70. Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour if arrangements have been, made for the transfer of the Glasgow Employment Exchange from College Street to Sauchiehall Street; and, if so, will he state the reasons for this alteration and the expenditure incurred in connection with the College Street buildings and the cost involved in transferring the work else where?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman)Arrangements have been made for the transfer of the principal Employment Exchange in Glasgow from College Street to Sauchiehall Street. The building in College Street was not erected for Employment Exchange purposes only. The cost of that portion used as an Exchange was approximately £11,000. In consequence of the passing of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Part II.) and the subsequent extension of that Act to munition workers, the accommodation provided by the premises in College Street is inadequate to deal with the volume of work carried on by this Exchange. In addition, from the experience obtained during the last seven years, the situation of the premises in College Street has been found to be unsuitable for the public generally. The removal is approved by the local advisory committee. Upon the removal of the Exchange to the proposed new premises in Sauchiehall Street, the existing premises in College Street will be fully utilised for other Government Departments. The lease of the premises at the corner of Sauchiehall Street and Cambridge Street has been taken for a. term of five years from Whitsuntide, 1918, at a rent of £1,700 per annum, with the option of purchase at the expiration of that period, for a sum to be hereafter agreed upon. The cost of adapting these premises for the purpose of a central Employment Exchange for Glasgow is estimated at £3,000.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANYes. A sub-committee of the local advisory committee, and it has been approved by them.
Sir F. HALLDid the Minister of Labour say he was desirous that such subcommittee should have a real standing in the case?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANThe sub-committee have considered this point.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs it the case that this matter only came before the local advisory committee after the decision of the Ministry of Labour had been taken, and that this approval is subsequent to the action of the Ministry?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI am not sure of the exact moment, but I think it very likely that the decision was taken before the advisory committee had considered it.
§ Mr. PRINGLEAre we to understand that this lease was negotiated and the expenditure incurred and undertaken before it came before the advisory committee at all, and that therefore it would be very difficult for the advisory committee not to sanction it?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANWe had to take some steps whether the advisory committee was formed or not, and the steps were taken as soon as we were obliged to take them. Since then the advisory committee have met and have agreed to what we proposed.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs the hon. Gentleman not aware that local protests were made against this useless expenditure at the time the Ministry of Labour took action without local advice?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI am aware that protests were made, but I do not admit that the expenditure was useless.