§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,474,950, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."—[Note: £1,080,000 has been voted on account.]
§ Viscount CURZONI would like again to draw attention to the matter on which I spoke on the last, Vote, namely, the immense sum provided for fuel, light, and what are called household effects. I confess I do not understand the household effects part, but does the House realise that in the Votes under discussion to-day no less than £900,000 is involved all together? I have added up the amount provided for fuel and light in all these Votes, and it comes to £873,550. That is the amount in the Votes under discussion in the House to-day. That is not the whole amount. The whole amount is £24,000 more than that, which comes to very nearly £900,000 all together. Surely it would be possible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to issue an order to every Department saying that it must show a definite percentage of reduction on this expenditure. We 318 all know what Government Departments are like in the use of fuel and light. We know what the conditions are in this House. We have only to go round the building to see any amount of waste. This enormous sum involves very nearly £1,000,000 for fuel. I do beg the House to go carefully into this, and I trust that my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to give us a good explanation.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI should like to say that this is a matter which is always engaging our attention, and, indeed, repeated orders are issued on the subject. My Noble Friend (Viscount Curzon) and hon. Members must remember that in a large number of cases we are taking our light from public companies, and that the charges have in recent times gone up.
§ Viscount CURZONAre not you rationed?
§ Sir J. GILMOUREvery effort is made to do that, and I wish hon. Members would assist me in the rationing of light even in this particular building to which my Noble Friend has referred. My difficulty is that I am being pressed in the matter of fuel and light by hon. Members to increase them. I am sure the Department is doing everything it can in this matter.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI do not really see why rents are going up in view of this tremendous building. I do not understand it from the explanation of my hon. and gallant Friend. If rents keep on going up, notwithstanding that we are building, it really becomes a question whether we are going to stop building and hold on to our leases. I find that rents have increased by £3,000 since last year, although last year the House voted the sum of £850,000 for new buildings. That is very extraordinary, and it occurs in every Vote. My hon. and gallant Friend said that the reason was partly that the Government had under-estimated the rents, but in another Vote which is coming along immediately exactly the same thing has happened. Apparently they have under-estimated the rents in every single case, and I really do not understand, from my hon. and gallant Friend's explanation, how it has arisen. My Noble Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) just now drew attention to the very large increase under certain heads, but he did not give the 319 actual figures. I have noted the figures since I have been in the Committee, and under this head of Public Buildings I find that the cost of electric light and gas alone has gone up from £9,000 last year to £55,000 this year, or six times what it was last year. We find, too, that the amount for coal and firewood in Scotland was £600 last year, while now it is £10,100. It has gone up 18 times. Then we find that the water costs under this particular heading were £2,500 last year, while they are £20,000 this year. They have gone up eight times. Is that an underestimate? I think that before this Vote is taken my hon. and gallant Friend ought to say something in defence of these extraordinary increases.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI regret that I cannot convince my hon. Friend. All I can say is that, as I said before, the rents in a good many cases were underestimated.
§ Sir J. GILMOURNot in every case, but in a good many cases they were underestimated, and, of course, these rents had to be paid out of the general Vote from other savings. That was undesirable, and, the attention of the Department having been turned to the matter, they have frankly admitted that they have under-estimated the amounts, and have endeavoured to put the matter right. I should have thought that it was in accordance with the wish of the Committee that we should be perfectly frank about such a matter. The other point is that in a good many cases we have saved considerable sums by not proceeding with certain schemes for purchase or for building, and the obvious result is that we have still to find accommodation for the staffs of these Departments. The Committee will remember that the Department which I represent is only responsible for finding the actual housing for these Government staffs, with the policy of which we have nothing to do. Obviously, however, if we do not proceed with the policy of building at a particular place, and there is still a staff to be housed, we may have to rent premises, and in many cases to adapt them. Moreover, in the case of some of the buildings which we have held on long leases the leases have fallen in, and the 320 rents have been increased on renewal. With regard to the increases in the cost of light and fuel which have been quoted, I am afraid that every private individual will recognise that his bills for both light and fuel have in most cases gone up. In some of these cases, too, there has been a transfer of certain services from other Votes, and it may be—I cannot say offhand—that that transfer of services may have caused increases on this particular item.
§ Sir W. DAVISONMay we have some explanation of Item I, for £6,380 for Brompton Cemetery?
§ Sir J. GILMOURYes, Sir; that is an item which appears for the first time on these Votes. The cemetery was purchased by the Government a good many years ago—I think in 1852—and for a considerable time it was carried on at a profit. The Treasury have now insisted that it should be on the Estimates, and that is the reason why it appears. It will be noticed that there is a counter-sum set off for Appropriations-in-Aid on that item.