HC Deb 13 May 1919 vol 115 cc1544-58

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now Adjourn."

Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE

I propose to take up the time of the House for a very few moments with a question which I desire to bring to the attention of the First Commissioner of Works—the question of the continued occupation of museums and public galleries by staffs of Government offices and also the continued occupation of the open space in Burton Court by the temporary buildings of the staff of Ministry of Pensions. I should not have brought this matter up were I not convinced that in the very considerable time that has elapsed since it was last discussed much more might have been done than has been done. I am fully aware that every Government office must find it extremely difficult to provide accommodation for its staff and I realise that the First Commissioner of Works must be at his wits ends to get accommodation to replace that which has been used during the War at museums and public galleries and in the open space at Burton Court. As far as I can make out the museums and galleries are just as full to-day of the staffs of Government offices as they were in the month of November, and that being so, I think it is the duty of the House to draw public attention to this state of affairs and to press the Commissioner of Works to give some definite date by which the museums and public galleries in London will be entirely evacuated. As far as I can make out there has been very little improvement made in the matter of evacuation since last November. A debate took place in another place on this subject in the month of February. Comparing the figures then quoted with the figures given me by the First Commissioner of Works during this week, I cannot discover that any material change has been made in this state of affairs. I find that in the National Gallery there are still more than 650 clerks of the Ministry of Munitions; in the National Portrait Gallery there are 377 clerks of the War Office; in the National Gallery of British Art there are 824 members of the staff of the Ministry of Pensions; in the British Museum there are 292 members of the staff of the Registrar of Friendly Societies; in the New Science Museum there are 1,500 clerks of the Post Office; in the Imperial Institute and Science Museum there are 1,440 members of the staff of the War Office; in Hertford House there are 460 clerks of the Ministry of Munitions, and in the London Museum there are eighty-three members of various other Government Departments. From those numbers, compared with the numbers which were quoted in another place in the month of February, it will be seen that there has been little, if any, improvement during the last few months in the evacuation by Government officials and Government staffs of public galleries and museums in London.

All hon. Members will agree that this is a very unfortunate state of affairs from many points of view. Particularly at the present moment, when I suppose that there never have been so many citizens of the Dominions beyond the seas and foreigners gathered together in London. I know from what people directly connected with the galleries and museums in London have said to me that crowds, particularly of overseas troops, have been clamouring for admission into public museums, such as the National Gallery and the British Museum and have very much regretted and resented the fact that those buildings are still filled with the staffs of Government offices, and that they have had no opportunity—possibly it is the only opportunity of their lives—of seeing the art treasures of London. Secondly, the continuous occupation by Government officials of these galleries and museums must have a bad effect upon the treasures of art they contain. Many of those treasures have been stored in all kinds of places during the War—stored, I acknowledge, with great care, but at the same time in places much less suitable, to put it at the very lowest, for their storage than the rooms of a museum. I understand that some of our greatest treasures have been kept in a section of one of the Tubes of London. I cannot help feeling very great anxiety in that matter, because to keep these treasures for a long period in such places as that cannot but have a bad effect upon them. From that point of view also, therefore, I desire to see these Government staffs got out of the museums and galleries at the very earliest opportunity.

There is a third reason. Several of these museums and galleries in London are used for a great deal of educational and scientific work. Much of that work is now being held up. For instance, at the British Museum I understand that a great deal of storage accommodation is taken up by the storage of prisoners' effects from German East Africa, and also by records of the Medical Research Department. As a result of that, much of the scientific work of the museum is being greatly impeded through want of space. New inroads have been frequently made upon the space of the museum during the last two or three months, with the result that the scientific work of the museum is greatly impeded. That state of affairs is not improving. So far as I understand, not a single official has been evacuated from the British Museum, although pledges have been given from time to time that this evacuation would take place. The officials of the Medical Research Department and the other Department are still in the British Museum. They tend to demand more rather than less accommodation. The storage accommodation at the British Museum is taken up by the prisoners' effects to which I have just alluded, with the result that it is proving extremely difficult to carry on the scientific work which is carried on by the staff of the British Museum. I hope that when the First Commissioner of Works comes to reply he will be able to tell the House that there is a definite date upon which these museums and galleries have got to be evacuated. The original arrangement made, I believe, by Lord Harcourt with the authorities at the time was that the museums and galleries would be in their pre-war state, ready for the public, with their exhibits ready to be seen, within, in some cases, three, and in other cases six, months after the end of hostilities.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond)

After the declaration of peace.

Sir S. HOARE

Be that as it may, I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will be able to state definitely the date on which these public buildings will be finally evacuated. Let me make him a humble suggestion. The figures I have just read to the House show that practically every one of the museums and galleries has a large number of Government officials in it. Even if he cannot evacuate them all at once, he might evacuate one or two of the more important by concentrating into the others the staffs that now fill up the more important ones. For instance, it is a matter of great urgency that the British Museum and the National Gallery—possibly also the Science Museum—should be evacuated at once. I would suggest to him that he should get the Government clerks out of these two or three museums, which stand by themselves in London, and he should do that at once by concentrating those staffs into the other museums and galleries which are not used or are not in such great request as the National Gallery and the British Museum. That is all I have to say about the museums and galleries.

I want also to mention another instance of the same kind which seems to fail within the scope of what I am bringing to the right hon. Gentleman's attention—that is the case of Burton Court. Burton Court, and the building which was formerly known as the Duke of York's School and is now known as the Duke of York's Headquarters, are two of the most attractive and most needed open spaces in the South-West district of London. I am quite aware that in the legal sense of the word they are not open spaces, but as unbuilt-over sites they are of great value to the neighbourhood. As to Burton Court, that forms a part of what is one of the best examples of town planning in the whole of London. It forms an integral part of Sir Christopher Wren's scheme, with the Royal Avenue, then the open space of Burton Court, and then Chelsea Hospital. From both points of view: first of all, from the point of view of the open space, and, secondly, from the point of view of the great artistic loss that its present occupation makes, I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to evacuate Burton Court at the very earliest possible opportunity. I have put questions to him during the Session, and the answer he has given is that no one wishes to impede the work of the Ministry of Pensions and that it is extremely difficult to find accommodation for the staff of the Ministry elsewhere. I realise that difficulty, but I still believe that it would be possible for him, if he looked about, to find accommodation for this staff, say, in one of the suburbs of London, to which, I believe, he and other members of the Government are looking more and more for Government accommodation. At the present moment it is a very grave loss, not only to the neighbourhood, but to the whole of London, that Burton Court should be practically covered with buildings, which, although he describes them as temporary, yet have the look as if they were going to remain there for a great number of years. It is a great loss to London from the artistic point of view, and it is also a great loss to the neighbourhood from the point of view of the open space. Let me give him one single result. The children of Chelsea at one time used Burton Court as their playground. It then came about that Burton Court was used as a cricket ground for certain of the regiments of the London district. The children, therefore, were given the use of the grounds of Chelsea Hospital. I understand it is now the idea to use the grounds of Chelsea Hospital as a cricket ground, and there is a great risk of the children in this neighbourhood losing their open space. If the children do not lose it as a playground, the cricketers will lose it as a cricket ground, and in either case it is very regrettable. I quite agree that if I believed that the buildings have been built for a very temporary war emergency, I would not worry the right hon. Gentleman, but when I look at those buildings, which day after day and week after week increase in extent, and certainly have the look, as I have said, of being put up for a considerable number of years, I feel that I must complain as strongly as I can to the First Commissioner of Works, and that I must ask him definitely to say what he understands by temporary, and when he hopes that these buildings can be removed. I see no reason whatever why he should not find accommodation for this staff somewhere else, and in any case a site like this, which is a historic site, which is considered of great value not only by residents in Chelsea, but by people in London generally—a fact which was shown in the influentially-signed letter to "The Times" from people representative of English public life of all sections two or three months ago—I think we have a right to demand that this open space should be evacuated without further delay.

9.0. P.M.

Sir H. CRAIK

I think the House is greatly indebted to my hon. Friend for raising this question, which is of vital importance, and I am glad, as a Member for the Scottish Universities, to add my word to those which have fallen from my hon. Friend. When the proposal was first made in the great agony of the War that these museums should be absorbed for these public purposes, there was a good deal of opposition, but I did not, even although a University Member, feel myself justified in refusing the proposal of the Government in that emergency. We always, however, thought that it was temporary, and it has not turned but to be so. Now, when we are about beginning the great struggle of peace and reconstruction, when we need all the resources of education and industrial reconstruction that are open to us, what can be more foolish and more blind than, for temporary purposes which are prolonged, as I assert, by carelessness and indifference on the part of those who are in charge of these offices, to prevent the use of these great institutions upon which lavish sums of money have been spent, and which will be of crucial importance to the young who are rising up now in the new generation? My hon. Friend has given an elaborate catalogue of all the museums taken over. The British Museum itself is a loss to our Colonial brothers at this moment which can never be made up to them in their lives again. The Science Museum again is practically useless at a time when we are all speaking about the necessity of reconstructing our industrial life. I am not disposed to put undue blame upon my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works. I believe he is hard pressed, but I think he ought to know that he would have the encouragement of this House if he took his courage in his hands and faced those overgrown staffs and those who are responsible for them. I am perfectly certain, as an old Civil servant myself, that there is nothing that hinders work so much as an inflated staff, and I am certain also that many of those who are now in these Government offices, who are there, and who intend to stay there until they are turned out, and who will always find excuses for staying there, are hindering each other and tumbling over each other and getting in each other's way. I appeal to my fellow Members in the House who have had to go to some of these offices. Is it not their experience that it is not the plurality of officials, it is the absolute multiplicity of officials through whom, each separate letter has to go, through the number of clerks who are crowding each other out, that is the evil? I am certain if the right hon. Gentleman firmly said, "These offices are no longer at your disposal, and at a certain date I shall turn you out and lock the door and put them to their proper use," he would find he had not only the support of this House unanimously, but the support of an enormous body of feeling outside the House, and I am certain that the universities and all the educational interests throughout the country would thank him from the bottom of their soul and that he would find that he had greatly improved his position in the country. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has shown that courage which I would have liked to have seen him show. I have no doubt he has a good heart and good intentions and that he is eager to deal with this matter, but he has not tackled it as promptly as he might have done. It is not only the British Museum that is concerned. Every citizen of London is suffering in some way or other. Why is it that these ugly buildings are left standing absolutely unoccupied and unused in the middle of Hyde Park when the citizens of London want to use the park I have asked several questions about Kensington Gardens, and the right hon. Gentleman in April, and again in May, said that the matter is receiving attention. I see these buildings every day, and I am certain that they are serving no useful public purpose. If he would say to the War Office, "You must take down these buildings, or I will take them down. You must turn out of these offices," I am certain that no good public object would suffer in any way, and these beautiful gardens, which are now at their best, if they were free from these ugly eyesores, would be open for the use of the public. I would tell the House what happened to me on the Public Accounts Committee. One of the officials of the right hon. Gentleman's Department was under examination. I was questioning him about the price of the buildings erected in St. James's Park. Certainly they have been very costly buildings, and I asked how long he supposed they would stand, and he answered, "Probably for ten years." Are we to be deprived of the use of St. James's Park for ten years because these buildings are being occupied? I am quite certain that if the right hon. Gentleman will weigh the loss to the nation which is caused by the occupation of the museums, upon which we have spent so much, and of which we are so proud, and which we insist upon being used as necessary adjuncts to the educa- tional machinery of the country; and if he will consider all the injury and discomfort inflicted upon this great city by the occupation of its open spaces merely, perhaps, because of the idleness and dilatoriness of some War Office clerk, who will not give the necessary order to evacuate the buildings and leave the ground free; if he will only weigh these considerations, conscious of the support that there is behind him, both in this House and in the country, he would use drastic measures. He is the master of the situation. He can tell these people, "There are public buildings, intended for certain purpose, and you must evacuate them." If he gave a fair warning, say for two or three weeks, that he would turn them out and lock the doors, I am confident that very little impediment would be placed in the way of the quick and speedy transaction of public business, while immense benefit would be gained for the nation, and the right hon. Gentleman himself would earn gratitude from every class of the community.

Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS

I only want to ask one or two questions. I quite understand these museums being occupied for emergency War Departments, but that is not the case. In at least three instances the accommodation is taken up by officers of Departments who must have their own habitations waiting for them elsewhere, unless the Office of Works have made no provision before the War. There is one very large body of 1,500 officers of the Post Office Savings Bank occupying the New Science Museum. Where did these officials come from, and what has happened to the premises which they previously occupied?

Sir A. MOND

They are dealing with War Bonds.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS

Why should the Medical Research Committee want new accommodation, and the Registrar of Friendly Societies? Were they turned out of their own buildings?

Sir A. MOND

Made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS

It seems perfectly endless. When you get people at last to leave these museums—as in the case of the Wallace collection, which was vacated by the Naval Intelligence Department, some of the new mushroom Ministries spring up. Now it is occupied by the Ministry of Munitions. If we could have some term put on this kind of thing, it would be a great relief.

Sir A. MOND

The hon. Member spoke of the dilatoriness. I have been contending with that for two years. He says the task is endless. In a way, so it is. It is like the Stone of Sisyphus, which one is trying to roll up the hill, but it rolls down again. As fast as you demobilise one Department not only does this House sanction a new Department, but another Department expands. That has been one of the great difficulties in dealing with accommodation. Everybody anticipated, and I anticipated, that we should have had a very large reduction of staffs, but, on the whole, the total number of staffs of the different Departments has very little diminished. When we began to demobilise the Army, immediately a huge staff sprang up at the Ministry of Labour to carry out demobilisation. The Pensions staff has been growing. Since the Armistice the staff of the Pensions Department has increased by 5,000, and I have a new demand for two or three thousand more. These facts will give some idea of the class of task to be dealt with. I can assure hon. Members that for me, who has a passion for art and a passion for museums, it is a sad position to see these buildings occupied by Government staffs, and it is not for want of endeavour that the position has not been very much improved. There are one or two points which might as well be cleared up. The assumption seems to have crept to the speeches I have heard that the National Gallery is unavailable for public use. That is not a fact. Well, over half of the National Gallery is filled with most beautiful pictures, and if the military who are over here will study the beautiful pictures on exhibition they will carry away very pleasant recollections. Take the British Museum.

Sir S. HOARE

In regard to the British Museum, I would like to say that three of the most popular departments—the Prints Department, the Assyrian Department, and the Egyptian Department—are in the possession of Government Departments.

Sir A. MOND

I do not think the hon. Member will find the Assyrian and Egyptian Departments popular as we call a thing popular. I have visited them often before the War and I have scarcely ever found anybody there. Those are only small portions of the museum. Anybody could spend many years studying other parts of the museum. I have been endeavouring to see how I could free the British Museum as soon as possible. I do not want the impression to go that these museums are closed. There is some misunderstanding about the Science Museum. It is not yet built, and it will take several years to complete it. There is no question in this building of taking anything from the public. On the more general question I may say that there is great difficulty in dealing with the question of accommodation from the sectional point of view. One day I am told that I am holding up all the beds in London and that the hotels must be free. The next day I am told that the parks must be evacuated. Next, I am told that business premises must be immediately released. Now I am told that museums and art galleries are the most important. We have at present 57,000 clerks on 3,000,000 square feet of requisitioned premises. When the Armistice occurred I at once considered what would be the best method of dealing with the situation in reference to the buildings that have been taken. I recommended to the Cabinet that we should give priority of release to the hotels, because I think that the House will agree that on the whole these are the most important, that the galleries and museums should come next, and then the public institutions. So we have been working on a system. The hon. Member who raised the subject referred to the reduction of numbers of staff. So far as premises are concerned, there is no object in merely reducing the number. Suppose that we have 657 of a staff at the National Gallery to-day, there is nothing to be gained by taking away 200 and leaving 457. If you want to evacuate the Gallery you must either get the whole 657 abolished or transferred to some other building.

On the question of staffs, I had no control over their numbers. If I told Ministers that in a week or fortnight they were not to have the buildings which they at present have, they would say, "Where are we to go? We have to carry on the liquidation of hundreds of millions of pounds of public accounts." You cannot turn staffs like that into the street. You cannot disorganise the whole of this work over the country. You must be able to transfer them en bloc to some place where they can continue their work. For instance, the staff in one of the premises which have been referred to owes its direct existence to the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Expenditure, recommending that a special account staff should be appointed to deal with accounts for the Ministry of Munitions, and at the moment no other place was available. I believe that that staff has saved the country millions of pounds already. You must deal with the question on a general basis. I have been, endeavouring to achieve two joint results. One is to decentralise staffs and induce Departments to move further out of London. That was no easy thing to do. Every one of the Ministers in charge of the Department assured me that there were important people somewhere near their Departments, with whom they were obliged to have continual transaction. It is impossible for me to judge what basis there is in this. I have naturally to accept the view of responsible Ministers on that subject, but I am inducing Ministers now, I think, to take a wider view of this important question.

The hon. Member referred to the fact that we are proceeding with the erection of hutments at Acton for the Ministry of Pensions. When those hutments are available I hope that one of the first things to be done will be to take the Pensions Staff out of the Tate Gallery. I do not want to disappoint the House, but that is certainly a question of months. After various consultations between myself and Lord Inverforth, who is very self-assertive, we are endeavouring to concentrate the staff which are in various museums, and I hope that a very great change will come in the next two or three months. The hon. Member referred to some pledge. I cannot recollect it myself. I have always been most careful not to give any pledge, and I am certain that no pledge was ever given that anything would be done until after the peace or six months after the peace. That probably will be twelve months after now. So there must still be a great deal of time. The hon. Member must remember that we have not yet got peace, and while an immense number have been demobilised there are Departments which may be called upon to recommence the War. There is a staff of some 2,000 belonging to a certain Department which will be demobilised as soon as peace is certain. When that staff goes I shall immediately be able to make arrangements to place some of the other people in the room which they occupy. The fact that for five months we have had the Peace Conference which has made the question infinitely more difficult for the Departments and for me.

With regard to the Imperial Institute, I have been in personal communication recently with the War Office, and I understand that the Financial Secretary to the War Office thinks that they will be able shortly to move these staffs out of London. There is a staff which deals with the question of the effects of men who have fallen in the War, and those who are in charge of the staff are greatly afraid of disorganisation. All those are temporary things which must wind themselves up, but I hope that something in that direction will be done in a short time. Then I am considering the question of bringing the Board of Education back from the Victoria and Albert Museum. The greater part of that Museum, with all its lovely contents is to-day open to the public. There are enough beautiful things to be seen in the museums in London to-day, and I should be only too glad if everybody went and studied them, quite apart from the question of those which I hope soon to show again. In reference to the British Museum it has been said that scientific work has been seriously impeded by existing arrangements. I will look into this matter immediately. I am glad to be able to reassure hon. Members on one point. The valuable works of art which were hidden away during the War in the tubes and have been taken out again have suffered no damage. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) spoke about Kensington Gardens. I certainly was under the impression that the buildings there were being removed.

Sir H. CRAIK

They are not, they are still standing there.

Sir A. MOND

I understood that they would be removed practically immediately.

Sir H. CRAIK

They are still standing there, and they keep the public off the ground.

Sir A. MOND

If I find that nothing is being done I shall certainly take energetic action; as energetic as possible.

As regards the question of Burton Court, that is a much more difficult one. I think it was mentioned when the scheme for erecting those buildings for the Ministry of Pensions was first put forward, that no undertaking of a definite character could be given as to when the buildings would be removed. It was suggested that they should be vacated one year after the declaration of peace, but that was objected to by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and no such undertaking was given. I refused ever to give any definite undertaking on the matter. I would ask the House to consider that we have spent there over £100,000, and when the buildings are completed we shall have spent £150,000 on the central offices for the Ministry of Pensions. Would either the country or the House of Commons be prepared to ask me to pull down £150,000 worth of temporary buildings, when I should probably have to spend another £200,000 somewhere else in order to house the staff who has to deal with the huge matter of pensions due to the War? In the circumstances, I am not prepared at the present moment to put any such, proposition to the House. When the Ministry of Pensions went there they went on the ground that there was already some pensions staff at Chelsea—Chelsea has always been the classic home of pensions. It is quite true that cricket was played on that ground, but it was not an open space in the sense that the public were admitted to it and children played there, but in the sense that it was not built on. Much as one values the importance of open spaces, it is surely going very far to say that any detriment is caused to the health of Chelsea or London by the buildings on this very small plot. I understand that there are playing-grounds and a new cricket ground in Chelsea Gardens. I cannot for the life of me understand why you cannot play cricket in those gardens. There is a large amount of space there, and the children can play, and I should have thought that they would have liked to have watched the cricket there. This is a very simple matter, and nobody is being deprived of any form of enjoyment whatever. I agree, from an architectural point of view, that if it were suggested that these buildings should be made permanent, I should very strongly oppose it. Of course, from the æsthetic point of view, they do disfigure one of the most beautiful buildings in London; and from the purely architectural point of view, also, I should like to see them removed to-morrow. But in view of the position of the Ministry of Pensions, and the fact that the whole of the pensions organisation is there, and that the happiness of hundreds and thousands of homes in this country depends on that organisation, I should want a very strong inducement indeed, and I think the House also would want a very strong inducement before they would ask to have those buildings rapidly destroyed. I know the Ministry of Pensions has under consideration schemes which may, in the course of a year or two, enable alterations to be made and decentralisation to take place; while in time of course the pensions will become a diminishing quantity. But I certainly am not prepared to say—just as I was not prepared, when this scheme was first started, to fix any date, and I would never agree to the expenditure of £100,000 of public money on that site if I were compelled to give any date—how long the buildings will remain. I am sure I shall carry the House with me when I say that a reasonable time ought to be allowed to elapse, that conditions ought to be allowed to stabilise, and that the Ministry of Pensions ought to be allowed to become a much more established Government Department before questions of this kind should be pressed on me, who have to find accommodation for these Government Departments.

Major E. WOOD

What would the right hon. Gentleman interpret as a reasonable time?

Sir A. MOND

It is very difficult to define it in years.

Major WOOD

Years?

Sir A. MOND

Well, it is certainly a question of years

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes before Ten o'clock.