LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL. (By Order.)

HC Deb 25 June 1925 vol 185 cc1830-74

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. RAWLINSON

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."

In moving the rejection of this Bill, I ought to explain—many hon. Members will know it already—that I do so in no spirit of hostility, either to the London County Council or to this particular Bill. Every other municipal corporation, when it wishes to embark upon capital expenditure, has to submit that capital expenditure to a Government Department. In the old days an inspector of the Local Government Board came down to the district and held an inquiry with respect to the proposed capital expenditure. I suppose now that duty rests upon the Ministry of Health. It has always been laid down that the London County Council should be an exception, and that, having regard to the large sums involved and the importance of the work they are doing, it is the duty of Parliament to deal, and deal carefully, with the sanctioning of capital expenditure. I received that lesson in the year 1907 or 1908 from Mr. John Burns, who chided us very strongly for not bringing forward this Resolution more adequately in those days. I took that admonition to heart, and every year since then I have either moved this Resolution or I have assisted somebody else in connection with it.

This gives an opportunity for any Member of the House of Commons to ask practically any question or to raise almost any question he chooses upon the dealings of the County Council. Not only are there many items of capital expenditure contained in the Schedule of the Bill, but there are sums, for instance, one of £500,000, which can be raised for various purposes in case the County Council and the Treasury decide to do so. I am glad to admit that on this occasion I find that there is very little with which I can find fault in the Bill. The questions I have to ask are mostly of a very simple nature. We are dealing with big figures. We have in this Bill very large capital sums of tramway expenditure. Item 6 in the Schedule refers to the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Act, under which £120,000 is asked for this year, while in Item 16, the construction, reconstruction and equipment of tramways, provision of buildings and so forth, and other purposes, there is a sum of £239,000. In addition there is is the Second Schedule a sum of £25,000, which is part of a sum of £261,000 capital expenditure upon tramways.

I should like my hon. Friend who is going to speak for the County Council to give some explanation regarding these very heavy sums. They are very heavy sums which are to be spent in extending the tramway system. I suppose that it is admitted now that the tramway system, through many causes, is carried on at a loss, and must be carried on at a loss to the County Council. Is it wise under those circumstances to extend a system which is already a loss to other parts of London and its suburbs? Wherever tramways come into opposition with omnibuses, the tramways have a very great difficulty in making a profit. I suppose my hon. Friend generally rides in a motor car, but a more humble individual like myself, who rides in a tram or an omnibus, I find that the omnibus is a far more pleasant and far more expeditious method of locomotion. A tram is not so comfortable, nor is it so expeditious as an omnibus.

Item 12 relates to the County Hall, and I find that £78,000 is the Estimate of the amount to be spent this year, and possibly a further £52,000 for the six months at the end of the current year. How much money has been spent upon the County Hall, and how much is it proposed to spend? We began some time before the War to build the County Hall. I asked in those days what the expenditure would be, but even the boldest defender of the County Council could not predict the cost, because it was too difficult. I should like to know how many thousands or how many millions of pounds have been spent on the building, and how much more is to be spent. Is the particular item which appears in this Bill for the County Hall the finish, or is it merely preparatory to another extension of the Hall?

There is provision in Item 11 for the provision of new offices and plant for testing gas meters, at a cost of £31,000. Is that in the same building? Why cannot gas be dealt with in the County Hall? There is another question. Is not that a new note here? The expenditure under these heads is authorised under general powers contained in the Acts named in the first column and therefore no Parliamentary Estimate is required. I do not understand that note and would like some explanation. Then with regard to Item 17, what is the amount required for the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge, which, of course, is an absolutely necessary work? They ask for £120,000 this year and £30,000 for the first six months next year. With regard to Lambeth Bridge. The Estimate is £668,000 and the amount for this year is £14,000. I would be glad if possible to have some information as to when the rebuilding of Lambeth Bridge is likely to be undertaken? It is in no spirit of hostility that I am asking for this information, but it is the duty of the House to scan with some care large issues of capital of this kind. My hon. Friend is an economist, and I hope that the mere fact that it is known that we do scrutinise the expenditure of the county council will help him in trying to stop them when they are inclined in any way to be extravagant.

Mr. HADEN GUEST

The points on which I wish to elicit some information are in reference to housing and open spaces. There is no more important question for the consideration. The programme of the county council with regard to housing and open spaces, admirably conceived as it is in a certain measure, does yet lack that imagination, enthusiasm and enterprise which are essential for a solution of the housing difficulties in London at the present time. There are, of course, very many difficulties, and there are particularly a great many difficulties in dealing with the question of slum clearance. As a Londoner, I want to see very much bigger steps taken for the removal of the slums, which are a blot upon our city, which is not only the capital of this country but is the capital of a world-wide Empire. I want to see those slums removed and this city made a fine city.

Some people may think that it is not worth while paying very much attention to the slums because you are dealing there with a humanity which is dying off and which can be dealt with by palliatives. But that is not true. The slum populations are veritable aggregations of vitality. They are extraordinarily active, not only physically, but mentally. The proof came in the War, when they provided a very large number of extremely efficient soldiers, whose devoted courage went a long way to help us in our difficulties on the other side. I wish sometimes that hon. Members, when we are thinking and talking about Empire, as we do sometimes on this side as well as on the other side, would remember that one of the pillars of the Empire should be in London, and I would like to see in some part of London, on some little home, a commemorative plaque put up stating, "Here begins the world-wide Dominion of the British commonwealth of nations." But if that plaque were put up now on the hovels in certain parts of our great city it would be a mockery, and I want to prevent that mockery continuing as it is doing at the present time.

I need do no more than refer to the extraordinarily vivid history of our city which does not receive so much attention as certain more remote parts of the world. But we should at any rate, I think, try to get up the same enthusiasm, interest and vitality to deal with these questions of the building of our own city as we do with regard to the question of the more remote overseas Dominions, and I want to get information from those who will speak for the Government and the county council as to why it is that up to the present so many of the bad areas in London have not been dealt with, although their urgently bad condition has been known for 20 or 30 years. I want particularly to refer in the first instance to what is known as the Zoar Street area in North Southwark, the constituency which I have the honour to represent here. Southwark is, I believe, as a whole the most overcrowded part of His Majesty's Dominions.

Mr. THURTLE

No.

Mr. GUEST

I will not enter into a contest with the hon. Member but I will give the actual figure. There are 166 persons to the acre in Southwark as a whole. Poplar has 69.7, and Wandsworth only 36.1. The Zoar Street area, which is near the river closely adjoining Bank Side, which is also in my constituency, which was the site of the original Globe Theatre where Shakespeare's plays were produced, is so badly overcrowded that it has been the subject of representation to the public authority ever since the year 1903. It was described in those years as derelict, in a very rotten and dilapidated condition, and unfit for human habitation. Since that time representations have been made continuously to the borough council and the City Corporation, who come into the picture because of the project to build St. Paul's Bridge, which would join the southern bank of the river at that point.

In 1920 the Borough Council of Southwark attempted to secure a movement ii) the matter. In June, 1920, December, 1920, February, 1921, and February, 1922, and up to the present time, May, 1925, there has been a series of representations from the borough council as to the condition of this particular part of the area. It is a very interesting part of London. It is a very typically British and English part. The names are themselves extraordinarily interesting. You have names like Skin Market Alley, and scores of other names of that description, some of which I think I have here, but the point is, that during the whole of that period, since, 1903, nothing has been done. Hon. Members may think that that is because there is nothing very urgent in the matter. Let me give one or two sets of statistics. Since 1903 there has been a very great improvement in the health of the general population. The death-rate has gone down for the borough as a whole—not particularly a health resort—from 21.4 in 1903 to 14.2 in 1924. In 1903 the death-rate for the Zoar Street area was 40.3, that is to say, practically twice as much as for the rest of the borough. In the year 1924 the death-rate for that area was 26.6, practically twice as much as the rate for the general area. It means that while the Zoar Street area has benefited by the general measures which have led to an amelioration of health, there are in that area certain factors connected with the buildings, with the places, with the arrangement of the streets and alleys, which make the death-rate in that part of the borough twice as heavy as the death-rate in other parts of Southwark. It is a very serious matter indeed, and it is exceedingly unfortunate that that condition should have been allowed to continue since 1903. Let me read a very short medical report which I have here— The physique of the adults is poor and anæmic. Children are in a better condition, but they suffer from sore eyes and skin diseases of microbic origin, largely fostered by the lack of ventilation, light and cleanliness. It is time that we insisted that the county council take this matter in hand and deal with this area, as well as with other slum areas, in a more progressive spirit than they have done up to now. I am quite aware of the great expense which will be involved, but you must balance that money expense against the undeniable expense of human lives which is going on the whole of the time that conditions remain as they are in that area. Twice as many people are dying each year in that area as are dying in other parts of the borough. Hon. Members who know Southwark will realise that the death rate in that area is very much higher than the death rate in an area such as Hampstead or Wandsworth, or places where there is more open space. The question is what can be done? The reason for the delay is partly that the Bridge House Estates Committee has had a project to build a new St. Paul's Bridge. The borough council cannot get on; the county council cannot get on. The Bridge House Estates will not decide whether they will build a bridge or not. That may be a very interesting administrative quarrel between the three parties, but it ought to be ended, and some conclusion of a definite character should be come to about this particular area, and rebuilding on that area should be taken in hand.

It may be thought that there is no land available in the immediate neighbourhood for re-housing. That is not so. The particular area occupies only about one acre of ground, and there is immediately adjoining that area another acre of ground, at present unoccupied. It was previously occupied by big vinegar works, and as soon as purchased it could be used for re-housing the same number of people as are on the other site, or a greater number of people, because the people now there are housed in small houses of an old-fashioned pattern, which does not allow as many people to be housed on the area as could be housed in a quite healthy manner. I suggest that something should be done in regard to this matter. Let me say also that it is particularly desirable that something should be done, because at this moment it happens that Bethlem Hospital, that large asylum which is within the boundaries of my constituency and just beyond the Obelisk, has decided that it must move from its present premises to a site outside London. The site of the Bethlem Hospital—the buildings, and the open space which is still preserved around it, although that is not available now for public purposes— extends to something like 13 or 14 acres of ground. The hospital is proposing to sell that ground for a commercial price, and so to get into its coffers the large amount of money which, no doubt, will be spent in a very suitable manner in the country. The hospital authorities, however, are precluded from doing that without bringing a Bill before Parliament. That Bill has already been presented in another place and has passed its Second Reading.

I refer to the matter now, because I consider that the questions of open spaces and re-building in Southwark are now in a particularly favourable situation for solution, inasmuch as with regard to this Zoar Street area there is actually an unoccupied acre of space which can be used, and with regard to South London and Southwark as a whole there is the whole of this Bethlem Hospital site, which could be brought within the purview of any scheme for planning out that part of London. I am speaking for all parties in Southwark in this matter, and I believe for all parties in the adjoining constituencies also. I am strongly of opinion that the site of Bethlem Hospital should be preserved for the most part as a public open space under the control of the London County Council, and as to a smaller area for the purpose of erecting dwellings for the working classes. There can be no doubt, from the public point of view, that that is the use to which the site should be put.

The hospital authorities are promoting this Bill with the idea of getting as much money as possible, and no one wishes to prevent them getting a proper price for the property. But I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are not only private considerations involved in this, but that there are big and very grave public reasons for keeping this as an open space and for working-class dwellings. There is, for instance, the overcrowding in the district; there is the lack of playing fields for children in the district; there is the large number of children in the district; there is the further fact that Bethlem Hospital does not stand as a commercial proposition, that is to say, it has not raised, by some enterprise of its own, hundreds of thousands of pounds and bought land which it has every right to dispose of. It has, in fact, had very substantial help out of public funds in the past. In another place a Noble Lord gave the figure of £70,000 as having been contributed by Parliament to Bethlem Hospital. Let me deal with the very urgent necessity for the provision of some open space in that particular part of London. I have here some figures very kindly supplied to me by friends of mine on the London County Council. They show that in Southwark the percentage of area occupied by open spaces is 1.1, whereas the percentage in Westminster is 27.7, ir. Deptford it is 2, and Poplar is comparatively aristocratic with 3.7.

Mr. THURTLE

What about Shoreditch?

Mr. GUEST

I will endeavour to give the hon. Member the figure for Shore-ditch, but I cannot put my hand on it at the moment. The amount of open space in Southwark is therefore actually less than in any other district in London with the exception of the City of London, and—according to this table—Chelsea, but in the case of Chelsea certain very large spaces which are actually open are excluded because they are not under the control of the London County Council, while there is Battersea Park, which is immediately opposite Chelsea. As regards Southwark, there is very little open space indeed, and what is there is r.ot very suitable as a playground for children. There is a little garden by Blackfriars Bridge; there is the churchyard of Christchurch in Blackfriars Road: there is a garden in Redcross Street; there is the churchyard of St. George's Church and a playground known officially as Little Dorrit's playground, but known to the local inhabitants as the Gaol Ground because it is part of the ground on which the old Marshalsea Gaol was situated. I also call the attention of the House to the fact that the nearest parks of any kind are a considerable distance away. Southwark Park is about a mile away from the Borough, and Kennington Park is also some distance away, and both are separated from the Borough by busy traffic routes which are of course dangerous for little children to cross.

The number of children in this part of London is enormous. In Southwark Borough and in the electoral district of Lambeth North, immediately adjoining— which would be served equally with Southwark by the opening of Bethlem as a public park—the number of children attending the schools is over 36,000. These children have nowhere to go, except to little graveyards and small playgrounds unless they travel a considerable distance from their homes. In fact, the facilities for playing games are so limited that it has been necessary to reserve ground right outside the borough at a considerable distance—the Tollgate Fields—for use as playing fields for the children of Southwark. In the circumstances, I urge that in a borough which is so overcrowded and which has so many slum areas which have not been tackled for such a long period of years, it is only reasonable to demand that the Bethlem site shall be treated as being more important from the public point of view than from the private point of view, and it is only reasonable to demand that, as regards the larger part of the area, it shall be turned into a public open space, and as regards the smaller part, that it shall be utilised as a site for the housing of the working-classes. In addition to the Zoar Street area, there are other areas in Southwark and Lambeth which could be dealt with at the same time as the Bethlem site is cleared, and a portion of that site could be used for re-housing. Thus you would get over one of the great difficulties connected with slum clearances.

We should be imposing no hardship upon the Bethlem Hospitals, which has other properties. What the exact amount of these is I do not know, but it is referred to in the Act of 1901, and apparently constitutes a very considerable amount. Under the Act of 1901, which regulates the Bethlem Hospital foundation, the present buildings and sites are specifically reserved from being alienated, disposed of, or leased in any way by the governors and authorities of the hospital, whereas the other properties can be disposed of freely. All I am asking is that the London County Council should try as early as possible to come to some agreement with the authorities of the hospital in order to secure this site for public use on the most favourable terms which can be obtained. I am aware that the London County Council have decided unanimously to petition against the Bethlem Hospital Bill, and while that is a perfectly correct procedure, and one which will have due effect, it would be much better, if it could be managed, to have a friendly conference where all the parties concerned could meet together, rather than to have the matter fought out. I am all for arbitration and agreement rather than warfare, and this seems to be an occasion when the method of conference might be used with advantage.

I would further urge that the London County Council should realise that it has to shake its shoulders and do something which it has not done before with regard to slum clearances. We cannot go on year after year having amiable discussions and hearing our friends say they are very sorry that nothing can be done because there is not enough money, when people are being maimed and crippled and the death-rate is being seriously increased by the existing conditions. The time has come to make an effort to end those conditions, once and for all. Now when certain sites are falling vacant, it can. be done in very favourable circumstances and we should make an effort to clear away a large part of this blot upon London which is caused by the existence of slum areas. I know I have the sympathy of hon. Members opposite who represent the county council and that they assent to a large part of what I say, but it is no good sympathising and assenting unless something is done. In this particular matter since 1903 efforts have been made to get the Zoar Street area cleared, but they have been unsuccessful, and the conditions now are worse than they were formerly. There are other areas just as bad in this district and in other parts of London. To-night some hope ought to be held out, that the people in these slum areas will not merely get sympathy and kind words but that action will be taken to remedy the bad conditions.

Sir GEORGE HUME

I cannot complain at the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) opened the discussion. He dealt with us gently and we of the county council agree that this House has every right on an occasion of this kind to get such information as it may require. I will do my best to meet the questions which have been raised. Probably one of the most important points with which my right hon. Friend dealt was that in relation to the County Hall. It has been said over and over again of the County Hall in the past, that they started the construction of the County Hall without having counted the cost. Two years ago I had the privilege of supporting a Bill of this kind, and I then said a few words on this subject, but apparently they have not gone home. I desire to give the facts shortly if what took place at the inception of the County, Hall. The County Office Site (London) Act, 1906, empowered the Council to purchase land for the purpose of erecting the County Hall and authorised expenditure from time to time not exceeding £655,000. The actual expenditure on the site was £617,032. As regards the building on the site, the council did not need to obtain any special powers from Parliament, inasmuch as the necessary powers to provide offices were conferred by the Local Government Act, 1888, subject, of course, to provision being made for expenditure on capital account in the annual Money Acts. The Standing Orders of the council have not required any estimate of the total cost to be stated in the annual Money Bill, but such estimate was prepared before the work was undertaken, and the council has always been ready to give any information required by Parliament thereon, and I attempted to do so two years ago.

The original estimate of cost, excluding furnishing, as reported to the council on the 18th April, 1905, namely, prior to the application to Parliament for site powers, was £600,000 for the site, £44,000 for the embankment, and £1,056,000 for building. In 1913, before the work of building was put in hand, revised estimates were prepared, based on the accepted plans, and they were as follows: site, £622,309; river wall and vaults, £86,120; building, £1,524,568, or a total of £2,232,997. The council has not passed any resolution as regards the erection of what we know as section D, that is, the remaining section of the County Hall, and a detailed estimate for this section has not yet been prepared, but, on the best information obtainable at the present time, the approximate estimated total cost of the County Hall, including site and furnishing, is now £3,850,000, of which £3,098,385 had been expended on the 31st March, 1925. The details are: site, £617,032; embankment, £85,141; building, furniture and incidentals, £3,147,827; or, in all, £3,850,000. This, I am glad to say, is £233,000 less than the figure given to the House by the hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir Cyril Cobb) a year ago, the completion of sections A, B and C resulting in a saving of that amount as compared with the estimate. The large increase over the 1913 figure is owing to changed conditions due to the War and the stoppage in the work of erection which was in progress at the time of the War, and, as the House knows, when we had to proceed again prices were altogether different.

That, quite shortly, gives the position as regards the County Hall. The council at the present moment has not yet decided as to when the extra work of the final section is to be put up. The raft foundation for that section has just been completed, and the council is still considering when the superstructure is to be put up. It is a serious problem, because within three years' time it will probably be necessary to have that accommodation. Even to-day we cannot house the whole of our departments, which are spread out in various buildings outside the County Hall. On the other hand, it is an extremely serious matter, at a moment when we have all been saying, "Housing first," to take a large number of bricklayers away to carry on the work on the County Hall. We have only allowed quite a small sum, I think something like £50,000, for the new County Hall in these estimates, but I think it is extremely doubtful whether that sum will be required this year, for the reason which I have stated.

9.0 P.M.

There was a small point referred to in regard to Item No. 11, "Sale of Gas Acts." One of these offices is really for weights and measures, in Finsbury. As I have already said, we cannot accommodate in the existing building the whole of our staff, and it has been found necessary to provide accommodation outside the County Hall for these weights and measures offices and offices for testing gas meters. Another point raised by my right hon. Friend referred to Item No. 6. That does not include any expenditure on tramways, but is entirely for widen- ing. It may be that when these widenings are effected—a very long delayed improvement—in one or two places where we may have a single line of rails, they will be doubled, but, of course, that is for the public advantage and convenience. In regard to Item No. 16, I am glad to be able to reassure the House that it does not represent an expansion. It represents an expenditure on such matters as improving the accommodation at the generating station, supplying a new motor set, building new stores, because it is proposed to get rid of the old stores in the Old Kent Road, and concentrate entirely now in the Greenwich area, the central repair depot, and the new building, the cost of which is included in this figure. It is also for, in part, remotoring some of the trams in order to enable them to travel more rapidly, as many of them are now doing. It is for matters of that kind.

As to Item No. 19, that is the only amount put up this time for anything in the shape of expansion. As the House knows, there is a Tramway Bill going through the House at the present time, which is intended to enable the County Council to extend the tramways system from a point from Southend right beyond Catford, near one of our estates, through the new housing estate, the Grove Park Estate, where there are something like 5,000 houses going to be put up, to the route on the other side. The original intention was, by the desire of the Woolwich Borough Council, and by the desire of the Lewisham Borough Council, to extend the line from Southend right through the Grove Park Estate into Woolwich, to connect up to the line on that side, so as to have gone through the Woolwich housing estate at the same time, but the wisdom of Parliament has not permitted that. By the forbearance of the House we had, at all events, a say in one part of that scheme. But that was not the object. The object was to build a series of huts where the facilities for travel are not so great. Perhaps I may be allowed to say just a word or two about the tramways. I do not think that will be out of order, because the tramways are constantly referred to in this House as a dying undertaking. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University himself practically assumed that, I think, in the few remarks which he made on the subject, although he is generally genial and forbearing. At the same time, may I say that that is the belief which is so strongly held, and has been for a long time, by some of my Scottish friends on this side of the House, who, whenever the question of tramways comes up say "scrap them!" I am very anxious that the House should understand the position and not be misled by the very skilful propaganda of some and by the natural animosity of motorists, of whom I assure the right hon. Gentleman I am not one. I use the trams and the omnibuses, the trams especially at night.

I should just like to give the House some figures, for I do not think it is generally realised what the part is which the tramways play in the London traffic problem. Take 1924, of which I have the figures here. In that year the tramways in the Metropolitan area—I am not speaking of the London County Council area at the moment—carried 960,000,000 odd passengers. The omnibuses carried 1,451,000,000. The tube railways— "Combine," Waterloo, and City line— carried 180,000,000 odd passengers, other local railways, including the District Railway, Metropolitan, Whitechapel and Bow, Great Northern and City Railway and North London, carried 369,000,000. On the suburban traffic trunk lines there was 322,000,000 carried. These are large figures, but from them we get the essential fact that the tramways, taken together, carry more passengers than the Metropolitan Railway, the tube railways, and the rest of the underground lines in the area. I do not think the share which the tramways to-day are taking in the work of carrying London traffic is generally realised.

Let us come to the London County Council. We are carrying something like 690,000,000 passengers in, our area. We have nearly 160 miles of line in the same area. We have over 1,500 cars. That is a terribly big undertaking to scrap.

Mr. ERSKINE

Why does it not pay?

Sir G. HUME

If my hon. Friend will give me the opportunity I will reply to that. Let us see what service the trams are rendering. Put quite briefly, let me say that first of all it is only the tram undertaking which attempts really to deal with the rush hours of traffic. At that time, I think I am right in saying, the omnibuses do not take more than 20 per cent. of the passengers. Another service which it renders is the provision of workmen's services, the putting on of early morning trams for the workers, and at workers' fares. Again, hon. Members know the advantage of the trams by remembering that we should not be able, many of us, to get home from here except by the night service. Our competitors do not attempt to deal with that service. Then, again, the tramways of London not only construct roads, but maintain the roads to 18 inches on either side of the track, wherever the tramways are running. That is relieving the burden of the local rates in the upkeep of the roads, and the tramways, too, are not wearing out the roads. The tramways have to pay rates on the lines. They have to bear the cost of street widening and improvements, not merely for the benefit of the tramways, but of the whole traffic. These are burdens of public service which the tramways carry out.

Let me come to deficits. Let us try to realise exactly what is the position. If London people only knew the facts I think the services given would be realised. As my hon. Friends know, I am not suspected of being a municipal trader. Still, I believe in dealing with the facts as we find them. When we have a service of this sort carrying on work of the kind, it should be recognised that that work is being carried out. Let me test it in this way. In 1914 we paid £86,000 in rates on the tramways. For street widenings (debt charges) we paid £31,000. For debt charges (excluding widenings) and interest there was paid £307,000 odd. The redemption payments were nearly £398,000. That year we had a deficit of £88,000. In 1915 we had a smaller deficit. In 1916 we had another deficit. Then in 1917–18–19 we had a profit, after paying off debt and sinking fund. In 1918 the profit amounted to nearly £96,000. In 1920 we had a deficit. In 1921 there was a deficit of nearly £590,000. That was a terrible year for all traffic undertakings. There was a deficit in 1922, and in 1923 we had £232,000 to the good. That was not so bad. In 1923 came the onerous competition, multiplied exceedingly in that year. In which year alone, I think I am right in saying, it increased something about 40 per cent. Then we had deficits in 1924 and 1925, but consider the magnitude of the undertaking—£4,000,000.

Mr. ERSKINE

What was the amount of the deficit in 1924?

Sir G. HUME

£160,000. I have got some figures here as to the position in which the omnibuses found themselves in 1917–18–19–20. We are in the unfortunate position that while our accounts are open to the public, the omnibus accounts are not so available. I do not know all, but I can say that in the years to which I have referred the omnibuses paid nothing into the pool. In these four successive years they took out £190,000, £210,000, £587,000 and £582,000, and £400,000 in 1924. So the omnibuses know what it is to pass through a bad period, but Members do not speak of scrapping the omnibus undertaking because it happens to have had bad times. In the trams we have an undertaking upon which something like £16,500,000 has been expended, and we have paid off debt to such an extent that there remains only a debt charge of about £8,500,000. We Save got a service which is running constantly, it is kept up to concert pitch out of revenue, and that service, with only £8,500,000 of debt upon it, has cost the ratepayers, out of their pockets, something less than £1,000,000. Is that a bankrupt undertaking? Surely not. I do not understand the meaning of the word "bankrupt" if that is a bankrupt undertaking; and if we were to sell the tramways to-day for the amount of debt that is on the undertaking we should have financiers tumbling over each other to purchase it. In face of that we hear this continual parrot cry of "Scrap the trams!" Do hon. Members realise what it would mean? Are they going to save anything to London by scrapping the trams? There is £8,500,000 to deal with as obsolete capital. You have got to get rid of that somehow, even in an undertaking which, it may be under the pressure of competition, is having a margin of loss. I call it a "margin of loss," considering the total sums that have to be dealt with. If you scrap the trams it would mean something like a fourpenny or fivepenny rate for London.

I venture to say no man in his senses who has had anything to do with municipal politics in London would dare go to London with the cry of "Scrap the Trams." We hear that cry from those who are articulate, but not from the great mass of Londoners, the workers, who know what service the trams give to them, and I for one, although I have been charged for years with having the intention of scrapping the trams, have never dreamed of doing so mad a thing. The day of the trams will be over when we get a vehicle of the same capacity to run on the streets without rails. Not till then could we afford to do it, not merely from the pound, shillings and pence point of view, but from the standpoint of congestion. We have calculated it out over and over again, and if we were to replace the trams by motor omnibuses we should, in wet weather certainly, have such a jam in the streets that it would not be possible to get along. I hope I have not said too much on the tram question, but I have had to sit here listening to attacks made by hon. Members in various parts of the House, a good number of them near me, and I have waited for this opportunity to say a word in defence.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I never in my life spoke of scrapping the trams, but my suggestion was that as they have not paid up to the present—[HON. MEMBERS: "But they have!"]— It is not desirable to spend another £1,000,000 or so, as this Bill suggests, in extending them.

Sir G. HUME

I do not suggest for one moment that my right hon. Friend ever used the term "Scrap the trams," but I would point out that we are not proposing to expend £1,000,000 or so on extending them. It is a relatively small sum; although I scarcely like to give a figure without being quite sure about it, I think the total cost will amount to not more than £250,000. That does not come into this 12 months' estimate, but may extend into the six months beyond, and it is really for the purpose of carrying on more efficiently the service which we now have. The speeches to-night have really carried me back to the other side of the bridge; the atmosphere here is exactly the same. We are attacked from two sides. We are attacked because we spend too much money, and we are attacked because we do not do enough, and the great problem is to know how to walk the tight-rope without falling off. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark North (Mr. H. Guest) wants to "ginger us up"—I do not know whether he used that term, but he has used it often in the matter of slum clearances. We need no "gingering." I venture to think my hon. Friend has not followed the proceedings of the council so closely as he did at one period when we had the advantage of his company. The instructions to the Housing Committee are to get ahead as fast as ever they can, both with housing and clearances.

Mr. ERSKINE

Have those instructions had any effect whatever?

Sir G. HUME

Let us see. I will deal first of all with clearances, and I would direct the hon. Member's attention to what we have in hand. We have in our Estimates, under the heading of "Acquisition and Clearing of Unhealthy Areas" schemes undertaken by the council. Assisted schemes under the Act of 1919 include the Brady Street, Bethnal Green, area, where we are proposing to spend £35,000; the Hickman's Estate, £21,000; the Tabard Street, Southwark, area—a small sum there, because they are finishing off. Ware Street, Shoreditch, also gets a turn—over £34,000 this year and £20,000 in the six months beyond.

Mr. THURTLE

A somewhat belated turn.

Sir G. HUME

The unfortunate thing is that the need is so great for slum clearance work that it is impossible for any organisation, no matter how big it is, to tackle the whole problem at once, and when I tell the House the areas that are being dealt with Members will see that the effort being made is not a small one and covers various parts of London. Take the assisted schemes under the Act of 1923. There is £150,000 estimated this year, and £60,000 for six months, beyond for work in Poplar—Baker's Alley, Birch-field Street, Bell Lane.

Mr. LANSBURY

We have been waiting 21 years.

Sir G. HUME

The Council has scarcely existed as long as that. Then there is China Walk, Lambeth; Hatfield Street, Southwark; Wyndham Road, Camberwell; Georges Road and Rann Street, Islington; Ossulston Street, St. Pancras; and there are other schemes in Deptford and Greenwich—hon. Members will see that I have succeeded getting a little bit done in my own area. Then you have the erection of dwellings by the council under the 1919 Act—the Baker Street scheme, the Tabard Gardens Estate, Hickman's Estate, the Mare Street scheme; and under the 1923 Act you have 59 houses on the East Hill Estate, and there are some others not worth referring to.

Mr. H. GUEST

I asked specially for information about the Zoar Street Estate, and I have done so almost, I may say, by the suggestion of his own party on the London County Council. I have in my hand a report of a delegation from the Southwark Borough Council to the London County Council, and Colonel Levita, replying to them, suggested to the deputation from Southwark that the council should ask Members of Parliament for the borough to take national steps, through the medium of Parliament and otherwise, to focus attention on this insanitary area. I hope he will not take this is an unfriendly act, and that he will give some information about this area.

Sir G. HUME

I have not taken anything as an unfriendly act. I recognise that any of us who know the conditions in portions of our own areas cannot help pressing to try to get this particular area dealt with prior to another. The Council Housing Committee is being attacked on all sides. I do not try to minimise in the least what has been said about the conditions of this particular area in Southwark, and I hope it will be possible to bring that particular area into the programme of work at a very early date. We are gradually eating into it, and we are gradually extending our services. We are spending money as fast as we can get work done, and it is no use spending money without getting work done. It takes an immense amount. I do not think hon. Members realise what it means to get up 12,000 houses in a year. It means an immense amount of organisation and foresight. I agree that in years gone by we have been very slow in developing, but to-day the national conscience has been so stimulative that I believe we are all as eager as possible to see that a lot of those areas are cleared. The difficulty is to re-house under existing conditions. That is why we have to go very slowly indeed, after the clearances are made, in getting people out of their houses. It has to be prepared for. It is strange to what extent people living in those surroundings have to be taken miles away from those surroundings to areas to which they have not been accustomed. I hope I have not wearied the House. I have attempted, as far as I could, to deal with the points raised, and I hope possibly some of my friends will be able to deal with other points, should they be raised later on. I feel sure that the House would not take any step to hamper the action of the London County Council in getting a Bill of this sort, because two-thirds of this capital expenditure is for housing purposes, and there is no difference of party in the desire to see the erection of houses being pressed forward.

Mr. G. HARVEY

It is not altogether an easy thing for me to address the House of Commons, small as it is, for the first time. I recognise the difficulty, but I look round the House, and see friends mostly from the other place across the water, and I always look on the County Hall as the spawning ground for the little fishes of the House of Commons. When no one was looking, I came across the Thames, and managed to find myself in the House of Commons, somewhat unexpectedly. With regard to the Bill before the House, I believe in having this matter considered in the fullest detail, and it has been a pleasure for me to listen to the explanations of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume). We have been told that the London County Council do not want gingering up. It is the first concern of any description, business or otherwise, that I have ever come across that does not want gingering up, and I congratulate it—if he will excuse me saying so—on its self-sufficiency. There are two points I would like to emphasise. One is anticipated and one is not anticipated. On the first, we have heard various discussions and remarks already. I refer to the tramways. At the present time the tramways are growing year by year a definite charge on the rates. As far as I can see there is nothing to stop them continuing to be a burden on the rates, when their expenditure to revenue is over 87 per cent. of the total receipts. It leaves no margin whatever, and that suggests to me one of two things; either the bureaucracy of the County Hall is too severe for the undertaking, or the fares are not sufficient to carry the undertaking to success. I am not one of those who suggest that the tramways are obsolete. They are getting obsolete, but at the present time I should be one of the last in this House to suggest that they should be scrapped.

There is no getting away from the fact that the tramways fill a very necessary adjunct to the transport of the citizens of London to and from their homes. The thing that strikes me is that here you have a business that has got plenty of patrons, and inasmuch as it has plenty of patrons, I ask myself why does it not succeed? I should like to suggest that the London County Council have an investigation committee into the organisation, because we all know that in municipal undertakings or in national undertakings, it matters not which, there are a great number of bureaucrats who dig themselves in to a sort of Hindenburg line and defend it against all comers. I am certainly not an advocate of municipal undertakings in any shape or form, and I look upon the London County Council tramways as a case in point. If it were a business undertaking, certain people in connection with it would feel themselves immediately responsible for its success at the present time, because they know perfectly well that success or no success a deficit is paid for out of the rates. In the case of a public undertaking, if you get a lot of people sitting there snugly in their offices, wherever they may be, they will have to give way to somebody with more energy and more grit. Whenever you get a great undertaking of this description you get drones, and I should like to see that those who get the most money do the most work, either mentally or otherwise. I have heard people at the County Hall advocating that no rate should be charged, but that reminds me of businesses in regard to which they would make very large profits if they had no expenses to pay. I heard once a distinguished accountant say something in the County Hall about capitalising repairs and renewals, but these are things which I should never think of capitalising.

Then again the sinking fund was susupended. Why, in all conscience, are municipal undertakings to be treated with a most-favoured-nation Clause? We are told that the assets which are left to the London County Council amount to between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000 and they are said to be worth that amount of capital, but any undertaking that does not pay cannot be worth anything. It is a question of the scrapping value, although I would not suggest scrapping the undertaking. They suspend the sinking fund because they say the assets are equal to the unpaid capital, but I do not agree. They are advocating in the present Bill further capital outlay on the trams. The only point I wish to emphasise in connection with that particular undertaking is, that every single item of the tramway undertaking ought to be submitted to the closest scrutiny. Large undertakings of this kind are generally managed by the officials. It is true there is a committee, but it is constantly changing and, good as the committee or the chairman may be, and willing as they may be to give their attention to the working of the undertaking, they are constantly changing, and, in the end, it is the officials who must control the situation. Of course, the officials are paid, and they want looking after. Up to the present this undertaking is not a business proposition

On the point I am now going to raise I know that I shall be courting a considerable amount of criticism both here and outside—I refer to the expenditure of the London County Council on education. I am not going to decry education as such. I am a believer in education that will give an equal chance to all people, whatever their station of life may be. I do say that the last year of a boy's school life ought to be a matter of very serious care with the Education Committee of the London County Council, because it is necessary to instil into these youths the principles of getting on. It is necessary to make these youths feel the responsibility of life which they must face immediately after leaving school. The tendency of the curriculum in elementary schools, as in other schools, is first of all to encourage theoretical education at the expense of practical education. When a youth leaves school at the age of 14 if he has been taught properly he can go out into the business world and apply for a situation and be admitted and encouraged and helped to reach the top—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

I do not desire to interrupt the hon. Member in his maiden speech, but is this not rather a matter for the Board of Education. If the hon. Member can show me that this is a matter connected with the London County Council Bill, it will be in Order, but he seems to he raising a rather general question.

Mr. HARVEY

I was referring more to the question of economy, because after all is said and done economy must affect the capital expenditure, and I was going to refer to one particular thing where a short time ago education being given to boys of 14 and 16 was dropped because it was considered impracticable and entailed a considerable amount of expenditure. I am aware that some people believe that expenditure of this kind is necessary for efficiency. The principal thing I want to show in connection with the education of the youth of this country is that the curriculum of the schools and the expenditure on education should be directed towards making efficient citizens. We want to do everything we possibly can in regard to our expenditure and our encouragement of education to make the youth of the country efficient and capable citizens. The real value of a youth is created by the understanding he derives in the ordinary course of his employment.

The principal thing in education I would like to see is more money devoted to evening classes by which a youth after he leaves his work can be offered those facilities which are necessary for making him an efficient citizen. Sir James Barrie once said that he had many times seen the stars go out before he started his next day's work, and he is not alone in that respect. It is only by efficient, intelligent and persistent work that the youth of this country can gain the prizes which are going in the world to-day. I fully recognise the value of good elementary education and good teaching, and that is essentially the business of the London County Council.

I am all out in every possible way to encourage the teachers and the scholars. and I am a great believer in good education. I have always taken a great deal of interest in it, and what I have always in my mind is that I should like everything possible to Be done to avoid derelicts. There are derelicts at both ends of the social scale. I should like while advocating theory combined with practice to see considerably more money spent on practice than on theory, so that we may avoid not only the derelict but also that dreamer who is creating as much trouble in London as in the East to-day— the impossible individual who has only theoretical ideas to guide him. I hope that this Money Bill of the London County Council will have not only to-day but on all future occasions the extreme scrutiny of this House before it passes.

Mr. HARRIS

As a backer of this Bill, I feel that it is a responsibility of mine to support the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) in his very able and interesting defence of its contents. There is in the country, in London, and in this House, a general and rather natural misunderstanding of the accounts of the London tramways. I can understand that those accounts, when superficially viewed, may seem to suggest a very serious financial position, and, so long as this House has the business of approving of the capital requirements of London, there is every justification for a severe scrutiny of the accounts. The House has that responsibility, and I do not find any fault with the desire of hon. Members, whether from London or from outside London, for full information. I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating the last speaker on his maiden speech. He is an old colleague of mine on the London County Council, and I am very glad that he has made his maiden speech on London. He could find no more fitting question on which to speak for the first time, especially as he has had some years of experience as one of the governors of London.

I should like to say, incidentally, that, in criticising London administration, it ought to be remembered that every constituency in London has its representative. We have had the service of some of the ablest and most competent men in London, and I should like to remind the House that the majority on the London County Council, for the last 18 years, has been in the hands of the Conservative party. It may be news to the House, but the council, like this House, is run largely on party lines, and the majority has the choice of the chairman and the adminis- trators. They are, therefore, not prejudiced in favour of municipal trading. On the contrary, the hon. Member for Greenwich will bear me out when I say that the great majority of the county council come there pledged up to the hilt to oppose Socialism in any form, to support private enterprise, and not to embark on any public undertaking unless they feel satisfied that it is sound financially and necessary because of the circumstances and conditions of London.

The whole confusion arises from the peculiar conditions of local government finance. We are not allowed to make out our accounts on the same basis as a private company. The figures of a private company are very easy to understand, because the purpose of running a trading company is to pay dividends to the shareholders, and, so long as the shareholders get their dividends and there are satisfactory reserves, the shareholders are satisfied and the shares stand at a good price on the Stock Exchange. In municipal affairs, however, whether in Manchester, Glasgow or London, we are governed by regulations, laid down first by the Local Government Board and now by the Ministry of Health; and the first and foremost of those regulations is that we have to pay, out of the profits or earnings of a municipal undertaking, whether gas, water, electricity, or tram ways, firstly, the interest on the capital borrowed from the public, and, secondly, a sinking fund to wipe out the whole capital cost in 25 years, some of the assets having to be wiped out in a shorter period. The whole confusion over municipal tramway finance arises out of the fact that the accounts show, firstly, the interest on capital, and, secondly, sinking fund, and, if those cannot be provided, the accounts appear to show a loss. I should explain that the finances of the London County Council go through a very severe audit— not only the audit of their own Controller, but also the audit of the Ministry of Health. If our tramways had been owned by a company or by any private undertaking, there would have been payable in dividends no less a sum—and this was not made quite clear by the hon. Member for Greenwich—than nearly £12,000,000. The exact figure is £11,974,000. That sum has been used, firstly, to pay interest on the capital invested, and, secondly, to wipe out the capital cost. That is the reason why the finances seem to show a loss.

The total capital expenditure on the tramways up to the 31st March, 1923— there has been very little capital expenditure since—was £16,500,000, but, owing to the reduction of debt by the means to which I have referred, there now appears owing, instead of £16,500,000, only a sum of £9,135,000. It is for that reason that the hon. Member for Greenwich was able to point out that if the tramway undertaking were offered at the sum now appearing in the accounts, namely, a little over £9,000,000, any private undertaking would be pleased to buy it at that price. In other words, the ratepayers of London have adequate security for their liabilities, and the assets standing at their book value would more than meet any possible calls upon them. I hope I have made that clear to the House, because it is very necessary to understand that this immense undertaking is not merely carrying an enormous number of passengers, is not merely giving great convenience to the public by all-night services and workmen's fares, and is carrying the peak load during the rush hours, but is really in a sound financial position, and, if it were owned by a private company, would be able to pay ample dividends to the shareholders.

I am not going to say that the management and organisation is perfect. On the contrary, I have no doubt that, if we had a more progressive and more energetic county council, we might get better results. Hon. Members opposite are largely responsible for the county council we have had. We have been cautious, timid and unenterprising. I believe the management could be improved. It might be necessary to go into the open market to get the most competent manager that could be obtained, but, if it is necessary to pay several thousands a year to get one able and competent official administrator for our railways, the county council, with the large business it has to carry on, would be perfectly justified in doing the same. Surely the responsibility is on the elected representatives of the county council, who are after all elected by the ratepayers and are responsible to the ratepayers. Surely they can be trusted to manage their own affairs. At any rate I think on the figures I have shown the House, the House is perfectly justified in passing this money Bill. There is absolute security in the assets, not only the tramways but the housing estates, for any money the House of Commons approves. The idea that is spread abroad that the tramways are not financially sound is not only unfair, but is a handicap to the whole undertaking and gives a false impression abroad, and I am glad to have an opportunity to back up the hon. Member for Greenwich, who for so many years was chairman of the Tramway Committee, in his assurance that the concern is sound financially and provides adequate security for the money lent.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN

I am sure all of us are very much indebted to the hon. Member for Greenwich for the explanation he has given, and as I have some more questions to put, he having intervened early in the Debate, I trust some other Member will be good enough to deal with them. I think the House has heard enough not to require the matter of the tramways to be dealt with any more fully. I am quite convinced that we cannot dispense with tramways as a means of carrying our population at present, but in view of the increasing street congestion, the time will shortly come when the county council will have to review the question of tramways in the inner areas of London with a view to considering what is to be its future policy with regard to transport when the tramways can no longer get along the streets owing to the extreme pressure of traffic. I want to say a word on the subject of open spaces. The figure which is down under Item 3, £75,720, for extensions and acquisitions of open spaces, is a very modest figure, limited no doubt, by the opportunities for acquisition and extension, and not by the good will of the county council or any desire on the part of the public of London to limit the opportunities of recreation and game-playing, and so on. I want to ask whether the council have any policy, or in their policy do they include the question of possibly acquiring the White City on the one hand, and whether they can do anything for the constituency I represent, who are anxious at some date not far distant to acquire as an open space the Earl's Court ground, or at any rate that portion of it which lies in our borough.

10.0 P.M.

The figure in Item 4—Housing Acts—is by far the largest in the whole of the Estimates. For the 12 months, and for the succeeding six months, it amounts to no less than £10,500,000. In order to be able to privide the amount of work in house building represented by an expenditure of that kind, the completest co-operation is necessary on the part of everyone concerned, not only the council and this House in assisting in the provision of the money, but also those whose duty it is to do the work of house building, and those whose function it will be to provide the necessary material. I want to ask how much of that figure of £10,500,000 it is proposed to devote to the question of re-housing in inner London. The council has so far devoted itself for the most part to the laying out of housing estates on the outer circle of London. That policy has succeeded up to a certain point. As we have heard, it brings with it problems of its own. The housing of your people on the outer circle of London involves dispossession of those who are accustomed to live in other areas, and having got them there you have to provide the means, if they do not already exist, to enable them to get to and from their work. But quite apart from that, there are hundreds of thousands in our city who cannot leave the neighbourhood where they live and go to Becontree, Bellingham, Tottenham and Barnes, or some places even nearer. Their conditions of work, even the means at their command, do not permit of their taking a long journey every day to and from their work. After all, even if they could do that, who is going to say that a man, who has been accustomed for years to live in a neighbourhood, who has his friends and relatives and associations in that particular neighbourhood, is to be torn up by the roots, so to speak, and put out, say, at Becontree? Not only occupation but also associations are quite legitimate claims on the part of families of that kind, which would entitled them to the very gravest and most material consideration.

I want to know from the county council how far their policy in the immediate future provides for the re-housing of our people in the inner areas of London. Of course, to do that we have to re-plan a lot of our streets, which are quite inadequately used and do not house nearly enough people considering the space they occupy. One's inclination naturally runs to an improvement scheme such as that which has recently been produced by the county council, the St. Pancras building scheme—that is, large, high, capacious buildings which will hold a great many people, buildings which can be provided with flats and tenements, up to date on labour-saving lines, where by building up you can save space on the ground level, which enlarges the open space at your command, where you can provide roof gardens for the children, where each tenement flat can have a balcony for the baby to be put and rest in the sun, where you may have central heating, hot water supply, lifts, and all reasonable modern conveniences provided at a relatively low cost. That is only one possible means of using our space better and providing for the needs of the inhabitants of inner London. In addition to that, if the county council will only assist the boroughs, they will find that the boroughs are willing to do something on their own account to improve, enlarge and reconstruct some of the small, poor houses which are now so overcrowded. There you have almost a ready-made solution. You have your streets with the roadways made up and the drainage complete. If you can only enlarge those houses so as to give three rooms to a family now living in two, you will do a great deal to ease the situation. It is not a perfect solution of the problem of course, but if you can ease the situation, as might be dome by that means within the next 10 years, by that time let us hope the whole problem of our housing will be so much advanced that you will be able to provide something infinitely better. Of course, I know in order to do that you have got to provide what are called decanting areas, because before you can rebuild houses, you have to put the inhabitants somewhere else, and my solution is that local authorities should be empowered to acquire for short periods of occupation vacant spaces, and thereon to erect temporary housing accommodation. That is the difficulty, of course, that has been pointed out this evening with regard to slum areas. If you pull down these places, where are you to put the people? You must, therefore, provide "decanting" areas. I think I am correct in saying there are 1,900 odd scheduled slum areas in London. The county council at the present moment is dealing, or has dealt, with something like 19. Perhaps someone will tell me the obstacle to getting on faster with this work, and if they will take the means of acquiring decanting areas. If the county council have not got the powers, I am sure the Ministry of Health will be very ready to assist to move Parliament to get the necessary legislation through, in order to hasten progress.

With regard to improvements—Item No. 5—considering the enormous amount of improvement needed in London, the sum mentioned does not seem to be any too great to devote to such a purpose. One is inclined to think the Improvements Committee of the county council must themselves, as did a well-known statesman on a historic occasion, stand amazed at their own moderation. The more we move about London, the longer we live in it, the more impatient we become, it takes so long to carry out improvements. One thinks about the Strand for one thing. What is the council doing with regard to a general policy of London improvements? After all, they are worth undertaking for their own sake and we know very well, from the example of the great Holborn-Strand improvement, they do in process of time pay. I hope the county council will not be weary of well-doing in a matter of that kind.

There are one or two particular improvements, which I have described before. They both deal with the question of bridges. One is the question of Wandsworth bridge. When are we going to have something done about that? The other is the question of the Cromwell Road bridge. It is a question that has been before London something like 40 years, and the improvement is more urgent to-day than ever. If only we could prevail upon the necessary authorities—and the London County Council should, of course, take the lead as the improvement authority in London—to carry through what has been very long contemplated, namely, a bridge to bring us over the different railway lines from the continuation of West Cromwell Road to some point either North or South of West Kensington Station, there you have a road where, with a slight deviation, it would carry you to the West and get a by-pass off one of the worst congested areas in London— High Street, Kensington. The county council, when it brings into operation its housing scheme at Castlenau, Barnes, will need to consider an additional bridge. Hammersmith and Putney Bridges are overcrowded already, and if Cromwell Road Bridge were carried through, the obvious line of development from there would take us slightly southwest, and we should find ourselves face to face with the River Thames, and the necessity of carrying across a bridge and making a junction with the projected Chertsey arterial road. There you have a connection with the South-West road parallel with the Great West road. One travels on these splendid arterial roads, and as soon as you get to London: they cease, and you are met with congestion. Therefore, it is up to the county council to study all these questions. Let the county council prepare with boldness and vision a real development plan for London.

There is a question I want to ask in regard to Item No. 14—"Acts relating to education, Provision of schools and other purposes." I am familiar with a good many of the London County Council schools which one would be very glad to see rebuilt at the earliest possible moment. They are not particularly favourably situated. But with regard to their general programme of school building, how do the county council propose to get over the difficulty in the built-up areas? How are they going to build their schools on fresh sites without the demolition of present property? If they can get over that, one would be glad to know it, and heartily congratulate them on their achievement. With regard to the County Hall, one only hopes that when it is completed the staff of the county council, with so many activities, will not have increased so much that it is necessary to extend the County Hall in the manner of Scotland Yard, in order to accommodate its staff.

Sir G. HUME

If all these improvements which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned were carried out, we should have to double the capacity of the County Hall.

Mr. SNELL

I hope the House will allow me the privilege of congratulating an old colleague on the London County Council on his maiden speech in this House, which I could have wished had been devoted to a better cause. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the need of the county council being gingered up with regard to its activities. My own recollection of the county council is that when sitting side by side with him I never received his support very much. But there is a certain amount of point in something he said. Why, he said, does not the London County Council tramway system succeed? The chief reason is that, being run by his political friends on the other side, it is slow in mind, and slow to take advantage of London's opportunities. I would also like to say a word respecting something that fell from the lips of the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan). He suggested that what we might do in the way of making decanting areas would be to take possession of vacant sites and there erect temporary dwellings. But the erection of those temporary dwellings would cost almost as much as the erection of dwellings on a permanent area. A much more profitable thing would be to take possession of the vacant houses and use them compulsorily, on the same terms, until new houses can be built for the working classes.

I would like to say something in support of this Bill, because it is not realised how very much London depends upon getting a Bill of this kind through the House of Commons. In this House we have been concerned during many days in getting the consent of the House to monies for the purpose of running the nation. It so happens that a great centre of population like London requires for its central governing body continual supplies of new services of one kind or another which have to be provided for through this Money Bill. It is the special privilege of this House to scrutinise the items that come before it, and it is its obvious duty to vote this Bill and leave it to the citizens of London to see that they get full value for the money which has been voted.

As an old member of the London County Council and one who at present feels very lonely without it, I would ask hon. Members not to feel too anxious about the method of government there. One hon. Member spoke about having waited for 40 years for something to be done. The London County Council does not act with that indecent haste which would do things in 40 years. Everything there is done with very great deliberation, and hon. Gentlemen who are afraid of London's expenses getting out of hand, may take my word for it, as an old member of the county council, that its Finance Committee has a heart as hard as Pharaoh's, and that it is extremely difficult to get from it even the essentials of London government. London is at some disadvantage, which makes it open to criticism in this House. It is not as free as other municipalities to conduct its own life. No great city in the world is so hampered as the great city of London, so restricted by absurd limitations.

If we on this side of the House support the passing of this Money Bill, it must not be taken for granted that we are entirely satisfied with the way in which London's business is run by the county council. But we do know that local government in this country is, perhaps, the one thing most native to our genius, and one of the things of which we have the greatest right to be completely proud. London has all the possibilities in it of becoming in administration and in other ways the greatest and finest city in the world. What we require is not merely the technical and expert administration that we get on the other side of the river, but we require a certain amount of imagination that will foresee what are likely to be the changes in a short time.

Some comments have been made about the County Hall, and its cost. It would be justifiable on the part of the county council to answer those criticisms by saying, that if we had been allowed to complete the County Hall when it was started, London would have saved £1,000,000. But the Government, for its own purposes during the hour of national need, took possession of the building, or the shell of it, and held up its completion for a series of years, during which the cost of building doubled and trebled, and the cost now falls on the people of London. It is not generous, therefore, on the part of critics of London government to criticise this heavy expenditure when it was incurred for the sake of the nation.

I would like now to say a word about housing in general. There is no use of our merely thinking about building houses unless we connect that with the facilities for getting to and from the areas in which those houses are built. In the district which I have the honour to represent— Woolwich—we happen to have a certain amount of vacant land on which houses can be built, but it is extremely difficult to get permission to build these houses, and then when they are built there is the difficulty of transit between Woolwich and London. If I might say a word in criticism of the London County Council tramways, it is that the journey from Westminster to Woolwich in a council tramcar reminds one of eternity more than anything else. We want that service speeded up to a greater degree.

The hon. Member for Greenwich talked about the all-night system of trams which he said he enjoyed on the South side of the river. On the North side we are not so fortunate. Though he lives on the South side, as all of us have not that pleasure, and if he would see that we who have to stay in this building late at night have the privilege of getting away to the North a little later, we should appreciate it. The London County Council, when all the criticism which can be made against it has been made, is by far the greatest civic governing body in the world. It has larger responsibilities than any other body, and in regard to its technical efficiency there is no ground for criticism or complaint. In answer to the criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington, my own experience of the County Council officials is that they are entirely efficient. They have a pride in their job, and if every undertaking were as well served as that is by its official staff there would be no ground whatever for complaint against it.

Major SALMON

As a member of 20 years' standing of the London County Council, I would like to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) has said with regard to the staff of that body. But the reason which I have for participating in this Debate is because I felt that ft was incumbent upon the London County Council in regard to their tramway policy to have waited until the Traffic Board of London had reported to see if it was desirable that there should be tramway extension in different parts of the Metropolis. They were the originators of the idea of having a Traffic Board set up. Parliament decided to set up such a board. Having that authority in existence, it is very unfair to proceed with tramway extension, because the board are excluded from considering tramways. They can only stop motor omnibuses running down a particular street, or say what number of omnibuses shall run. They are not permitted to discuss the question of trams. But while they are considering the problem of London traffic, we find that the London County Council come along to the House and ask for money to be voted for the purpose of the tramways, having no regard, in the bigger sense, to the general traffic conditions of London.

It is very desirable that, if we are to attack the problem of London traffic, we should approach it not merely from the county council point of view, which is biased with the idea of extending the trams—not that there is any justification for them to be so proud of the result of the trams. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) very cleverly gave reasons for the trams not paying, but he unfortunately omitted to tell the House that during the years 1919–20–21 it was only by the suspension of payment for renewal that there was not a considerably greater loss than appeared in the figures which he gave us. Only a few months ago the county council went to the Treasury and obtained permission to suspend the provision of money for repayment of capital, which really means that the county council for the next three years are saving £300,000 per annum, or an equivalent of the 3½d. rate, compared with they would have to pay if they had had to meet the usual charges. In discussing the tramways of London we have to remember that there is on the running of them a loss of over £560,000. I am not one of those who suggest that the trams of London should be scrapped, but I do feel that as long as that loss exists we are not justified in extending the system. We ought rather to consolidate what we have, and try to manage the system in such a way as to reduce the loss.

I do not shirk responsibility for having had something to do with the inquiry into the trams. There have been certain improvements made by the Committee that was set up to go into the matter. But it is impossible for any member of the county council to stand up in this House and say that the trams are a financial success. A great deal of thought will be required to discover how omnibuses and trams in combination can be run for the benefit of the people of London, without having regard to private enterprise or municipal ownership. What we have to consider is the question how the combination can be managed, so that we do not have unnecessary and wasted effort, either on the part of the trams or the omnibuses. Why should there be such haste on the part of the county council to extend the system? That is my grievance, and it is one of the reasons why I have taken part in this Debate.

I would like to say one word with regard to the County Hall. I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Greenwich say that he did not propose to advocate the building of a superstructure at the present moment. It would be a deplorable thing if £750,000 were spent for the purpose of bringing in two big departments of the county council now housed outside. I think some time should pass before money is spent on the building of a superstructure. I was also very pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that he did not contemplate building, because he thought the men employed could be much better employed on housing. If there is one thing on which the county council can be congratulated it is the manner in which they have dealt with the housing problem. They have tackled it in a manner which has shown an example to every other authority in the country. The hon. Member for East Woolwich said that the finance committee of the county council were hard in regard to money, but the House should be seized of the knowledge that the finance committee have always been prepared to vote any money necessary for the housing of the people of London. The difficulty has been to find sufficient craftsmen to do the building, and sufficient material. It has not been a question of money but a question of getting the houses built in a reasonable time. I hope, notwithstanding the criticisms which have been made on this Bill, that it will receive a Second Reading.

Mr. THURTLE

I desire to take up a few moments of the time of the House in discussing the question of housing and overcrowding in London, particularly in relation to Shoreditch. Shoreditch has a special claim to consideration in this connection, because it has the doubtful distinction of being the most overcrowded part of this crowded City of London. It has a density of population of 57.6 per acre, and I frequently find cases among my constituents of people living five, six and seven per room and unable to get other accommodation. As I told the House two weeks ago there is one case, which still obtains, where a family of 10 is living in one room, and neither the town clerk, the borough surveyor nor anyone else, is able to find them other accommodation in the borough. The problem instead of getting less is becoming more acute. I do not know if hon. Members noticed the statistics in relation to the birth-rate in London which appeared about two days ago, but if they read the figures they must have noticed that the birth-rate in Shoreditch is the highest in the whole of London. It is 25 per thousand, double that of Westminster and nearly double that of Hampstead. I do not say that is a matter over which we can have much control, though I think it would be a good thing if that matter were discussed in this House. The mortality of Shoreditch, because of the dreadful conditions which obtain there, is also very high, and that I admit is a neutralising factor. In addition to the high birth-rate there is a gradual tendency to reduce further the limited housing accommodation available in Shoreditch by the acquisition of premises for commercial purposes. That may be an inevitable tendency, but it is something to be taken into account in considering the problem. The town clerk told me the other day that in the last 24 years the population of Shoreditch had decreased by 20,000, but, despite that fact, the housing problem is more acute to-day than it was 24 years ago, because the commercial demands on the borough for factories and workshops have made huge inroads on the amount of dwelling accommodation.

Reference has been made to slum clearances carried out by the London County Council, and I wish the hon. Member who spoke of "decanting" areas were present to hear what I have to say. Actually this overcrowded borough which I represent is being used by the London County Council as a decanting area for a slum clearance scheme in another part of London. Into a place where they are living six and seven in a room, the county council is bringing fresh people in order to provide temporary accommodation for people who are being de-housed because of a slum clearance scheme in another area. If any fact were needed to establish the justification for the council taking steps to acquire, in some manner or other, the large number of empty houses which are available for the purpose of housing temporarily de-housed people from slum clearance areas, this fact ought to be sufficient. I am not going to say that the London County Council is not doing a good deal in the direction of providing additional housing accommodation, but I want to emphasise a point already made in this Debate, and that is, that the housing schemes which are being carried out by the council now are not any real and effective remedy for the problem as it exists in poor boroughs like the one I represent.

You have your Dagenham and your Becontree housing estates, where you have a limited number of houses, but you find, when you get an overcrowded family in touch with one of these houses, that, generally speaking, that family is totally unable to pay the rent which is asked for it. Families with an income of about £3 a week, with children included in the family, cannot possibly pay the high rents which are demanded for these London County Council houses on the new housing estates. If I might draw a kind of comparison, it is like taking a ravenously hungry man, with 6d. in his pocket, and telling him he can buy a meal, but that the only place at which he can buy it is the Ritz hotel. It is just as useless to offer to these overcrowded people in the slum areas of Shoreditch housing accommodation at Becontree or Dagenham at the rents which are being charged by the county council, and I suggest that if the council intend seriously to grapple with this problem, it will not only build houses, but it will make such financial arrangements as will enable the people who want these houses to occupy them; it will offer them to the poor people at rents which they are able to pay. There are members of the London County Council present who appear to think that London is not doing at all badly in the matter of this housing problem, but I venture to say that it is not being looked at in the big, broad, imaginative way in which it ought to be looked at. The London County Council, if it were really doing its job, would not be contemplating an expenditure of £10,000,000 this year on housing, but an expenditure of at least £30,000,000, because the problem is so acute and so vast that it demands the expenditure of that sum of money.

It does not need me to tell this House what dreadful effects the present housing conditions have upon the health and the physique of the great mass of the population of London. The London County Council is being penalised in all sorts of ways by the prevalence of these housing conditions. The physique of the people is stunted, and there is a tremendous amount of ill-health. You get a very bad effect upon the ethics and morals of the slum population. Altogether it is almost impossible to calculate the evil and deleterious effect of these slum conditions acting on the population in the way in which they are at the present time. I want to appeal, even to the self-satisfied Members of the London County Council who might be listening to me now, that they should tackle this problem in a much more vigorous and drastic fashion than already they have done.

This London of ours is a city of which we are all proud. It is called the great heart of the British Empire. Well, it is a very serious thing that in this great heart of the British Empire there should be these huge cankers of slums. It is time that we started a big surgical operation to get rid of them. I would like to see something of the big schemes which were conceived during the War, something in the nature of the great imaginative effort which the War produced, brought into play in dealing with this dreadful problem of slumdom in London. I hope the London County Council will set out —they cannot alter their arrangements for this year—but set out in succeeding years to deal with this problem on the big lines on which it should be dealt with, so that in the time to come we shall be able to say that this London of ours, instead of being a disgrace to the Empire so far as its housing conditions are concerned, is a credit to the Empire and a model to the rest of the country.

Captain FRASER

May I join in the words of appreciation which have been uttered in regard to the speech of the hon. Member for the Kennington Division of Lambeth (Mr. G. Harvey). I had the pleasure of being his colleague across the water for some time, and I am glad I have had the opportunity of hearing his valuable contribution to our Debate. There appears to me to be two or three points which have been raised in this Debate which it might be in the interests of the London County Council to consider. I am a strong supporter, not merely of the present majority of the county council, but of the council as an institution, not perhaps so well a recognised institution in London life as it should be. I am desirous of dealing with these points. They were raised, three of them, by the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow. He said, amongst other things, that the county council leader in this House, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) had painted too rosy a picture of tramway finance, that he had pointed out that the conditions were not quite so bad as some others had made out, and that he had claimed that, far from the tramway concern having made persistent losses for some years, instead of the loss on its revenue account during the last few years, it had been the means of creating what is really a very valuable asset for the ratepayers of London, and one which they could, without question, sell for an amount, in my opinion, greater than the figure at which at present it stands on the books.

The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow said the hon. Member for Greenwich had neglected to mention the fact that certain repayments of capital, which are commonly charged against revenue, had for a time been suspended. That is perfectly true; but it is fair to point out that the county council, during the many years the tramways system has been in existence, have, because of the basis upon which they calculated that depreciation, paid off their capital at a very much quicker rate than was either necessary or prudent—well, perhaps not prudent because it is prudent to be conservative in matters of finance; but in their wisdom they considered they had provided for depreciation at too fast a rate, and that it would be perfectly fair to delay for a time the happy day when London will own its trams without any debt whatever, and, in my opinion, will make a profit upon them for the ratepayers. That was a proper action, and one which, apart from their own opinion, could not have been taken without the consent of the Treasury. The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow also said that certain renewal charges which have normally been placed on the revenue account had not been so charged during the years which the hon. Member for Greenwich referred to. I think I am right in saying that only a small proportion of those charges were so treated, though I am open to correction on that point. So far as renewals are concerned, the county council have always adopted a policy which I believe very few commercial companies entirely adopt, namely, that of charging every possible renewal, every possible charge of that sort, against their revenue account. Their finance has been so much in line with the best canons of conservative finance that they can afford, so to speak, to utilise a portion of the reserves which they have created, and as I maintain that the reserve they have created was larger than it need have been, it can legitimately be said that some portion of that reserve was an emergency reserve which they are now using. Under those circumstances I submit that the suggestion that the leader of the county council kept back some material facts in regard to the tramway undertaking falls to the ground.

One observation in regard to housing. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) speaks of the unhappy position in so many of our districts. I can confirm what he said about the distressing conditions of housing, for in the Division which I have the honour to represent there are conditions similar to those which he described. I do not think the description of those conditions, even though it is, perhaps, indulged in more freely by Members of the Labour party, is a matter about which they have any keener understanding than Members on all sides of the House. I submit that we are at one in our desire to remedy those conditions, and that a little co-operation from all sides would perhaps make it a little easier. He asked why the county council did not spend £30,000,000 instead of £10,000,000 on housing. I venture to ask, without offence, "Why does he not bring some pressure to bear upon those who are really responsible for holding up building in London?' Why does he not endeavour to make provision for those men to work who could supply the skill necessary to bring about the use of that £30,000,000 if it were provided? It is not fair to make complaints of dilatory action in respect of county council housing when there were times when materials were lying on sites which the council had provided and when men simply could not be found to put up the houses. One of the main reasons was because ex-service men were not permitted to be trained as builders by the building trades unions. That is a consideration which it is fair to bring forward. The suggestion that the money was not available is certainly unfounded. Anyone who cares to examine the county council figures will see that something like £22,000,000 was provided by the county council from time to time for building purposes with the permission of this House, and less than half that amount was used because there was no labour available. I have no doubt in the matter, but I hope sincerely that the House will pass this Bill, not merely without any trouble but with some measure of sincere appreciation of the work which the county council has done and is doing, and will, to some extent, get out of its mind the prejudice it has against the council and its poor old trams and its immensely large building. There is an unfortunate prejudice on this side of the water in some quarters against the county council, and I venture to hope that its very beneficent work may be better understood, and we may pass this Bill not merely with unanimity but with good will.

Major TASKER

I hope the House will forgive me attempting to answer in the shortest possible manner some of the criticisms. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), who moved the Amendment, asked why the county council should be treated differently from any other municipal authority. It is in the Act of 1912. The second question was why are we providing no money for the bridge. No desire has been expressed for that bridge so far, therefore, we have not provided money. The most appropriate authority to deal with the question of the Zoar Street area is the borough council, because the hon. Member who raised the matter told the House that immediately adjoining this very congested area there was one acre equal to that which was so covered with buildings.

Mr. H. GUEST

The borough council are unable to do that in the existing circumstances.

Major TASKER

I want to correct my hon. Friend. Under Part II of the Housing Act they have to apply to the county council for the money, and the council will give it to them. My hon. and gallant Friend, who represents East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) talked about dens in the constituency he represents. I would point out that already in that area there are over 70 acres of open ground. Several Members referred to the demolition of the slums. It is not realised that it is no use talking about demolishing houses in slums unless you have somewhere to house the people. That is our great difficulty, and it is increased by the various conditions under the Rent Restrictions Act.

The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) suggested that £30,000,000 expenditure should be incurred on housing, but I can assure the hon. Member that the county council have voted more money for the housing of the people than they have been able to spend, and the reason for this is that they have not been able to obtain labour or material. Reference has been made to Lambeth Bridge and Waterloo Bridge, but it can be seen by a reference to the budget of the London County Council that provision has been made for the rebuilding of Lambeth Bridge. There has been a consultation with the local authorities in regard to these bridges, and it was ultimately decided that the widening of Wandsworth Bridge should not be proceeded with because Lambeth Bridge would serve them better. I hope this Amendment will be withdrawn, otherwise the London County Council will have to close its doors.

Mr. MARCH

I want to ask a question about the ventilation of the Rotherhithe tunnel, and I want to know when it is going to be completed. I also wish to ask when the ventilation of the Blackwall tunnel is going to be undertaken. Perhaps the hon. Member will also tell me when the council are going to get on with the widening of Cable Street and Brook Street. This work has been talked about for the last 25 years, but the council do not seem to be getting on with it. I hope that before long they will get a move on and get this work done.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.