HC Deb 11 April 1922 vol 153 cc303-17

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £1,013,480, 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 Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices Abroad."—[Note: £521,000 has been voted on account.]

Sir G. COLLINS

I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

I trust the Minister in charge will explain to the House the reason for this large sum of money. This is the first large Estimate this year for public buildings. Having made a study of the Estimate in this connection, I find that this year it comes to £10,047,000. This money is being spent in the erection of new buildings, cost of maintenance, and repairs. It is true to say that in this particular Vote only £1,500,000 is being asked for, but it is customary, when discussing new buildings at the beginning, for the Minister to explain the Vote, and the policy which underlies the particular Vote. This £10,000,000 this year is excessive. We know well that through the erection of houses prices have been forced up unduly. They are slowing down, and the cost of houses is falling sharply. The contention we on this side of the Committee put forward is that, in view of the high cost and in view of the real necessity for the erection of working-class dwellings, this large sum of money should not be spent this year, because it will divert £1,500,000 of capital. There is going on in London and in different portions of Great Britain a diversion of capital and labour to the erection of these buildings at the expense—and this is the point—of working-class dwelling-houses and cottages throughout the country. It is true that the Ministry have reduced the amount this year. We gladly recognise that fact, but we desire to draw attention for the first time to this very large sum of money, £10,000,000, which the policy of the Government entails.

This particular Vote in pre-War days, in 1913, amounted to £640,000. In going through this Estimate I have put to myself one or two questions as to why these new buildings should be erected. Is it because of the Safeguarding of Industries Act leading to a necessity for larger ware- houses and bigger Custom houses in the various ports? To-day, and every day, at Question time, we hear of the numerous delays which are taking place in the clearing of goods from oversea markets to British ports. Is it because there is not sufficient accommodation in the Customs houses of Great Britain that the Government are asking for this sum of money? I should like to address a few questions to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who will, I understand, reply on behalf of the Government. On page 36 of the Estimates I notice, under the heading of "Works in Progress, England and Wales," that no money has been taken this year. Last year a fair sum of money was spent on the different buildings. Are these buildings finished? Are some of them? Have the Government delayed the erection of these buildings in view of the necessity for public economy? If so, could they not adopt this policy in other directions, and so save some of this million and a half? I see on page 33 of the Estimates that the total cost of these revenue buildings, in which is included Customs and Excise, Post Office, and Telegraph, etc., is £2,606,000. I hope the Government will change their policy in this matter. This pouring out the money of the taxpayer—who is feeling the burden—pouring out this £10,000,000 in the erection of new buildings——

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope)

It is not out of order for the hon. Gentleman to mention the £10,000,000, but it would be impossible to discuss it on each item of these various Votes.

Sir G. COLLINS

I have no desire to be out of order, but I desire just to refer to the policy which creates the expenditure of these various Departments and thought I was entitled to do so on this First Vote for New Works. It is the first opportunity we have had of criticising general policy as applied to buildings. I shall be interested in hearing the answer of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. No doubt he has been directed and informed by the Post Office, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his assistants, because it is these two Departments which are mainly responsible for this expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, through his Customs and Excise officers and his Inland Revenue officers, is asking the country this year to find nearly £500,000 for new buildings, while the Post Office is coming to the House and asking for £1,100,000. It is not as if this country had not been bearing excessive Post Office charges. The Post Office may say that this is capital expenditure. They may say they are raising money in certain loans, and that the money is going to be so spent. But I suggest that the first step the Post Office should take should be to curtail the £475,000 which they are asking the House of Commons for this evening in their Vote for New Works, Alterations, and Additions.

I could elaborate that argument, but I have no desire to do so, as I believe the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself is as anxious to see a reduction of expenditure as any of us. The Departments who create this expenditure are not here this evening. There is no representative of the Treasury present to justify to the Committee the expenditure of £500,000 on the buildings to which I have referred. Is it fair to the House of Commons or the Members who study these Estimates? Is it fair to the taxpayers outside to be asked to find the money we are asked to find day by day in the maintenance of these officials and the erection of these buildings?

Mr. WISE

On page 45 of the Estimates there is an item, Imperial Wireless Chain, and it says: "Works Services in connection with the Imperial Wireless Chain £100,000." There was no amount at all for 1921–22. Perhaps the Minister, or his representative, would give an explanation of this amount?

Lord EUSTACE PERCY

I hope that the hon. Gentleman who moved this reduction will not use the argument that the building of these public buildings diverts labour from working-class dwellings and cottages. It is fairly obvious, and fairly well known, that the type of labour for this kind of buildings would not be employed on working-class dwellings and cottages—in fact, that the workmen would not accept such employment.

Sir G. COLLINS

But in this sum of money there is the cost of maintenance and repairs. Surely the Noble Lord will agree that the money so spent on labour could only be diverted from the maintenance or the repair of other types of buildings?

Lord E. PERCY

It depends whether the repairs were internal or external. But what I want to question the Minister upon is this: In the Estimates before us now the Customs and Excise and Revenue Buildings do not appear to be going in for a very considerable amount. Therefore I think we may disregard that King Charles' head. A good deal of the Estimate in the Post Office Vote is in respect of buildings which already have been begun, and on which much money has been spent. I am not disposed to make any particular complaint about that, but if hon. Members will turn to page 42 they will see, amongst other items, "Proposed works, London district." It appears that new buildings to the total extent of, I think, roughly £100,000 are being begun this year. It does appear to me to be a most serious piece of expenditure that we should begin these new Post Office buildings, and that the Post Office have not apparently been able to exercise the same self-restraint as the Customs and Inland Revenue Department, but have rushed in and demanded from the Exchequer these very large sums for expending in 1922–23 on new buildings. I desire to press for some explanation of this very extraordinary thing.

Sir J. GILMOUR

My Noble Friend tried to lead the Committee to think that we were spending enormous sums of money upon new public buildings. On actual new works the contrary is really the case, more this year than in any other year in the history of these big public Departments. If you take the Inland Revenue buildings, the particular Vote which we are now discussing, the actual expenditure on proposed new works is about £99,000, and on the total of the whole Vote it is something like £328,000, and not £4,000,000. It is true that in a great many cases the Departments after the War necessarily have to make demands for considerable sums for maintenance. That is inevitable after the years through which we have passed, but the Department has been met in every way, by both the Revenue Department and the Post Office, in our endeavour to cut down as much as possible expenditure upon public buildings. In many cases the Post Office have represented to us that we are curtailing unfairly the development of the postal service. We have set up as a particular standard in coming to a decision largely the medical reports and the reports from the staffs employed. I venture to assert that those hon. Members interested in this question of economy would, if they read those medical reports, recognise that in giving way as we have done in some cases, we are only doing so in the public interest.

We recognise very fully that there must be economy. The hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise) made an inquiry with regard to the wireless chain which appears on the Estimates for the first time. That is in pursuance of an arrangement come to by the Imperial Wireless Telegraphy Committee, and it is in accordance with the agreement made in 1919 for the erection of stations in England, Egypt, East Africa, and Hong Kong and possibly one in Canada. We do not anticipate that anything like the full amount we are asking for will be actually expended this year because it will take a considerable time to select the stations.

Mr. WISE

Does the £100,000 put up five stations?

Sir J. GILMOUR

That is the amount we are asking for this year for this purpose, but I do not anticipate that the whole amount will be required this year. The hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) asked me a question about the scheme for the proposed new works. May I point out that some of them have already been completed, but in the case of those with which we are proceeding we have cut them down by agreement with the Post Office, and that Department has been reasonable in its dealings with us. For these reasons I am afraid this expenditure is absolutely necessary if the postal service is to be properly developed.

Sir G. COLLINS

Some doubt has been thrown on the figures which I gave to the Committee. I have looked through the whole of these Estimates to find out the amount spent on new works and the amount spent on maintenance and repairs. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned a sum of £400,000 which might be spent this year on new works——

The CHAIRMAN

That is not the Estimate which is before the Committee. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to develop his argument, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman who replied represents the Office of Works.

Mr. FOOT

I hope this Amendment will be pressed to a Division. I want some further information about the considerable sums of money which are put down in this Estimate. A case can be made out for any amount of expense, and Post Office officials in any part of the country can argue that the service will suffer unless their schemes are carried through. At a time when we have to restrict expenditure in every other direction, there is no justification for spending £500,000 in this way at this time. In relation to new schools, a multitude of children in this country are shut out, and a large number are learning under almost impossible conditions, and when an appeal is made for the erection of new schools which have been delayed for many years, we are told it is impossible to incur the expenditure at this time of financial stringency. If that holds good as regards the children, it should hold good in relation to other Departments. If we have not the money to enable children to be taught under proper conditions at a time when expenditure upon education can be justified, I think there is no reason why we should support this Vote. I think the children have our first claim, and if a denial of education is to be persisted in, I think that will justify us in resisting this Vote.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I wish to raise a point in regard to rents. Last year we built very heavily. On Customs and Excise buildings we spent over £23,000 in new works, and on the Inland Revenue buildings you spent £253,000, or over a quarter of a million. Last year this House gave its sanction to a very large sum for buildings in respect of the Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue. If you take so large a sum for building your own premises, why have your rents gone up? I should have thought that the more you build the less rent you would have to pay, but I find that is not the case. When it comes to the next Vote I shall be obliged to ask a similar question. I should like my hon. and gallant Friend to explain why the rents have gone up when there is such a considerable sum for new works. I do not understand why you want two new sorting offices at Ludlow and Hereford, because those places are only about 30 miles apart.

Captain Viscount CURZON

I want to call attention to three different headings, F, L, and Q. They all include items for fuel and light and household articles. I do not know what is included in household articles. There is £265,000 for fuel. I want to ask if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is satisfied that the Regulations made by his Department to ensure economy in fuel and light have been carried out. During the coal strike last year we found that it was possible to economise very largely in fuel and light, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to tell us that the utmost economy has been used in this respect.

Sir J. GILMOUR

With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) about rents, I find that in a great many of these cases the actual amount of rent has been under-estimated. This matter has been very carefully gone into, and certain adjustments have had to be made in consequence. In addition to that when leases fall in, in most cases we have to pay an increased rent. There is another factor which also runs through all these votes, and that is that we have consistently tried to postpone building operations. In cases where we have previously taken money for building operations and postponed them, we have actually had to rent premises. With regard to the question put by the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) every care is being taken so far as it is possible by directions and regulations to secure economy in the use of fuel and light, and while there may be much to be desired in this respect I am satisfied that the Department is fully alive to the importance of these matters.

Lord R. CECIL

I do not think the hon. and gallant Member has quite understood the point raised by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). The point is that the amount voted for buildings has gone up and at the same time rents have gone up. A considerable amount of money has been spent in building and coincidentally the amount paid in rent has gone up, and it does not seem on the face of it how those two things can go up together. This point is not answered by saying in a rather cryptic way that the estimate for rent has been under-estimated in past years. I know I could not readjust the rent which I have arranged to pay, and even the Government which has under- estimated rent should not readjust it in that way. Personally I am not quite sure that I should join in any criticism of the Government for spending money on buildings at the present time if they are really necessary. There seems to me a good deal to be said for spending money on really necessary building works at a time when unemployment is rife. If we manage our affairs in a businesslike way and arrange for all public authorities, at a time when trade and employment are abundant, not to do any work that can possibly be put off until such time as employment is scarce and labour abundant, it will be a very desirable thing. It should be done in a systematic way, not only by the Government, but by all public authorities throughout the country. I have often heard that suggested to successive Governments, and they have promised they will consider it, but as far as I know, it has never been considered. If the Government can really satisfy the Committee that this expenditure is necessary, and that it will have to be done sooner or later, then I think it should be started even at a time when economy is necessary—it should be done at a time when unemployment is bad, and I for one would not be inclined to criticise the Government very severely, providing, of course, they are not wasting money by doing things which are not really necessary. We must not squander money even for the sake of giving employment. For these reasons I shall be glad to be assured by the Government that they have looked into these matters, and that these are things which will have to be done sooner or later. If they can satisfy the Committee on that point, I shall not be disposed to press my criticism any further.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Assistant-Postmaster-General (Mr. Pike Pease) in his place. We are on Vote M, as I understand, and I see that the Post Office proposes to spend considerable sums of money on new buildings. I agree with the Noble Lord who last spoke that, if it is necessary to spend money on new buildings, this is a very good time to do it, inasmuch as unemployment is rife, and the cost of building materials has fallen. But I am not at all sure that some of these proposed expenditures are necessary. I see that, in connection with the Threadneedle Street branch post office there is a Vote for £89,500 for works services, £425 for fittings and furniture, and £75 for removal expenses. The probable expenditure to the 31st March, 1922, is put at £5,000, and the amount required for 1922–23 at £60,000. My right hon. Friend will remember that last year I raised this particular question, and he was good enough to ask me to go and examine the buildings for myself. I did so. I went over the office. Some of the rooms were very dirty, but a little whitewash, in my opinion, would have remedied that. It did not seem to me to require a considerable sum of money to be spent on that. Then there was the question of the rooms set apart for staff luncheons. They were at the top of the house, and undoubtedly very inconvenient. I told my right hon. Friend what was my opinion at the time. I suggested that, because the top storey was inconvenient, it was utterly unnecessary to pull the whole building down and rebuild it from the bottom. The building is a very substantial one; it consists of very good stone, probably Portland stone. I remember it for the last 30 or 40 years. The stone has stood extremely well, and I think it would be possible to put a new top storey on that building at considerably less cost than is proposed now to be incurred. A new top storey is all that is required, that is, supposing you are going to continue the practice of cooking luncheons for the people employed in the Post Office. I pointed out to my right hon. Friend it was not the custom in the City to provide meals for clerks in the office. In the City space is very restricted and it is found very much more convenient for people engaged in business to go outside for luncheon.

When I was a bank director we had to consider the question of the employment of women, and at that time it was rather difficult for women to obtain a decent lunch in the City. The question was raised whether or not we should make an innovation and provide luncheons for our women clerks, but it was found to be so expensive and inconvenient that we did not do it. It seems to me that the whole reason given for rebuilding this particular office is that a more convenient place may be provided in which the staff can have their luncheons. That appears to me to be utterly ridiculous at any time, but in these days when we are suffering from such an enormous burden of taxation, to suggest the advisability of spending something like £80,000 on such purpose is simply absurd. It must be remembered, too, that when once the building is started upon we have no guarantee that £80,000 will cover the expenditure. I know my right hon. Friend is a kind-hearted man and likes to have things very nice, but we have to cut our coat according to our cloth. We cannot afford to do this sort of thing at this moment. There are some people who hope that in the forthcoming Budget the Income Tax will be reduced. It cannot be reduced unless we stop expenditure of this sort, and therefore I sincerely hope that this sum of £89,000 will be cut down.

I come next to another set of proposals for building new offices. At Accrington it is proposed to spend £23,395; at Brighton £48,470 on a new sorting office and telephone exchange; at Chester £7,100 on an enlargement of the building; at Coventry £27,200 on a new sorting office; at Crewe £33,150 on an enlargement of the sorting office; at Harrogate £26,290 on a new sorting office; at Ipswich £24,750 on a new sorting office, and a Surveyor's office; at Lancaster £32,365 on a new post office; at Luton £37,500 on a new post office; at Oldham £14,150 on a new sorting office, and at Reading £86,000 on a new post office. Yet Reading has gone on very well for a long time without a new post office, and I venture to suggest to the Committee that we ought to put an end for the moment to this enormous expenditure by the Department on new buildings. At Retford £7,785 is proposed to be expended on a new post office; at Rochdale £51,300 on a new post office; at St. Anne's-on-Sea £10,000 on a new post office; at Southport £18,875; at Wembley £16,470 on a new post office; at Weymouth £14,265; at Dundee £41,200 on a post office extension; at the General Post Office, West, £32,000 on an additional storey; at Bridgend £14,340 on a new post office and telephone exchange; at Chepstow £11,305 on new buildings; at Darwen £13,260 on a new post office; at Halifax £17,500 on an extension of the post office and telephone exchange; at Hereford the Estimate provides for £10,515 on a new sorting office, and at Maidenhead £13,000 for a post office extension and telephone exchange. Then there is also provision for urgent and unforeseen works.

The total Estimate is for £531,340, and I hope this Committee will take the line of telling the Postmaster-General that we cannot afford to go in for this extensive scheme of building operations by the Post Office at the present moment. We are getting on very well with the existing buildings, and it must be remembered that while it is proposed to spend more money on post offices, we have less facilities, and therefore do not really require more room for carrying on that lesser quantity of work. I hope the Committee will see that we cannot get a reduction of taxation until we also have a reduction of expenditure. I notice that the total of £531,000 is subject to a reduction of £66,000 in respect of works which may not be carried out during the year, but, on the other hand, it is proposed to spend £272,000 on maintenance and repairs, and £56,000 on furniture. I see there is an item of fuel, candles and household articles for the General Post Office and branch offices in the London district. It amounts to £92,000. What are the candles wanted for at the present time? I thought we always had electric light.

Mr. WISE

They are used for sealing wax.

7.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY

It would be better to burn a little oil rather than candles for that purpose, for the candles only waste when the sealing wax is applied to them. I am sorry to say I have been rather occupied this afternoon, otherwise there might have been some other points I should have wished to put to my hon. and gallant Friend. I think, however, I have asked him enough for the moment, and I will conclude by saying that I hope the House will support me in my endeavour to reduce expenditure on unnecessary matters.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON

I should like to call attention to what was said by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) just now. He gave the Government certain advice, and suggested that at the present time they should do as much building as they possibly could in view of the large amount of unemployment that exists. I should like to protest against that. The Noble Lord said, do not build in a boom period, but build in a slump. The present period, so far as the building trade is concerned, is the tail-end of a boom rather than a slump. Building costs to-day are probably twice what they will be in the course of another 12 months, and to start building now on a rapidly falling market that has slumped in a most remarkable way ever since the resignation of the late Minister of Health (Dr. Addison) and the appointment of his successor, and which if left to itself will enable the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department and others to do their building next year at a very much lower rate than they can at present, is a very unwise policy. The kindest thing that you can do to the unemployed at present is not to be spending money at the present time on putting up buildings which, when erected, will not be worth anything like what they have cost to build. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not be persuaded by the eloquence of the Noble Lord to put in hand at the present time any buildings that can be dispensed with at the moment.

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER -GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease)

I am very glad to have the opportunity to reply to my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) with regard to the Vote for the Post Office, but I would first like to point out that the figure has fallen from £817,900 for the year 1920–21 to £475,340 for 1922. That includes all alterations, and is not all for new works, as was suggested by my right hon. Friend.

With regard to the Threadneedle Street Post Office, last year, after the Debate in the House, I said to my right hon. Friend in the Lobby that if he would only come down and see it I was absolutely certain—I was wrong in this—that he would be convinced it was necessary that it should be rebuilt. The position of that office is unique. It is the Stock Exchange Telegraph Office. I have had the privilege of being Assistant Postmaster-General for seven years, but this work was decreed long before I came into that position. The amount of work done there is very abnormal compared with other post offices. There are sometimes 6,000 telegrams in one hour leave that office. The reason why the people have to have their meals in that office is because the work is so great and comes in quite unknown quantities. Sometimes there is a very great rush, and therefore it is necessary to have meals at the post office itself. Everyone in the City who has knowledge of these matters knows in regard to this problem that it is not at all easy for people at certain hours to get their food very quickly, and that is why it is necessary for us to make special arrangements. The office is an absolute disgrace to the service. The sanitary arrangements are close to the kitchen and where the people work. The clerks themselves in that office would not work there if there were not certain advantages with regard to Bank holidays and other days which give them an advantage over others in post offices elsewhere. With regard to the medical report, that is the crux of the situation. As my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir J. Gilmour) mentioned, the reason why these post offices are being rebuilt or alterations are being made in them is chiefly the medical reports, and I am absolutely convinced that the right hon. Baronet would not for a moment allow anyone employed by himself to work daily in an office like the Threadneedle Street Post Office.

Sir F. BANBURY

I did not see anything wrong with the lower part of the post office. I agree that the top part and the basement were not right, but the basement could be cleared out, meals not taken in it, and that would be all right. It is a question of meals, and of meals only.

Mr. PEASE

I should like to invite hon. Members to come and see this post office, and I am convinced that nine out of 10 would not agree with my right hon. Friend. With regard to the other post offices, I am not at all satisfied with the amount we are being allowed to do in connection with this work. Everybody knows that, owing to the calamitous War, much necessary work has not been carried out, and as regards this money which is sought, I think it is the smallest sum ever asked for in the history of the Post Office. I could deal with other post offices which have been mentioned, but as far as the Threadneedle Post Office is concerned I should be very glad if hon. Members who feel strongly on this question would inspect it.

Mr. GREENWOOD

I should like to support this Vote, and I feel very much inclined to support the views of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). I rather regret myself that the Vote is such a reduction on the previous one as I do feel that now is the time to embark on any useful work that can be done with regard to building such as is mentioned in these Estimates. We are constantly told that this is not the right time, that we must wait perhaps another twelve months, that costs have come down so much, and will come down a great deal more, but one wonders what will be the position of the people in the country by the time we have reached that particular psychological moment when it is the right time to spend some more money. Especially with regard to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), I am afraid that pretty well the whole of the people of this country will be starved to death before we reach the proper time for commencing building operations and spending any reasonable sums of money.

I think we have run the idea of economy too far altogether, therein making a very grave mistake, because we have already practically three million people doing nothing, and it will be a sound policy for the money to be spent as is suggested in these Estimates. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who complains about money being spent which, so far as I can gather, is to make the conditions of work of those engaged in the post offices in London better. I have not had the experience of seeing these offices, but in some parts of this Metropolis I have seen servants engaged by the Government whose working conditions are such as would not be tolerated in any single cotton mill in Lancashire. Absolutely wrong altogether are the conditions under which they are employed. There is one mentioned in the Vote that was read out by the right hon. Baronet with regard to Oldham. I cannot say very much about the other items in the Estimates, but I do know something about that, and I know it is one that ought to be started upon because it is work that has been required for many years. The conditions of the employés in part of the Post Office arrangements is very, Very bad indeed, and money spent that will make the conditions of people better, and money that can be spent now at a time when we have certainly dropped 40 to 50 per cent, from the high peak of the building costs, would be really sound and economical expenditure. We shall soon have to come to a decision as to when we are to determine there will be a new and reasonable level of prices. It is all very well to say that we will wait until pre-War prices are restored. If we do that, we may wait 10 years. Surely we are not going to wait to do useful work for a period such as that. If we do, what sort of position will employment in this country be in? We are talking economy and saying that we cannot afford to do this, that, and the other, but a great deal of this expenditure is capital expenditure. What is the use of saying that a powerful country like ours cannot afford the paltry sums like these which are necessary to keep going efficiently the services of the State?

Amendment negatived.