PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN. (Hansard, 3 March 1920)

§ Captain W. BENN
I should like some explanation of this Vote from the First Commissioner of Works.

§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
Can something be said about this anthrax disinfection station at Liverpool? There has been a good deal about anthrax in connection with shaving brushes lately, but, in any case, why have we done without this disinfection station all these years and are now suddenly asked to authorise an expenditure of £90,000 for it? Might I have an explanation as to Item I, which reads that the sum of £250,000 is required to meet the cost of supplies of goods under contracts placed prior to the conclusion of the Armistice, and the special equipment for the training of disabled ex-service men. 546 Is all that money wanted for training ex-service men? If so, we will grant it with great pleasure, and there could not be a more worthy object; but are the supplies of goods under contracts included in the expenditure required for training these men?

§ Sir A. MOND
With regard to the anthrax disinfection station, it will be erected at Liverpool for the disinfection of wool, and is being established as the result of a recommendation of a Committee which was appointed by the Home Office under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for South Leeds (Sir W. Middlebrook). The station will be on a site close to the docks, and it is expected that a certain amount of the expenditure will be recoverable in charges for disinfection. The Estimate is also for plant that will deal with the disinfection economically and efficiently. I do not profess to be an authority on anthrax, but I think everyone knows that it is a very deadly disease, and causes a great deal of trouble in industrial work. It is, therefore, of the highest importance that we should have an inspecting station. With regard to the other item to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, my Department, like other Departments when the Armistice came, had very considerable commitments of furniture and stores in anticipation of the demands of other Departments, such as the Ministry of Munitions and the Air Ministry, and also foreign Governments, like the United States Government and the Dominion Governments. Of course, when the Armistice came, those stores became unnecessary, and we were left with them. We cancelled over £500,000 of contracts. We have paid some £6,000 in compensation, and we have surrendered £250,000 worth of material to the Disposal Board for sale. The £120,000 Appropriations in-Aid, of course, has to be deducted from that £250,000. Since the Estimate has been made up, I understand that £158,000 has been realised. Of course, I would not like to anticipate a profit, but if the present estimate is fulfilled a small profit will result from the sale of these stores, so that in reality this item will turn out in quite a satisfactory way. A certain amount—I cannot say at the moment how much, but I do not claim 547 a very large amount—is for the purchase of tools, and things of that kind for the training of disabled ex-Service men.

Major BARNES
The item for the anthrax disinfection station and the item for equipment for the training of disabled ex-Service men must meet, I am sure, with the entire sympathy of the Committee. As the right hon. Member has pointed out, anthrax is a very serious matter indeed, and any expenditure which can remove one of the most serious dangers to people operating in wool must be welcome to the Committee. Would it not have been better to have separated the items under this £250,000, so that we might really have known how much was being spent on the training of those men? I endeavoured to make a little calculation as the Minister was proceeding. He told us that the £120,000 Appropriations-in-Aid was the result of selling the goods which were included in the £250,000, and on those figures I arrived at the conclusion that a sum of £130,000 was being spent in the training of disabled men. I am sure the House would not regard that amount as at ail out of proportion to the services these men have rendered, but I gathered from the remarks of my right hon. Friend that I was too optimistic in my conclusion, and that the amount is a great deal smaller. Whatever Supplementary Estimate we may disagree with, if we should be presented with a Supplementary Estimate for this purpose, and a further sum of money should be required for the training of disabled ex-Service men, it would be voted by this House without any comment at all. I think the right hon. Gentleman might give us a little more information about Item C. That is a sum of £260,000 which is required to defray the expenses of premises "which have remained in occupation longer than anticipated." I fancy the feeling of Members will be that this word "anticipated" should be replaced by the word "required," and that these premises have really been in occupation much longer than they were required. Ever since this Parliament met the Government have been pressed to put a conclusion to the tenancy of a great many of the premises of which they have been in occupation, and we see now what the result of their failure is, that the Estimates are loaded this year with a sum of £260,000 in respect of premises which 548 are still, I was going to say, in occupation, but I do not know whether that is so or not. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether this really does put an end to the compensation in respect of this item. It would be some consolation to this House, and I think the country, to know that at least this particular charge was being brought to a conclusion. It is a very considerable sum, and one which we should be very glad to see disappear.

§ Major MACKENZIE WOOD
There are two further points on which I think we are entitled to some explanation. The first is with respect to the sum of £28,000 for the erection of cottages for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum. I should like first of all to ask for whom these cottages are designed? Are they for the inmates or are they for the employees? I should also like to know how many cottages there are to be, and how many people they are to house, so that we may be able to know whether the money is being expended to the best advantage. The second point is with regard to item C. We are told that £260,000 is required to defray the rents of premises hired and compensation awarded by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. Might we not be told how much is for premises hired and how much for compensation awarded? There is a very great difference between the two, and I see no reason why these two things should be lumped together as if they had any real connection with one another. They have no real connection. I should like particularly to know what has been paid for rents of premises during the last few years?

§ Mr. KILEY
I should like to ask a question concerning Item 25—Purchase of Canadian military hospital, Orpington, £80,000. I sometimes pass by this hospital, and, so far as I can see, it consists of a number of wooden sheds. The amount named seems very large. Has a careful valuation been made in respect to this building? As to Item 26—Erection of anthrax disinfection station, Liverpool, total estimate, £90,000. Is it a palace that is being erected? While I am on this matter, may I suggest to the Minister in Charge the advisability of having one of these stations in London? Anthrax comes from bristles, which are mostly imported through London, and it seems to me that there should be a disinfection station 549 in London as well as at Liverpool. As regards the item concerned with rents of premises, and so on. I know the Minister has given a good deal of care and thought to this matter, but I should like to suggest that it would be well that his Department should clear out of places like the British Museum while retaining commercial premises: it would be a better course to pursue than the present method, and would be for the good of the community.

§ Captain BENN
There is one item of considerable importance upon which I should like to question the Financial Secretary, or, failing the hon. Gentleman, the First Commissioner of Works. It has been the practice of this House to pass an Appropriation Act every year, which appropriates the expenditure for the year to its proper purposes. Unfortunately, it has been the growing practice of this Government to alter that old custom of the House of Commons, and to include in contemporary Estimates items of the previous year. Last Session the matter arose in connection with Army expenditure. Votes were put in, and when we asked why, we were told that there were military missions in various parts of the world who could not send in the usual accounts, and, therefore, the accounts could not be wound up. That might be so in that case, but that is very far from being the position in regard to this present Supplementary Estimate—"Item I., Stores to be Purchased (net), required to meet the cost of supplies of goods under contracts placed prior to the conclusion of the Armistice," and so on. The Armistice was in November, 1918. We are now in March, 1920. We find that, for some unknown reason, there is put into this year's Estimate expenditure which certainly, according to our practice, should have been put into last year's. There may be some explanation of this, but the Government has certainly not the excuse that they had in connection with the Army item to which I referred. Take the case of Item C—Rents, Insurance. When we have these items cropping up from the previous financial year we are entitled to ask how far the practice is to be extended? It is certainly a very important function of Parliament to see that the finance of the year is properly arranged within the period of the year. There is one other item to which I would like to call attention before I give way 550 to the right hon. Gentleman, to whom I wish to give time for reply. What is the principle upon which the Government are acting in respect of surplus stores sold on behalf of the Office of Works? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he was going to end this. Yet here it is being treated as an Appropriation-in-Aid.