Class I. (Hansard, 4 March 1920)

§ Major MACKENZIE WOOD
May we have an answer to the questions which have been put before this Vote is taken? It is not necessary to go over them again, but there are one or two things we want to know. For instance, there are contracts in Sub-head I which we were told were entered into 18 months ago, and we want to know why it is that they only now appear on the Supplementary Estimates. Questions were also asked with regard to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, and as to compensation paid. We want to know how many claims this item represents and is it the last we shall see of them or are we to have any more? There were quite a number of other questions submitted yesterday to which we are entitled to have some reply.

§ The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond)
I think the first question addressed to me was in regard to the Canadian military hospital at Orpington. This hospital has been taken over by the Ministry of Pensions from the Canadian authorities, and the sum mentioned in the estimate covers the value of the equipment which was handed over. It is a very beautiful building and cost something like £700,000 to put up. Really it is a very generous act on the part of the Ontario Government to let us have it at so low a price. Another question was with regard to the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum cottages. These cottages are intended for the staff of warders, some of whom are being transferred to Broadmoor while others are at present housed in an adjacent village, and it is desired to bring them nearer to their work. The total number of cottages to be erected is 32. They will be brick cottages of a good type, and the average cost works out at about £900. With regard to Sub-head C, this item is made up of a number of items and includes both rent and compensation. It is difficult to separate the items, but I may divide them in the following way:—£23,000 for hired premises, and £184,000 for commandeered premises which include a number of large hotels that we took over, namely, the Hotel Victoria, the Grand Hotel, the Hotel Metropole and the Cecil. These hotels have all either been or are being surrendered. I believe that the Metropole will be handed back by Easter. This item includes a certain amount of compensation. There 758 are still some claims outstanding, and negotiations are going on between officers of my Department and the owners of various hotels regarding the cost of dilapidations and reinstatement. Therefore, I cannot say that this is a final account, although it covers the bulk of the claims. There are several claims—De Keyser's Hotel, for instance, now before the House of Lords—which have not yet been settled. There are a considerable number of commandeered premises as to which the question of compensation has not yet been determined. But they are premises not in the same category as the large hotels I have mentioned. The total amount of this Estimate is £1,120,000, the original Estimate having been £850,000. I hope that next year there will be a very substantial reduction in the rent account. Some of the hotels had to be retained longer than was expected, because the reduction of the staffs did not take place with the rapidity which the Department were led to anticipate, but we have surrendered buildings and other accommodation representing nearly 50 per cent. of all that was acquired during the War, which represents a very considerable rent. This process of surrender is going on continuously, and as the staffs diminish, I hope more rapidly, they will be more rapidly surrendered. At any rate, we have got rid now of the large hotels, and we are practically clear of the museums.

§ Captain W. BENN
There is the rent of the houses.

§ Sir A. MOND
I have not the value of the private houses separately.

§ Captain BENN
Could the right hon. Gentleman give us the total rental value which has been surrendered against the total rental value which has been retained?

§ Sir A. MOND
I have not got the figures quite in that form. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question I will give the information with pleasure. With regard to Sub-head I., the total value of stores that we expected to pay for in the last financial year was £1,560,000. We have saved £750,000 by cancellation of contracts, and the estimated net expenditure was £810,000. The revision of the Estimate has arisen in this way: Instead of being able to cancel £750,000 worth of contracts, the amount 759 actually saved by cancellation was £550,000. Deliveries have been going on under these contracts all through the financial year, and therefore it was impossible in the last Estimates to know how many contracts we could cancel and to know what the surplus would be. That is why it now appears in this form of a supplemental Estimate. The Departments having declared that they do not require these goods, they have been declared surplus and handed over to the Disposal Board. It has realised £120,000, which is paid direct to the Treasury, and appears in this year's Vote as an Appropriation in Aid. There is a considerable balance yet to be disposed of.

§ Captain BENN
£80,000?

§ Sir A. MOND
I expect the surplus to realise £140,000. If that is realised, we shall obtain £260,000 worth of money for the Treasury for £200,000 worth of surplus stores. That would be quite a good transaction. I am relieved to find, having given a good deal of care to the matter, that the very large stock necessarily left at the end of the War will be liquidated, not as a Toss, but as a benefit to the Exchequer. Next year there will be no item of Appropriation in Aid in this Estimate, because it has been decided that the Disposal Board's surplus shall, from this year onwards, be paid direct to the Treasury and not appear on the Votes of any Department.

§ Captain BENN
With regard to Subhead I, the contracts were placed prior to the conclusion of the Armistice. Were the goods delivered prior to the conclusion of the Armistice? The practice used to be to wind up the financial year with an Appropriation Bill, and pay everything off. We found out that the Government in some of the Estimates was bringing forward into the new year charges for goods delivered in the earlier year on the plea that in those cases they could not get the accounts in in time because there were cases of military missions abroad, and so on. I want to know whether any of these goods, on which the First Commissioner seems to have made such an excellent stroke of business in selling at a profit, were actually delivered and were really due to be paid for in the last financial year. Another thing I asked was this. 760 We understood, when the Chancellor made his statement, that the surplus Government stores were being realised and were being taken into the National Balance Sheet. He called it revenue. I am not sure that I understand on what principle the Chancellor is going to include an item of the sale of surplus stores as a revenue item. I will not argue whether that is a proper thing to do, but he does it, while on individual Votes, such as this, we find that stores are being sold and used as Appropriations in Aid. That is a point of which I am not quite clear.

Sir A. MONO
As regards the first point, the stores have been coming in all the time. As a matter of fact, delivery is not complete yet. That is the reason why they have been carried over in this way.

§ Captain BENN
Were any of them due for payment in the previous financial year?

§ Sir A. MOND
Not the year 1918–19. These are 1919–20. With regard to the second point, this form of account is laid down, I understand, by the Financial "Secretary. The matter of the treatment of accounts in the future is under consideration. The money goes direct to the Treasury, and it appears in the Estimates in this form.