimate is considerably more than double the original Estimate. I hope that the Minister in charge will give an explanation of how it comes about that there is such an enormous increase in the revised Estimate as compared with the original Estimate.

§ Major NEWMAN
I should like to know whether part of this Vote ought not to be debited to the Ministry of National Service. I understand that the Ministry 524 of National Service has now practically taken over the Employment Exchange buildings, therefore the Vote ought to go to him altogether and not in part and ought not to be put down to the Ministry of Labour. I should like to know whether or not that is the case?

§ Sir A. MOND
I do not think the hon. Member is correct in his statement. At any rate, it is no concern of my Department. With regard to the question of the large increase in the Supplementary Vote, it really arises from a question of policy and from the urgent demands made by the Ministry of Labour both for improvements in and increased Labour Exchanges for the purposes of demobilisation. The matter was the subject of conferences between myself, the Ministry of Labour, and the Treasury on more than one occasion, and it was only settled after the Estimates for the last financial year had been presented. Therefore, it had to come in the form of a Supplementary Estimate, and naturally there was a very large Supplementary Estimate. The programme is a very large one. it is still proceeding and will take considerable time to complete. There is one item worded in a manner which produces an impression which is not quite justified. That is the item of "unforeseen works." The phrase "unforeseen works" is not really correct. What is meant is that there is a number of works which you see you are going to do, but of which it is practically impossible to give a detailed estimate. The work in connection with the Labour Exchanges largely consists in adapting all kinds of shops and small premises in a large number of towns into offices, and repainting and work of that kind. It is work of a detailed character spread over a large area and is very difficult to estimate. The urgency demanded is very difficult to work out in detail. There are a good many items which really ought not to appear under the term "unforeseen works," and I will endeavour next year, if I am still in office and responsible for the Estimates, to see if some better phraseology cannot be invented for this purpose. The amount of work is very large. New premises, extensions, and outhouses in England and Wales are 119, in Scotland 15; alterations in England and Wales 34, Scotland 4; minor alterations in England and Wales 45, Scotland 9. There are 170 cases where board room is required. There is a very large extension of the programme. I have a list of the new premises, extensions, and 525 outhouses, and the- money to be voted for them, but I do not think the Committee would thank me for going through the whole list. I may tell the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) that. part of the new expenditure is due to a very large new Labour Exchange in Partick.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
There is no need for it there. Nobody is unemployed there.

§ Sir A. MOND
I understand that the programme is largely due to demobilisation after the War, and the possibility of unemployment. So far as I am concerned, the question of policy is not one for me, but for the Ministry of Labour and the Treasury. It is in no way the fault of my Department that we have had to introduce this large Supplementary Vote. As to Insurance (National Health) buildings, part of the Supplementary Vote is due to the rehousing of a part of the national health insurance staff, which was temporarily housed. When my attention was drawn to the conditions under which the staff were working I had the matter investigated, and I came to the conclusion that it was really quite impossible to ask people to work under those conditions, which were bad to a degree, and which really ought to have been attended to at a much earlier date. Girls were working in buildings which were cold, with the water leaking through the roof, and generally in a very unsatisfactory state. Being a temporary arrangement, the place has not got better as time has gone on. We have rehoused a large part of the staff in better buildings. Another point which arises, also in connection with health insurance in respect of the Army and Navy, is that we have had to commandeer premises for Army and Navy health insurance.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
Does that come under "works "?

§ Sir A. MOND
Yes; "new works, alterations, additions, and purchases." There are no works in the sense of actually building. I think I have dealt with all the points raised.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
The explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given proves that there has been a change in policy. I have been looking at the original Estimate, and I find that on the Estimate as originally presented the right 526 hon. Gentleman was able to get great credit as an economist. For instance, on the first item, namely, new works, alterations, additions and purchases, he was able to compare the estimated expenditure of £13,200 for 1917–18 with an actual expenditure of £104,585 for 1916–17, and he was thus able to come before the House in the guise of an economist to the extent of £91,385. That was extremely satisfactory. But now we find that by underestimating he is an economist to the extent of £71,000 only. The explanation which he has given can only show that the credit for the low estimate in the original Estimate was obtained by underestimating what the Department was intending to do, because if it is impossible to believe that all this change has been due to a revision of policy. The Ministry for whom these buildings were intended was in existence at the time the original Estimates were prepared, and it must at that time have pretty well known its policy. He was endeavouring to get credit at that time for economising money to the extent of £91,000. Now we find that the reduction of £91,000 is simply an under-estimate and that the true amount should have been £33,200, which is a very much smaller diminution of the original Estimate. The explanation the right hon. Gentleman has given as to the National Health Insurance building will quite satisfy the Committee, and it is entirely creditable to his Department that he should have provided accommodation for all the workers in the temporary building under the National Health Department.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE AND INSURANCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.—Class I.