LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order). (Hansard, 2 July 1928)

§ Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN
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."
I will explain the purpose which I have in view in moving the rejection of this Bill. I would remind the House that it has been customary in years past during the passage of this Bill through the House to have a discussion on certain works which arise. The last occasion when this subject was discussed was three years ago, and during the period that has elapsed since, important progress has been made in certain vital directions concerning the life of London and the work of the London County Council. Perhaps I might further remind hon. Members that the London County Council 1116 disposes of revenue of £22,000,000 sterling every year, and it looks after the welfare of a population amounting to 4,750,000. It also deals with all those matters which affect the life and concern the health and welfare of all the citizens in the county area.
There are two directions in which great progress has been made within the last two years to which I desire to call attention. The first is the problem of the London traffic. Since the time I have alluded to certain important events have occurred. The first resulted from the problem of Waterloo Bridge and in regard to that difficulty we are indebted to the valuable Report which has been issued by the Lee Commission. That Report is perhaps the most comprehensive and valuable Report on the transport problem and its difficulties which we have had for many years. Two of the recommendations included in that Report have advanced a long way in recent months. One of them is the Charing Cross Bridge scheme which it seems likely will reach a practical stage in a very short time: and the other is the Victoria Dock Road scheme which has reached a stage of agreement between the parties concerned which may and we hope will make a substantial step forward towards realisation. Those two schemes may be said to deal with the problem of traffic in Central London and in Eastern London, and, in these circumstances, I think it is not unreasonable that the needs of Western London should receive some consideration. In regard to that question, as one who is concerned more particularly with Western London, and has given some study to the problems of traffic and transport facilities in that part of the Metropolis, I venture to say that two great improvements should figure early in any list of priorities which may be established in regard to those different improvements. I would mention the Cromwell Road Bridge, the construction of which has for a long time been a project—

§ Mr. SCURR
On a point of Order. In the Preamble of this Bill it is laid down that: Whereas Estimates have been prepared by the various Committees of the Council of the amounts which may he required for the purposes of expenditure on capital account and of loans during the financial period 1928–1929 in the execution of the powers and duties respectively delegated to those Committees and all those Estimates have 1117 been considered by the Finance Committee of the Council and submitted by that Committee to the Council and the Estimates as so submitted hare been adopted by the Council; And whereas the sums estimated to be so required as aforesaid for expenditure on capital account during the financial period 1928–1029 are set out as respects expenditure under the existing powers of the Council in Part I of the Schedule to this Act— And whereas the sums specified in the said Part I of the Schedule to this Act art to the extent set out in Part V of the said Schedule sums… I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the question which the hon. and gallant Member is raising concerning the Cromwell Road Bridge cannot be discussed, as it is not included in these Estimates, is not included in Part I of the Schedule, and is not included in Part V of the Schedule.

§ Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN
May I reply to that point?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The only point that arises is that no question that does not come within the Bill can be discussed on Third Heading. The hon. and gallant Member, in discussing the Third Reading, must confine himself to what is actually in the Bill.

§ Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN
With regard to that point, instead of pursuing my argument in that particular form, I will, with your permission, Sir, put it in another way. There are provisions in the Bill for expenditure, on street improvements, bridges and other objects, amounting to £740,000, and I would like to ask my hon. Friend who, I understand, will in the course of the Debate reply for the London County Council, whether the provisions which the council has in contemplation for that purpose contain any proposals to advance the construction of the Cromwell Road bridge, and whether that sum of money includes any provision for a survey or other preparation towards the reconstruction of Wandsworth Bridge—projects which I venture to think are of extreme importance, and might easily deserve a higher standard of priority than some of those which are probably included in the figure of £740,000 to which I have referred.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Those particular bridges are not mentioned in the Bill or in the Schedule to the Bill, and the hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to 1118 refer to them. He must confine himself to dealing with questions that are actually mentioned in the Bill itself.

§ Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN
Another aspect of the activities of the London County Council which I think will be found to be included in the Bill is concerned with the £7,500,000 which the Bill includes for housing. This sum is proposed to be devoted to various housing schemes which the County Council have in hand, and to slum clearance schemes which are projected. I think we should all heartily congratulate the London County Council on the progress which they have made in relieving the housing shortage in London by the provision of housing estates on the outskirts of our great city. We also acknowledge the progress they have made in slum clearance schemes, many of which will be included in the sum of £7,500,000 in the present Estimate. I would like also, in order, if possible to be in order, to ask whether in that sum there is included any grant towards the reconditioning and reconstruction of houses in the inner circle of London, which is vitally necessary to meet the needs of those of our citizens who cannot avail themselves of the council's housing estates on the outskirts of London. There are two means of dealing with the problem of housing in London which the County Council is pursuing; one is on the outskirts and the other is slum clearance and rehousing schemes in inner London, of which we have seen evidence in certain parts of London. In the three years which have elapsed since we last discussed the subject, great progress has been made in that direction also.
A few months ago, the foundation was laid of the Ossulston Street rehousing scheme, a contribution to Which has been included in the £7,500,000. On that occasion, the Minister of Health made reference to plans and proposals for reconstruction and reconditioning. I would like to know whether anything is included under that head in the Estimates. If not, I would suggest to the London County Council that they should pay attention to this aspect of the question and devote a substantial sum of their unexpended balances mentioned in the Schedule of the Bill for such purposes. I would suggest that, in order to assist in im- 1119 proving the housing conditions in Inner London, the County Council might cause a survey to be made, or they might collect information in the hands of local authorities and review the housing situation apart from and without interfering with the slum clearance and rehousing schemes that they have in hand. Out of their unexpended balances, I suggest that a large annual sum, equivalent to a rate of 3d. or 4d., might be allocated each year for the purposes I have indicated. I suggest that it might be done in the following way: that sums of money might be placed at the disposal of the borough council, and even of Publicity Utility societies.

§ Mr. HARRIS
On a point of Order. Are we to understand that an hon. Member has a right, in considering a Money Bill, to discuss something that is quite outside the scope and proposals of the Bill; that is to say, that we should allot certain money that is being raised under this Bill to borough councils?

§ Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN
Arising out of that point of Order. I think the Bill includes a provision for loans to the borough councils, and I am referring to the unexpended balances.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
There are undoubtedly large sums in the Bill to be allotted for building purposes, and, so long as the hon. Member confines himself to the particular purposes to which these sums are to be expended, he will be in order; but, if he goes outside them, he will not be in order.

§ Mr. SCURR
Is it in order to indicate, outside what is within the scope of this Bill, how the money that is to be raised by it should be expended?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
With regard to housing, there is a very large sum allotted to carrying out schemes. The hon. Member is entitled to suggest how those schemes should be carried out.

§ Mr. SCURR
The Schedule refers to estimates submitted to committees of the Council and approved by the Council, and those schemes are specific in the sums which have been voted under this Budget.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to say how the money is spent.

§ Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN
I am addressing myself to the subject of loans to Borough Councils and the purposes to-which they are directed. The loans are actually provided for in the Schedule. I am also referring to the unexpended balances, which are also mentioned in the Schedule and which would be within the scope of the Bill, certainly within the scope of the London County Council. Some of these funds might be devoted in the manner I have outlined, that is, placed at the disposal, by loan or otherwise, of local authorities to assist them in carrying out this work of reconstruction and reconditioning, which does not at present proceed as rapidly as some of us would wish. The local authority is often deterred by hesitation to incur the financial commitments necessarily involved. Here I would refer to the advisability of a comprehensive scheme started by the County Council and applied to the whole of London. It would have this advantage over any piecemeal scheme.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member's remarks seem more suitable to the County Council.

§ Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN
In the circumstances I will not pursue the matter further. I should like to refer to two other matters. If I am not supported by the House I will not proceed, but I think the importance of the work carried on by the county council and the volume of expenditure warrant a useful discussion such as I have introduced. The other two points are open spaces and playing fields. The work of the county council in this useful direction extends considerably beyond the value of the actual amount of money mentioned in the Schedule. Thanks to the benevolence of private benefactors and the co-operation with the county council of local authorities we—I am speaking of a society with which I am connected—hope to provide not less than 250 acres of open space near the new St. Helier housing scheme, of which 150 will be playing fields themselves, stretching over a belt of not less than two miles long, and this will certainly prove a valuable feature of the new housing scheme. In regard to that, as well as to the progress made in education, and particularly the provision of improved schools to take the place of the old—these are matters in which I beg 1121 to offer the London County Council my hearty congratulations on the progress that has been made since last we discussed this Bill.

§ Captain AUSTIN HUDSON
I beg to second the Amendment.
I can assure the House that I am not going to be more than three minutes. As the House knows, the London County Council's Money Bill extends to the amount of £10,000,000, and many of us London Members feel that that £10,000,000 should have some sort of discussion in the House before it is allowed to pass. As hon. Members know, we hoped that the Motion would have taken place at 7.30, but it has taken place at 11 o'clock. I do not intend to amplify the various points which I wanted to raise. I do think that we as a House ought to be willing to hear a few words from one of the members of the London County Council on some of the more important points in the Bill. What I should like to know, among other things, is, for instance, under item No. 2 of the Schedule, which starts "making, widening or improving streets, etc.," as to whether that includes all the various roundabout schemes for traffic which are being tried in London. I should like to hear from the hon. Member whether he considers that they are an improvement or not. Personally, I think that they are a great improvement.

§ Mr. SCURR
On a further point of Order. I suggest, with all respect, that the hon. and gallant Member is raising questions which are not in this Bill but which concern another authority altogether—the London Traffic Advisory Committee.

§ Captain HUDSON
On that point, then, why are we discussing this Bill if we are not allowed to discuss these points?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am in a difficulty as regards to what is in order and what is not. There are many things in the Schedule, but as I understand it, it is merely the allocation of money for present purposes which have been decided upon by the County Council. If these matters have been decided upon by the County Council it does not seem to me to be a suitable occasion to discuss the matter.

§ Captain HUDSON
We are discussing the sum of £10,000,000 which is to come from this House, and therefore I want to find out exactly what this sum of £10,000,000 is to be spentupon. In Parts X and XX of the Schedule, there is the question of the rebuilding of Waterloo Bridge and the rebuilding of Lambeth Bridge, and I think that a short account of what exactly is to be done with regard to those two bridges would be of extreme interest, anyhow to London Members and to people dwelling in, London constituencies. As regards Lambeth Bridge, I have heard that at one time we had a Bill through this House for Lambeth Bridge, and that the plans which were then passed have been very materially altered by the London County Council, and that the present plans are entirely different. I should like to hear, if the hon. Member chooses to answer, if that is so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Time!"] There is only one more point I want to raise, and I promise you that I will sit down then. It is the question of the County Hall. I would like to know, under item No. 11 in the Schedule, whether there is any idea on the part of the County Council to finish the County Hall. It is an absolute disgrace to a city like London that the County Hall should be lop-sided and should look as if half of it had been brought down by an earthquake. I hope the County Council will add the other bit to the County Hall and make it what it should be, a building well worthy of London. I wish we could have discussed the various items in the Bill, but as the hour is so late I will sit down; but I hope the House will allow a representative of the County Council to tell us something about this enormous sum of £10,000,000 which is being spent for London government.

§ Sir GEORGE HUME
We of the London County Council do not regret that the House of Commons take an interest in the work that is being done on the other side of the river. I will reply to the specific question as to what items of work are included in the estimate for improvements. There is the Old Street and Kingsland Road improvement, which is extremely important and is now being proceeded with and for which we require money. The Capel Street and Brick Lane improvement we have to deal with, also Lambeth Bridge, Waterloo 1123 Bridge, and the widening of the Strand. It is due to the House, and I am glad to be able to say a word about Lambeth Bridge. The plans which are now being made for the construction of that bridge differ from the plans which were before the House when the Lambeth Bridge Bill was going through the House. As soon as it was realised, on the advice of the engineers and architects, that it would be necessary to alter the plans, we were extremely anxious that Parliament should be made aware of the fact. In another place, the procedure is such that a matter of that kind can be brought forward by Motion, and the Chairman of our Parliamentary Committee, who is also a Member of that House, took the opportunity of bringing the matter before the House, with the result that a Select Committee was set up by the House of Lords to go into the question. The Select Committee has been examining the matter and has taken evidence from our chief engineer and the architect, and has adjourned in order to bring the matter before the Fine Arts Commission, for their opinion.
It is due to the House that I should let the House know that the design is being altered, and I hope the House will think that it is being improved. When the Bill was before Parliament, it was proposed to build a bridge of five steel arches, faced with granite, supported with granite piers, the arches to be elliptical in outline. A design showing the completed bridge was on exhibition in the House for a long time. As the result of detailed examination, it has been found that the attempt to face the bridge with granite would produce an unsatisfactory structure for modern traffic conditions apart from the fact that such a scheme would be attended by architectural disadvantages. In the circumstances, the County Council arranged for Sir Reginald Blomfield to go into the question afresh with his officers, and as a result he came to the conclusion that the most satisfactory treatment of the bridge would be obtained by the use of steel arches, not faced with granite, segmental in shape. The Act of 1924 is silent on the question of design, but the Council thought that, having regard to the passing of this Bill, Parliament should be informed of this change of 1124 design. The County Council are satisfied that from the point of view of utility and on aesthetic grounds the modified design possesses practical advantages.
It is important to proceed with Lambeth Bridge without delay owing to the absence of any facilities for cross river vehicular traffic between Westminster and Vauxhall Bridge, which is a source of great inconvenience, especially as regards commercial traffic. This bridge will naturally relieve to a certain extent the present traffic at congested points adjacent to the northern and southern approaches to Westminster Bridge, particularly as certain widenings are being carried out north and south of the river at Lambeth which will facilitate access to the new bridge and divert a considerable amount of traffic which is now using Westminster Bridge. Hon. Members will agree that Westminster Bridge is congested, and at times is almost impassable to rapid traffic. In particular it will take a certain portion of the traffic going to and from Victoria. The expenditure on the widening and other works is estimated at something like £200,000. If it is desired, it could be arranged for the old design and the new design to be exhibited in one of the Committee Booms. The round-about scheme has nothing to do with the county council and on that point it is not necessary for me to say anything. As regards Waterloo Bridge the House knows that there is a big proposal now in the air—namely, a new Charing Cross bridge, the removal of Charing Cross Station to the south side of the river. In connection with Waterloo Bridge the Government have made a suggestion that if the county council reconstruct Waterloo Bridge on the lines laid down by the Royal Commission, that something like 75 per cent. will be borne by national sources. Everything now depends on what is going to happen to Charing Cross Bridge. The matter is closely under discussion, and if Charing Cross Bridge is decided upon I have not the slightest doubt that Waterloo Bridge will be carried through on the lines suggested by the Royal Commission. The question of the County Hall has been raised. The county council realise that it is unfortunate that the wing has not been erected but hon. Members will remember that at the election a few years ago the cry was, "Housing first," and there was also the 1125 difficulty the council had in getting the necessary skilled workers to carry out their housing problems. Hon. Members must also realise that the cost of housing is extremely heavy, and as the London County Council have incurred great expenditure under this head it was decided that during the last three years it was scarcely in keeping with the slogan, "Houses first," that the council should spend a lot of money on an extension of the County Hall.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The expenditure on the building of the new wing is scarcely included in the Bill, as the sum of money is only £22,000, and that sum cannot contemplate the building of the wing.

§ Sir G. HUME
That sum is not for construction but for the preparation of plans. As regards re-conditioning, the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Tasker), Chairman of the Building Committee, will be in a position to deal with that point. I will not weary the House further. I do not think I have omitted to reply to any of the points raised and which have been in order.

§ Mr. TASKER
Certain questions have been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) and he is entitled to an answer. He asked what was being done about the re-conditioning of houses. If he will refer to Section 57 of the Town Planning Act of 1919 and its re-enactment in the Housing Act of 1925, he will find that power is given to the Metropolitan borough councils to spend money in re-conditioning houses. Since the House passed that Act £515,835 has been spent in the various Metropolitan boroughs. The fact that there are large unexpended balances is due to two causes. The first is the want of labour. I refer not only to the operatives actually building the structure, but the operatives Employed in making the various building materials. It has been with profound regret that the County Council have from time to time been compelled to buy various articles abroad. The whole of this expenditure has been increasing as labour became available, and the unexpended balances are due to the fact that we have not been able to spend the money. But the expenditure last year was £5,500,000, which is the largest 1126 on record, and we have budgeted for yet a larger sum this year. Far from blaming the London County Council for the want of houses, the complaint should be addressed to the Liberal party. The housing problem is entirely due to the infatuation of the deluded Liberal part—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
This is not a suitable opportunity for raising that question.

§ Mr. TASKER
Perhaps I ought to tell the House that we have built down at Becontree a town and not a dump. We are in course of building another town at Castlenau. The County Council are perfectly willing to increase the grant hitherto made, in order that the dreadful conditions under which many of our fellow-citizens live may be brought to an end.

§ Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN
After the explanation that has been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.