§ 1. "That a sum, not exceeding £914,300, 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, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices Abroad."
§ 2. "That a stun, not exceeding £1,197,440, 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, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments, and Brompton Cemetery."
§ 3. "That a sum, not exceeding £331,300, 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, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health)."
§ 4. "That a sum, not exceeding £247,240, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which 2118 will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings. Great Britain."
§ 5. "That a sum, not exceeding £178;020, 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, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings."
§ 6. "That a sum, not exceeding £60,820, 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, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI should like to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if he will explain this increase of £184,000. Is this in order to provide employment, or are we accelerating buildings, or what are we doing The expenditure on bricks and mortar by successive Governments has been very heavy indeed in recent years, and for a number of years past we have had an increase in the cost of revenue buildings. Revenue buildings once built, in the solid way in which Governments quite rightly provide for the future, should be expected to remain, and not to require very great expenditure, and yet we have this large sum of £1,300,000, which also includes very substantial increases. Let us look at some of the items of the increase. With regard to Customs and Excise buildings, there is an increase of £5,000 in maintenance and repairs. I do not know whether labour costs have gone down or not, but I rather think they have and that materials have slightly gone up, and we should have an explanation of this item of £5,000. There is a Sub-head B which simply says offices in London, £12,570 for last year and £14,800 for this year, and it goes on to say offices in England and Wales and offices in Scotland, but it does not say a word about the reason for the increase, and I do not think it is an altogether satisfactory way of presenting Estimates. Whenever there is an increase over last year's Vote, in view of the stringency of money we should have some explanation given in the Estimates.
2119 Then there is an increase for furniture of £2,110. Might I ask again for some details and reasons for this increase. Under Sub-head C, there is simply a sub-division of furniture required for London on the one hand, England and Wales on the other, and Scotland on the third. Whereas London alone requires an expenditure on furniture of £2,400, Scotland is only allowed £400 for furniture. Is that because Scotsmen take greater care of the furniture, or that they are content with more frugal furnishing of their offices? I represent an English constituency, but I have a little strain of Scottish blood in my veins. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] If the hon. Member likes to consult me afterwards, I will tell him. This is a matter which requires some explanation. I notice that this round sum of £400 is the same as last year. When I see round sums in the Estimates of £400 year after year, I at once became suspicious. I think this is put in as a sort of safeguard and then, naturally, the Department wants to spend up to it or the money has to be returned. That is loose accounting. It is on this sort of thing that the House of Commons can do something practical to save money, and, unless I have a satisfactory account from the hon. Gentleman, I hope the House will support me in voting against it. There is an increase in insurance and rent charges and rents. If any hon. Member looked into the accounts of a company and saw a round sum of £400 for this year or last year, he would at once call for an account or he would not know his business as a director.
With regard to the Inland Revenue buildings, I see under Sub-head G, "New works, alterations, additions, and purchases." an increase of no less than £8,000. There is a sum for repairs later on, and there is an increase of £7,500. Ordinary repairs one passes, but why these additions and purchases? Is this in anticipation of the Government policy of safeguarding industry? Is this an anticipation of the re-imposition of obnoxious duties which were dropped in the last Budget? Will extra Customs officials be required to carry out the policy of hidden Protection that the Government are embarking on? On the next item, "Unemployment relief works," there is actually a decrease of £1,870. 2120 Hon. Members above the Gangway are conspicuous by their absence. I am very surprised to see that item. For the provision of new works and accelerating the overtaking of arrears of maintenance for the purpose of relieving of unemployment such and such a sum is voted, but as to why less is being spent on unemployment relief this year than last year there is not a word of explanation in the Estimates. I invite the hon. Gentleman to give us a full explanation why, on the one hand, additions and new purchases of bricks and mortar total 28,060 for Inland Revenue buildings, and unemployment relief works, on the other hand, are down by £1,870. Furniture is up to £8,895, and rent and insurance are increased by £11,700. We are paying £1,700 more for fuel, light, water, and household articles. Why is that? Coal is down, and there is no increase in water. It is arranged by Statute as to what the water companies can charge. I do not know that there has been an increase in electric light, gas, or oil, because some of these buildings are lit by all sorts of means. The item for telephones this year is £170, against nothing in 1924–25. What is the explanation of that? Is this new building?
I turn to the Post Office. I notice the absence of the Postmaster-General when a portion of his buildings are being voted upon. The Assistant Postmaster-General is also absent. The explanation of the increase in the Vote for maintenance and repairs of nearly £81,000 is left to the overworked Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who represents the First Commissioner of Works. I look to him, therefore, for an explanation. On Post Office and telegraph buildings, new works, alterations and additions there is an increase of £72,000 odd, and yet for unemployment relief work there is a decrease of nearly £5,000. I do not think that is at all a satisfactory state of affairs, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to explain these increases in the Estimates in these times of financial stringency and the extraordinary spectacle of an actual decrease in the amount of money allowed for unemployment relief work. If it were the other way about, I should congratulate the hon. Gentleman, but this Estimate is not satisfactory, and I ask hon. Members to assist me in extracting from the Government an explanation which I hope will be satisfactory.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSThe hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) criticises in a rather curious way. If the Government spend more money on buildings, he denounces them. If they spend less on building under the heading of "Unemployment relief works," he equally denounces them. As a matter of fact, building work helps the relief of unemployment whether it he done as part of the normal programme, or by way of accelerating work or overtaking arrears. I suggest that he should be a little more consistent in his criticism.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson)The hon. and gallant Gentleman has criticised the increase in the total Vote. As a matter of fact, the major portion of that increase, to the extent of £147,000, is due to the Post Office and Telegraphs section of the Vote. During the War practically the whole of the new works building was suspended, anti during the last few years we have been doing our best to catch up arrears of work, and the provision for the coming year includes only a very few cases which have really become urgent owing to arrears. No scheme of work is passed by the Office of Works or by the Treasury unless it satisfies three conditions. Either the tenure of existing premises is insecure and you have to get new premises or new buildings, or there is a danger to health in existing premises, or, in the case of combined offices, urgent telephonic requirements become due. Also some of the increases are due to what are known as re-votes. I agree that re-votes are not a good kind of Vote at all, and I have very often had occasion to criticise them, but, as a matter of fact, the re-votes which add a good deal to this Estimate are due to certain causes which could not have been avoided. In the first place, we had a building dispute which rendered necessary a re-vote of money which could not be spent last year, we had certainly very adverse weather conditions which delayed building work, and certain legal delays took place. Now all these causes taken together have affected the Vote.
7.0 P.M.
May I take the question of unemployment? The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) criticized 2122 the fact that we are not spending enough on unemployment. I do not think he was in the House the other day when that question was raised by two hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is generally in his seat, was here when the question was raised, and when at considerable length I explained to the hon. Gentlemen opposite why it was that in the coming year we were not proposing to spend so much on unemployment relief. I can give him the reason I gave the other day. I pointed out, in the first place, that during the last three weeks we have had already Supplementary Estimates giving nearly £300,000 towards unemployment for building in the Office of Works Vote—not quite as much as that, but £256,000 during the last three weeks. Very largely, the work we are engaged in has to be done by skilled labour, especially in regard to ancient monuments and buildings. As a matter of fact, the Office of Works has practically exhausted the field for unskilled labour during the last year. We have got very little in the way of employing unskilled labour. As a matter of fact also, there is very little unemployment now among skilled operatives in the building trade, and it is really for those reasons that our programme, so far as unemployment relief is concerned, is not so big as it was. Still, as I pointed out the other day, in answer to hon. Members, if it should appear in the future advisable for the Office of Works to spend more money on unemployment relief, the matter will come before the Unemployment Relief Committee of the Cabinet, and it will be perfectly legitimate to bring in an Estimate for that object.
I think it is only courteous to reply to the other criticisms of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He mentioned the increase on the maintenance of repairs under the heading of Customs and Excise buildings—an increase of just over £5,000. It is very largely due to an increase in prices. The hon. and gallant Gentleman thought that prices had gone down. As a matter of fact, they have not; they have gone up, and the increase is very largely clue to the increased labour rate estimated at 8 per cent. for builders' work and 5 per cent. for engineers'. Then he asked about an increase in furniture. I think there is 2123 an increase there of £2,000. That increase is mainly due to the provision made of furniture for an additional staff of 150 expected to occupy the various Government and Excise offices. A rearrangement is now taking place in regard to some of these offices. There are various areas in London particularly, I believe, that are being rearranged, and that for the moment has led to the requirements for furniture. We do not anticipate that owing to the rearrangement in these areas there is to be this particular item next year. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred, I think, to an increase of £12,000 in housing articles under the heading of "Post Office and Telephone buildings." Well, that sum is very largely owing to the increased cost of fuel. Fuel has gone up very considerably, and practically the whole of that increase is due to this cause. I do not know whether there were any other questions put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYWhat about the £400 for Scotland?
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI am not at all sure that I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that offhand, but I should just like to say this, that we are anxious to get an early vote, These Estimates are based on our being able to get an early vote. We find it much more economical to get our building contracts early. If we can get them early, we get buildings done during the cheaper part of the year. It makes all the difference in the Estimates if we can get these contracts early, and these contracts are based on the assumption that the House is going to be good enough to give us an early vote. I understand that the £400 is an estimate which is taken as a sort of average every year; it may occasionally be more or it may occasionally be less. It is not as the hon. and gallant Gentleman imagines that we are going to spend 400 every year.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMay I move a reduction?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have had no notice, and have already put the Question.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI would like to make one or two remarks on this Vote. The first is with regard to sub-head "H" in connection with Chequers. This is a very large sum of money to spend on the protection of Chequers. I quite agree that it should be protected, though I cannot imagine anybody wishing to do any damage to the Prime Minister, apart from his politics. The amount of payments to the Bucks County Police Authorities for providing police for the protection of Chequers is £1,150, and this works out at about £25 a week. I think that is a very excessive sum. I imagine that special protection is needed only when the Prime Minister is present at Chequers. It means really only week-ends or occasionally other times. I wish he had more time there. The £25 a week for providing protection at the week-end at Chequers strikes me as a very great sum of money when we reckon, at the same time, that the Prime Minister, like other Ministers, has his "shadows," in other words, private detectives, who see that he comes to no harm. I think it is a very large sum of money, and there should be an explanation. If that is excessive, I venture to suggest that the Bucks Police Authorities have over-estimated the cost or this House is being asked to vote some of the charges that should be borne by the inhabitants of the beautiful county of Buckinghamshire.
The next item I wish to question is a matter of furniture under the sub-head "K." Hon. Members will see there an item for the general supply of new furniture and fittings, tables, chairs, etc., amounting to £33,265 as compared with £28,035 last year. There is an increase, therefore, on furniture of £5,000. I thought that the swollen ranks of the bureaucracy were gradually being demobilised. During the War we had a flood of officials of all kinds, all sorts of people, getting jobs under Government, and they were, with great difficulty, uprooted and soon had to work for their living outside. I understood that year by year the number of officials had been decreased, that War Department after War Department had been wound up, and that numbers of the Civil Service showed a consistent decrease year by year. Why, therefore, is it necessary to increase the vote for furniture by another £5,000, and 2125 why is it always necessary to have a supply of new furniture and fittings? I like our permanent staff to work amongst pleasant surroundings with beautiful furniture and that sort of thing, but if I were furnishing an office at the present moment I should look round for substantial second-hand furniture. The Government must have sufficient furniture left over from the War Departments wound up. I rather fancy the Disposal Board were given thousands of desks, racks, and arm-chairs to dispose of which they dumped on the market and probably sold at knock-out prices. Then the Office of Works comes along and buys new furniture for other offices. What are the new Departments requiring this new furniture? Could it not have been supplied from the surplus furniture left after the winding up of these war-time Departments? We can only deplore the ruinous and expensive policy being pursued by the Government of the day, but in these little things we can criticise and point out where it seems to us there is extravagance. For that reason I had proposed to move a small reduction of the Vote.
A further item to which I wish to refer is sub-head "A"—"New works, alterations, additions and purchases." Hon. Members will be aware that the Coastguard Service has been largely reduced and partly transferred to the Board of Trade. Some of the stations have been taken over by Lloyds, and altogether those picturesque survivals of a by-gone day, popular and respected by the whole neighbourhood, have been decreased in numbers. On sentimental grounds, I deplore their departure. I find that there is a provision of residences for coastguards at Bude of £4,655 and at Burniston of £2,205. At Donha Nook, I forget where that is, the sum to be spent is £3,130, in respect of which the Vote This year is only £2,630. So it goes on. There is to be expenditure at the Lizard, Newquay, Port Isaac, Stoke—I presume that is Stoke, near Devonport—and then there is provision for the erection of cottages at Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum. I do not ask for an explanation with regard to the cottages at Broadmoor, because I am sure they are necessary, but, seeing that the coastguards have been so reduced, and that all over the coast we see coastguards' 2126 cottages and buildings being offered for sale, many having been sold and now in use as week-end cottages, I should like to know why there is this Vote for new works in regard to the coastguards up and down the coast. It seems to me that there is something wrong here, and I would like some explanation. We have to go with this Vote an increase in the amount of money for unemployment relief works, and I accept the explanation of the hon. Member. I take this opportunity of apologising to him for having been called out of the House when he was speaking the other day. I am glad that the total Vote is a nett decrease of over £35,000, and that makes up somewhat for the increase on the items to which I have referred, notably the increase of £5,000 in respect of new furniture, and the excessive cost of police protection at Chequers.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) also missed a rather good speech that I made the other day on the subject of Chequers, because exactly the same point was raised by a member of his own party, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn). I had hoped that perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Leith would have conveyed to the hon. and gallant Member the information that I gave on that occasion. However, as the hon. and gallant Member has asked me a question, it is only courteous to repeat what. I said on that occasion. When Lord Lee—
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI did not know that the matter had been raised before, and I apologise for raising it now. One cannot always be here. I am sure that the explanation is satisfactory.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONIt is not only a question of the protection of Ministers, but these constables who are there are looking after the contents of Chequers. They act as a guard against burglary and against fire. They are there all the year round. Two other questions were raised by the hon. and gallant Member, one in regard to the increased Vote for furniture. He has rather understated the increase, which is £11,000, and not £5,000. But the increase is more than covered by the inclusion for the first time this year of £16,500 in re- 2127 spect of services carried out on repayment terms for civil departments. If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the Appropriations-in-Aid on this Vote he will see that what looks like an increased expenditure is really covered by the services I have mentioned.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThat only comes from another Department.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONOne may criticise the particular Departments that make use of the furniture, but so far as this Vote is concerned in respect of the furniture that we buy, there is an Appropriation-in-Aid, which we get from the Departments concerned. It is merely an accounting figure.
§ Major CRAWFURDHas the hon. Gentleman's Department no control over the practice of other Departments in the matter of furniture?
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONThe Office of Works has no control over the policy that leads to the expenditure of public money in regard to these Departments. Our only responsibility is to see that the work of the requisitioning Department is carried out properly and economically. We are not responsible for the policy that sets the machinery going and in connection with which this furniture is required.
§ Major CRAWFURDHas the hon. Member's Department no control over the scale of expenditure in regard to furniture required by other Departments?
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI agree that we have to see that the money is properly expended and that there is not too much furniture bought. In regard to the question of the Coastguards, the amount in this Vote is over £85,000. The Coastguards previously were under the Admiralty, but they are now regarded from a different point of view. They are regarded from the point of view of the protection of lives at sea, and come under the auspices of the Board of Trade. We are not responsible for the particular line of policy. We are responsible for buildings and upkeep. Many of these buildings are in a very dilapidated condition and are now being brought into a satisfactory state, as far as possible. 2128 Those mentioned in the Estimate are new buildings which are being put up at the request of the Board of Trade with a view to the protection of life at sea. These buildings are all round the coast. Some of them are in very inaccessible places, necessarily, because when you protect lives at sea you very often have to put up buildings which are not near any other houses and not near any good roads. Therefore, the cost of putting up these buildings is much greater than if we were building them in more habitable quarters. That is very largely responsible for the extra cost.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYHave you not furniture left over from Ministries that have been dispensed with?
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONWhenever we can get furniture in that way we do so, but, supposing the policy of one Department is to increase the number of persons engaged in particular work, we have to find furniture for those people, chairs, etc. We have to see that that furniture is bought economically, and that we do not get too much furniture per person. When we have done that, and done our best to see that the transaction has been efficiently and economically carried out, our responsibility practically comes to an end.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYWhat happens to furniture when the number of officials is reduced?
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONIf officials are reduced in any particular Department or in any particular service, the furniture not required would be used in the case of officials who happen to be increased in another service.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMay I preface my remarks on this Vote by saying that I consider that many of our Consular and Diplomatic buildings abroad are not as imposing and well-built as they should be. I do not desire to criticise any necessary expenditure on such build- 2129 ings, especially in the East, where the prestige of this country very largely depends on our having suitable and imposing buildings for the Diplomatic and Consular Services. It is in that spirit that I oppose this Vote. What is being done at Angora? That is an extremely disagreeable mountain city, but it is the capital of the Moslem world to-day. Our Embassy or Legation in Turkey lingers on in Constantinople. Several other Powers represented in Turkey, particularly the Germans—
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI do not think that this is in the Estimate.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYYes, on page 33.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI do not think it is in this Vote.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI do not know whether there is any item of expenditure in the Vote for Consular buildings at Constantinople, in the old city of Stamboul, and along the Bosphorus at the summer residence of the Ambassador. If so, the money would be much better spent in sending at once our diplomatic representative to Angora. My information from Turkey is that we are suffering by not having our representative in Angora. I do not want, however, to pursue that question. Is any money being allowed for Consular buildings in Russia? There is a very important market for our goods there, and it is important that we should have Consuls there. I have been putting questions to the Government about Consular officers in Russia. It is extraordinary that we have only Consuls at three places in that great country, at Petrograd, Moscow and Vladivostok. There is not a single British Consul on the Black Sea. I am told that ships discharging on the Black Sea are experiencing difficulty, because there is no Consular building there and no Consul. There cannot be a Consul without a Consular building. Has the hon. Gentleman used foresight in this matter, and is he asking for money so that there will be no delay when the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office wake up to the facts?
Captain ARTHUR EVANSIs it in order for the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) to raise a point of expenditure which is not contained in the Estimate?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is suggesting that we should sent representatives, but that is a matter of policy, which must be raised on another Vote. At the present time, under this Vote, we are only responsible for housing people who are there.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe information I get is not that the Government do not intend to send Consuls, but that they are negotiating on this and cognate questions with the Government of the Soviet Union, and I presume that when these matters are settled Consuls will be sent. I make this suggestion to the hon. Gentleman and hope that it will receive attention.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI am glad to respond to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has said. It would be out of order on this Vote to deal specifically with the points which he has raised. They are really a matter for the Foreign Office. All I will say is that, if the Foreign Office approached the Office of Works and said that they considered it expedient to carry out the suggestions made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, we should be only too delighted to put the work in hand, and we should come to this House for sanction for the expenditure.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Mr. HARDIEIn reference to the question of the improvement of the ventilation of this House, I would ask whether the engineers responsible for the air supply to this House have considered the question of the level from which the air is taken
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI am very glad that my hon. Friend (Mr. Hardie) has raised this question. We are asking in this Vote for a sum of about £2,000—the eventual cost will be about 4,000—to do what we can to improve the ventilation of this House. We shall never be able to deal fully with this question in existing conditions. The Chamber is overcrowded when all the Members are here, and without a bigger Chamber we can never possibly deal completely with this matter. But we are going to do our best to 2131 alleviate the present conditions. At the present moment, the air comes from the Terrace, through a water strainer, and it is then conducted through a passage into the Chamber. It then comes through openings here above the Gangway and comes up under every seat on which hon. Members sit. In the past, owing to the fact that we get so many school children coming into the House, they generally left a great deal of dust on the floor, so that when Members came here to take part in our business the air coming up through the floor had the effect of blowing all this dirt and dust into Member's lungs. Though the air has been perfect when it entered the Chamber, by the time it reaches the lungs of Members it becomes anything but pure. During the last few weeks hon. Members may have noticed that we put in a mat blow the Gangway, which can be rolled up and taken away when the House starts business, in order to prevent that dust reaching the lungs of hon. Members.
The worst system in the world is to get air coming up which makes the feet cold. What we intend to do with this £2,000 is this. We are going to restrict the amount of space in the floor through which the air comes up. We are going to do away with all the inlets for air under the benches where hon. Members are sitting. We are going to instal instead hot-water pipes under the benches where hon. Members sit, and we are going to bring in the air at a rather reduced temperature. In addition to that, we are going to make a new inlet for air, and that inlet is going to run around the Chamber where hon. Members can see a little brass ornament running all the way round. That will not be unsightly, and there should be another outlet for that air after it gets in at the top. The effect will be that there will be very much less air coming in through the floor, and none from under the benches, and there will be two currents of air on each side of the Chamber over the heads of hon. Members. I believe that the result will be, in combination with the hot-water pipes under the benches, that the air when it reaches the feet will be warmer, but that the air for the lungs will be rather cooler. I may say that this suggestion was tried on a small-scale model in the British Physical Laboratory, and that then a full- 2132 scale experiment was tried here in the Chamber itself with smoke, and it was found to give very satisfactory results. We are asking for £2,000 in the forthcoming year. The whole thing will cost £4,000. It is an experiment, and personally, as I suffer from as many headaches as most hon. Members in the course of my membership of this House owing to the bad atmosphere, I am as anxious as anybody that there should be something done to relieve the existing position, and I hope that the experiment will prove very useful.
§ Mr. HARDIEThe hon. Member has given an explanation as to how this money is to be spent, but he has left out the most important thing. That is the level at which we take in the air which we bring into the House. It is well known to those who have sat through all-night sittings in this House that, whatever the foul contents of a barge which may be passing up the river, the heavier the gas the easier it is for it to get into this House, because we take in the air at the lowest level next to the water. Under this new scheme, you are not altering that. You are not altering the source of your supply. Therefore, no matter what other arrangement you make, you still bring into this House the heaviest part of the air. It is all very well to say you are going to alter that, and things are not so bad with the temperature as low as it is now in spring. But you have to realise that the hot weather is coming on, and even the motor traffic across the bridge has a great effect upon the quality of the air coming into this House, because every motor that passes produces a certain amount of C.O., and if you examine the matter you will find that that gas comes on the surface of the water and it is attracted by the suction at the Terrace and comes into this House.
This scheme appears to me to be going about the matter in a backward way. You start here and make alterations without considering the first of the two things of importance in connection with the ventilation of this House. There is, first, the quality of the air, and, second, its distribution, but I am more interested in the quality of the air than with its distribution. It may be said that the skilled gentlemen, as they are, at the National Physical Laboratory 2133 have been testing the proposition which is submitted to them, but, if you told them that you took your air in from the terrace level, they would not approve of it. If you are going to get what is suitable, you must take the air at the highest point of your slated roof. If you are to get fresh air that must be done, and it can be done, and you have still an opportunity of introducing that into this Chamber and dispensing with all the contraptions on the floor. I agree entirely that whatever may be brought in by the soles of the boots of hon. Members is hound to find its way into their lungs, but I wish to make it clear that it seems to me that you are going to spend this money for nothing, because you are not improving the quality of the air.
I would be prepared to vote not £2,000 but £10,000, as I would anywhere else, to try to get the best air for everybody. But, coming to the question of seating accommodation in relation to the ventilation, it seems to me that the British Empire, with this Chamber as its hub, does not impress the visitor when he realises that while we have 615 Members there are not seats for all the Members, and, if you put the proposition to the gentlemen at the National Physical Laboratory that you wanted the cubic contents of air for 615 Members, you would give them the size of the Chamber. But I presume that you did not do that. If you put the proposition to them to work out a scheme of ventilation, you would give them the exact allotment of space for each Member. But you did not do that. It seems to me to be waste of money to spend £2,000 in simply patching that which is wrong at the source. It would be far better to leave that alone and to come forward with a sound proposal to get new air.
For instance, where Mr. Speaker sits the first of the air and the first of the smells comes in, and I was sorry for Mr. Speaker one night, when two barges passed laden with carbon disulphide going up to the gasworks, almost suffocated those of us who were sitting here. Therefore, the question of the seating is the basis upon which you must calculate the quantity of air that must pass through the House. I am surprised that hon. Members have not been making more row about the dimensions of this House. There is nothing that I see in the building 2134 to prevent this Chamber being altered so as to provide seating accommodation for every Member. We have of course the space behind you, Sir, and the width of the corridors and rooms which are seldom used, and all that could be taken in, and seating accommodation for all Members provided, and I am surprised that we, who are at what is claimed to be the hub of our great Empire, should always be so negligent of that which is the basis of our power. It may be said that there are plenty of seats to-night. That is not the point. The point is that when there is something very interesting in this House all the. Members cannot get seats, and the necessary alterations to extend the accommodation could be made when you are making the alterations for improving the air supply.
If I wanted to go on I could go on all night so far as the system of ventilation is concerned, because I have read the history of the experiments which were made, washing through acid, through coke, charcoal and everything else. But there is no use in starting to wash when you are taking your air from the lowest level. That is why it is good to have dogs and cats going about to swallow that stuff. They can live in it, but it is not good for us. I hope that the gentlemen in charge of the matter will see to this before they go on spending this money in what I consider a slipshod way. I am not going to say anything against the experts' opinion, as they had not all the facts before them or they would not have given you the answer which they gave when they approved of a certain proposition which was put before them. You have taken no steps to provide a fresh supply of pure air. All that you have proved by your experiment is the movement of currents of air. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance that before he goes on to spend this money he will take care that something valuable is done, and not this kind of a job.
§ Sir DOUGLAS NEWTONMay I draw the Minister's attention to the lighting of the House? I suggest that the lighting in many parts of the House is by no means up to the pre-War standard or the standard to which Members of the House are properly entitled. I would draw attention especially to the lighting in the Secretaries' room; it is badly arranged 2135 and quite insufficient. Quite apart from that, there are many other parts of the House where there is wiring for light and no lights have been installed for many years past.
§ Major CRAWFURDI cannot speak with the deep knowledge or the clarity of exposition of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), although I would throw some doubt on what he said owing to certain things which I read in past times about the diffusion of gases. I assume that with ventilation, as with Governments, we are probably compelled to make the best of what we have. The point I wish to emphasise is that I have had addressed to me complaints as to the very bad quality of the air in the Public Galleries of the House. Though I cannot speak as an expert, I would ask the Minister to inquire of the experts whether it is not possible in improving the ventilation on the Floor of the House, to improve also the ventilation in the Galleries?
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI can speak again only with the permission of the House. The hon. Member for Springburn has said that if the air brought into the House were taken from a higher level it would be better. That idea was put before the Committee, and it was pointed out that by adopting such a method you do not get rid of the smells from barges on the river; the smells reach the House just as much as when you bring the air in from the Terrace level. Moreover, if the air is brought in from a high level you get with it smoke that you do not get en the Terrace level. What the hon. Member for Springburn has said deserves consideration. After all, we have to consider the pressure of expense. I wish the House could spend £100,000 in providing a proper Chamber for all to sit in under ideal conditions, for I think that in such a Chamber we could do better legislation. It is really a question of expense. We are trying with as little money as possible to improve existing conditions. The new system will very much improve the condition of the air in the Public Gallery. With regard to the lighting of the House, I shall be very glad to look into the question, and if the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) can send me a note specifying where he thinks the 2136 lighting is bad, we will do our best to get it improved.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere being business down for 8.15, I shall now leave the Chair until that hour.