ARMY HUTS AND BUILDINGS.

HC Deb 03 November 1919 vol 120 cc1273-82

Colonel ASHLEY

I desire to draw the attention of the House to an answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions to a question of mine this afternoon. I asked if he would state why ex-Service men's organisations are refused the concessions granted to housing and educational authorities with respect to the purchase of surplus Army huts and buildings? The answer was as follows: The Government have decided in connection with the purchase by local authorities of surplus Army huts that a discount of 33⅓ per cent should be allowed to them by the Disposal Board, and the balance should be credited by the Disposal Board to the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education respectively. The Disposal Board is not authorised to extend this concession. That means that the Government—it may be the Ministry of Munitions or the War Cabinet as the over-riding authority—have decided in the disposal of these Army huts that the needs of housing and of education shall be given a very substantial concession, of which I do not in the least complain, but that the needs and demands of the ex-Service men's organisations shall be absolutely ignored.

I do not in the least complain that the Government should in disposing of their surplus goods help forward housing, which is a crying need, and education, which is also needed, but whose need is not quite so crying. But I do protest most strongly at the persistent refusal of the Government to make any concession to the organisation of these ex-Service men when they want to purchase a house, and above all, when they want to purchase a house that can be used for recreational purposes. This aspect of the matter does not affect the urban areas, because there is no place to put up the huts, and the men there have accommodation in the existing buildings or they can better arrange it. But it presses very hardly upon the smaller country districts and towns. Thousands of these huts are there rotting away, and the men, if allowed, would have taken them down themselves and put them up again. But the Ministry of Munitions says, "We will have the full market price." That attitude comes very strangely from a Government whose avowed policy has been to give preference to ex-Service men in Government appointments; while in the case of an organisation of ex-Service men, formed to make motor-cars, they also made a concession. Surely, then, they can make a similar concession in respect to the sale of these Army huts? I do not ask for the 33⅓ per cent, but for sympathy on the part of the Ministry of Munitions. I ask them to inquire from the Cabinet whether this concession cannot be given. Many of these men are in poor health. Many have not much of this world's goods. Many have not very pleasant homes. and if the Government can see its way to allow these huts to be sold at a cheaper price, and so give these ex-Service men the benefit, after their past work, I think such a concession would be very gratefully appreciated by the ex-Service men's organisation of the country.

Mr. BILLING

The attitude of the Government towards this question is one which possibly has escaped the notice of the House. The Government are only too anxious, or they suggest as much, in the case of ex-Service men to give the same concessions as to others, but directly it becomes a question of an organisation of the ex-Serivce men, then they seem to be in doubt as to whether or not the interests of the country will be served There seems to be a more or less determined policy of the Government not to recognise the organisations of the ex-Service men. Anything that tends to strengthen the ex-Service men's organisation receives very little support from the Government. That is wrong. The only thing that could make the ex-Service men's organisation a menace to the Government would be the attitude of the Government towards these men. There is no step the Government could take more calculated to bring about a better organisation than to give the men a meeting-place. To give this concession would enable them to have their clubs and meeting houses. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Ashley) represents a very large body of ex-Service men in the remarks he has made, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions to remember what has been said, in words that are hardly yet cold, on behalf of the men when serving and making the great sacrifice. When we were asking them to do that, nothing was too good for them, but when they get back into civilian clothes we hardly recognise them. If there is one thing these men would appreciate it would be the expressed policy, not by words but by actions, of the Government, which would show them that we were only too anxious to promote the same spirit of comradeship now which held them together in the trenches, and would show them that the same spirit existed now, by giving them facilities such as the Army huts would afford. That is not very much to ask. The huts are not of very much value now, and these ex-Service men ought to get a concession of this kind at a price which they are able to pay. They should have some slight concession in price as compared with the price charged to the gambler in war material who wants to retail the huts at a profit.

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway)

I realise the difficulty in which I am placed by having to appear unsympathetic towards a claim which appeals to me as much as to every other hon. Member of the House. I wish it were possible for me to say that I was prepared to do everything I have been told should be done, but I am in the position of a trustee endeavouring to realise for the country the highest possible value of a vast property, and I cannot on my own responsibility, nor am I prepared to advise the Government, to take the step which I am asked to take. Before I deal with the main point which my hon. and gallant Friend has put I would like to say there was one observation made by the last speaker to which I take exception, and that is that we appear to have adopted a policy of not recognising the ex-Service men's organisation. That really is not the fact.

Mr. BILLING

What I suggested was that it was the action of the Government that had led the ex-Service men to believe, that that was the case.

Mr. KELLAWAY

That cannot be ex-Service men who have had any experience of the Ministry of Munitions, for 30 per cent. of our total male headquarters staff are ex-Service men, and I do not believe that any other Government Department can make such a claim as that. Not only so, but where it has become necessary to discharge ex-Service men in our employ I have insisted that no man should be discharged unless his claim has been heard by a Committee on which the ex-Service men are represented. That applies not only to our headquarters but to our depots throughout the country. My hon. Friend says we have made these concessions to local authorities and not to societies like the Comrades of the Great War and the Discharged and Demobilised Soldiers' and Sailors' Association. What arrangements have we made with the local authorities? A discount of 33⅓ percent. is allowed to local authorities for the purpose of housing, the treatment of tuberculosis, and education. Applications for purchase must be approved by the Ministry of Health or the Board of Education, or the Scottish Office in the case of Scotland, and after that approval these Departments will pay to the Disposal Board the sums represented by the agreement which has been made. Therefore, so far as the Disposal Board is concerned, it gets the full market value of the huts. I do not, however, defend this purely from the point of view of the Disposal Board. I recognise that the Government is a unit, and the policy of the Government is the policy which I am defending in this particular. Is there a real distinction of principle between municipal authorities and organisations such as those of which my hon. and gallant Friend has spoken? I think that there is a real distinction which justifies a difference of attitude on the part of the Government. The municipal authorities are publicly elected, and their expenditure is under public control., We are carrying out the old principle that where public money goes public control must go. I submit that that is a real distinction which is worthy of consideration by my hon. and gallant Friend. We can have no control over the expenditure of money by organisations like the Comrades of the Great War or by the organisation with which my hon. Friend. opposite (Mr. Hogge) is connected. That really is the distinction, and I think that the House will recognise that it is a distinction based upon principle. Now as to the application of the principle in practice. If we were to make the concession for which my right hon. Friend has pleaded, we could not stop at the Comrades of the Great War or any other organisation of ex-soldiers and sailors. The same demand would be pressed upon me from all quarters of the House on behalf of all kinds of organisations and for all kinds of Government stores. Hospitals, lifeboat institutions, ambulances, village halls, have all already made such demands, and have been pressed upon me by Members of the House and by letters received from different parts of the country. Believe me, you could not possibly stop once you de- parted from the principle of making this concession only to public authorities and organizations—

Colonel ASHLEY

May I ask, if the Government can stop at giving a preference in the matter of employment to ex-Service men, why they cannot stop at giving a preference to them in the matter of selling these huts?

Mr. KELLAWAY

My hon. and gallant Friend is really pressing me, as I thought I should be pressed. The moment that a concession is made it is made the excuse for further pressing for an extension of that concession to other classes of the community. That really cannot be done with safety to the interests which it is my duty to protect. I do not think a day passes without I get letters from different parts of the country pressing upon me exactly the same considerations on behalf of institutions with which every humane man must sympathise. I have had very strong appeals made on behalf of the blind and on behalf of lifeboat institutions. Practically every philanthropic and religious organisation in the country will call upon Members of this House to press me to make some concessions which I am now being asked to make in the interest of this particular class or organisation. I would like the House to get back into the frame of mind in which it discussed the revised Estimates last week. The few of us who are here are in a sympathetic mood, and we see the strength of the claim which these men can make upon our sympathy and gratitude, but I want the House to get back into the position that it was in last week when we were facing a very serious financial situation, and all parts of the House felt that it was necessary in the interests of the State as a whole and not of any one class of men to do everything that we could to strengthen the financial position of the country. It is not a small amount involved here, and if you accept what I believe to be the fact you cannot stop with the Comrades of the War. It is not merely the amount involved here, as I say, for up to the present time between the Armistice and to-night, £100,000,000 have been realised by the disposal of surplus stores. I hope we shall realise many more millions by the 1st of April next year. It is impossible to make an exact estimate. It is a vast national property. The people poured out money without stint and it is my duty to see that as far as we possibly can we get back for the taxpayers every possible penny in return. It may be thought by some hon. Members that I take up a hard and unsympathetic attitude, but I hope the House will support the Disposal Board in its policy of securing for the taxpayers of this country the greatest possible return that can be secured in the liquidation of this great national property.

Sir NEWTON MOORE

Cannot you draw a distinction between the demobilised soldiers and sailors and the Comrades of the War Association and the other institutions you have mentioned?

Mr. KELLAWAY

If I attempted to draw a distinction it would be swept away before many weeks are past. Once we make a distinction organisation after organisation will find spokesmen in this House, and be able to put pressure on the Government until the distinction is worth nothing.

Sir NEWTON MOORE

These huts were erected for military purposes.

Mr. KELLAWAY

This is a great national property. We are endeavouring to realise it to the best advantage for the State, and it will be seriously diminished in value if I adopt this suggestion.

Mr. BILLING

May I ask whether, in the event of any municipal authority making a direct appeal on behalf of the disabled soldiers' and sailors' organisations, he will give it consideration?

Mr. KELLAWAY

I am going to make a practical proposal to my hon. Friends. Let them organise the various representative associations for soldiers and sailors, get them to join together, and let them pool their demands. Let them send in a comprehensive statement of what huts they think they could make use of, either as clubs, hospitals, or for any other purpose. If they will do that, I can then consider it not as an isolated bargain, but as one undertaking, and I could give my hon. and gallant Friend very special terms, not the 2½ per cent. which has been suggested, but a very substantial discount.

Colonel ASHLEY

Twenty per cent?

Mr. KELLAWAY

I will say ten to start with. I think I should be justified in doing that. We should be saved much cost for guarding, advertising, auctioneers, etc., and if my hon. Friends will get together and send in a comprehensive demand showing the requirements of all the organisations throughout the country it will not find any unsympathetic treatment. It can be dealt with as a business proposition, and I shall not then have all the other organisations in the country asking me for concessions. I hope I have met my hon. Friend.

Mr. HOGGE

I join heartily with my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Ashley) in the demand he has made. I think my hon. Friend the Deputy-Minister for Munitions is forgetting that the category in which he put philanthropic institutions the fact that the discharged and demobilised men are in a very different category from the lifeboat and similar institutions which were in existence before the War began. The discharged and demobilised men have returned from the War; they have organised themselves, whatever we think of the value of their organisations, we have to recognise the fact that they are organised. They require a certain centre for their activities. These huts are a convenient centre for those activities. If we are really true, to the promises we have made there is no object to which the Government can devote their charity—if I may use that term—better than to this object. It is preposterous that a discount of 33⅓ per cent. should be given to municipalities for tuberculosis buildings, and that it should not be given to men who have served with - the Army. My hon. Friend (Colonel Ashley) put the position quite clearly. He represents the Comrades of the Great War. I do not represent now, but I did, the National Federation. If my hon. Friend carries out the promise he has made, my hon. and gallant Friend opposite and myself will put up a joint proposal for the purchase of huts which both organisations are willing to purchase. I am quite certain that the Deputy-Minister will find that we shall not agree to 10 per cent.

Colonel ASHLEY

Oh, no ‡

Mr. HOGGE

Thirty-three and one-third per cent, is given to municipalities. I urge my hon. Friend between now and when he meets both of us to consider whether 10 per cent is enough. We have heard a great deal in our Debates recently about the discontent which exists in the country. There is one source of discontent we should all allay if we put our minds to it—that is the discontent among the discharged men, who feel they have a grievance. Everyone here knows they have a grievance. If you can meet these men by way of providing a social centre for them in their separate portions of the country you are doing a great deal to remove the other grievances. These men want to meet together. They cannot meet together because they have not too much money. They could do it if provision were made for them cheaply. It is a better investment in social stability than many laws we pass in this House. I accept the offer which my hon. Friend has made. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite and I will meet my hon. Friend, and probably we shall come to some arrangement.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven of the clock.