§ 40. Mr. BECKERasked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office le still in possession of Deptford Market; what rate is paid per annum; why is possession retained; and is he aware that a large number of men could be employed there if possession were given up by the War Office?
§ 44. Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House as to the use which is at present being made by the War Office of Deptford Market; and whether, in view of the expense involved in the proposed purchase of the site by the War Office, and seeing that the market formerly provided employment for between 1,500 and 2,000 persons who might again be so employed, and that the loss of this market in London has an adverse effect on the price of meat in London and on certain trades in the surrounding districts of Deptford, he will reconsider the matter?
§ Mr. WALSHI will answer these questions together. Deptford Market is still in the possession of the Department, and it has been decided to exercise the option of purchasing it. The market is used mainly as a depot for the storage and handling of reserve and other stocks of food and forage and for purposes incidental thereto. I regret that I cannot reconsider the decision to purchase. The whole matter received most careful examination before that decision was arrived at. When the purchase has been completed I will give my best consideration to the question of selling or letting any part of the property not required for military purposes. The effect of the release of the depot on private employment is hypothetical, but I would point out that the place had been practically closed for some time when originally taken over in 1914. The rent pending purchase is £10,000 a year.
§ Mr. BECKERWas this market bought specially in order that it might be sold to the War Office, or was it bought from the original owners who had the tenure before 1914?
§ Sir H. BRITTAINWhat was the capital sum paid out for this market; and would it not have been possible to get cheaper land elsewhere which would have been equally efficacious?
§ Mr. WALSHI do not see that these questions arise out of the question on the Paper. If categorical answers are required to them, the questions had better be put down.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSIs it not really far more economical to purchase, and is it not the fact that, by this means, we shall avoid a very heavy bill for reinstatement?
§ Mr. WALSHThat is really the gist of my answer. The matter has undergone most careful consideration. I myself have done a great deal in going through the papers, and I am fully satisfied that more careful consideration could not have been given to the matter than has been given.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODIs it not most unfair, Mr. Speaker, that men who were in the Government until a month ago should put questions of that kind?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on my left was offering support to the Minister?