§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson)If hon. Members will look at the Estimates for last year under Item (d) Maintenance and Repairs, they will see that a sum of £10,100 was taken for the restoration of the stonework of this House. Hon. Members who are familiar with Office of Works Estimates probably know that it is customary in the case of building estimates to make a lump sum deduction from the Estimates on account of possible and probable delays which may take place, owing to weather conditions and other circumstances of that kind. If we did not do that, the result would probably be that we should have to surrender votes of money at the end of the year, which I think hon. Members agree is undesirable. On this particular occasion we did not appreciate that we should reach a decision in regard to the Stone to be used and be able to make greater progress in the preparation of the scaffolding for the Central Tower, as has actually been the case. The result is, that we have practically spent the whole of the £10,000 originally voted. Although we have made savings which amount to £2,500, the additional £5,000 is necessary because we have spent the lump sum deduction which we normally make.
I will explain to the Committee what progress has been made. Those hon. Members who are interested in this question, will remember that in answer 710 to a Question some time ago, I explained that it had been decided, after consultation with the Fine Arts Commission and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, that the right stones to use were Clipsham and Ketton and, as far as some of the ashler work is concerned, selected pieces of Anston stone, which is the stone used in the original building. There is not objection to Anston stone if it is used for ashler work, and properly selected and bedded. Some hon. Members have suggested, on more than one occasion, that we ought to repair the House with Portlandstone.
§ Mr. TASKERHear, hear.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONThat might be quite a goad suggestion from one point of view, because we know that for the London atmosphere Portland stone is probably the most suitable to use; but it is quite a different colour from Anston stone, as any hon. Member can see for himself if he goes into the yard and looks at the colonnade running along to the subway, which is built of Portland stone. If we were to repair the House with Portland stone, the only satisfactory way would be to reface the entire building with Portland stone, but that would mean a prodigious expenditure, which I do not think we could undertake at the present time.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD BENNWhy not do it with granite?
§ The CHAIRMANI ought to point out that in connection with Supplementary Estimates, other than a new service, only the reasons for the increased Estimate should be discussed. It appears to me that if we embark upon a debate as to the merits of Portland stone or granite, or possibly marble, we shall have a vary long discussion really unconnected with the Vote for £5,000.
§ Mr. BENNYes, but may I suggest that the whole of the Office of Works expenditure for Parliament buildings is in a lump sum, and it may be that too much has been spent on something else, and that that has caused the Supplementary Estimate? Therefore, I hope your ruling will enable us to discuss those other matters which may have been the cause of the Supplementary Estimate being asked for.
§ The CHAIRMANThat point of Order shows greater ingenuity than candour, but I could not admit that precedent.
§ Mr. TASKERCan we discuss any other stone?
§ The CHAIRMANNot unless the hon. Member can show that it would not cost more than £5,000.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONIn that case, I will abide by your ruling and not pursue the question of other possible stones.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIs it not a fact that the reason for this Supplementary Estimate is the choice of stone? Is not the choice of stone something which affects the Supplementary Estimate?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONNo, Sir. The reason for the Supplementary Estimate is that we came to a decision in regard to the choice of stone at an earlier date than we had expected. It is not the same thing.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCESurely, it is relevant under the circumstances?
§ The CHAIRMANIt is relevant if the hon. Member can prove that it affects the £5,000, and nothing more. He cannot discuss on this Supplementary Estimate what the cost would be for refacing the whole of the Houses of Parliament.
§ Sir WILLIAM BULLCan we discuss the question of £5,000 worth of stone?
§ The CHAIRMANThe right hon. Baronet can do that if he desires.
§ Mr. GARDNERWould it be in order to discuss the decision of the Government to do this particular work? They have not the authority of Parliament to do it. If it is relevant to discuss the use of a particular stone, surely it is relevant to discuss the authority for doing the work.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot discuss the reason why the work has been carried on. It has been carried on in the past, and it has involved an extra amount in the Estimate. What I am protesting against is that the whole question of principle and the kind of stone employed, except in so far as it is 712 shown that it is considered within the £5,000, cannot be raised on this Supplementary Estimate.
§ Mr. TASKERWould it be in order to suggest that the £5,000 should be spent on Portland stone?
§ The CHAIRMANI think that would be just in order.
§ Mr. HARDIEIf I can show that it would be a great saving to use Aberdeen white granite, would that be in order?
§ The CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member can show that the £5,000 would have been saved by the using of Aberdeen white granite for this particular bit of work, he would be in order.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONThe hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Gardner) says that we never had the authority of the House. I must contradict that statement. Not more than a year ago I answered a question on the subject, and explained what stone was being used. No protest of any kind was raised. When the Estimates were under discussion last year it was open to the Opposition to put down any particular Vote on any Supply day but no attempt was made to put down the Vote for the Office of Works or the Vote for the Houses of Parliament and, therefore, I am quite right in saying that we have the authority of Parliament to proceed as no considerable body of opposition has been raised to it.
§ Mr. VIANTThe House was under the impression that the whole question was still in abeyance and that experiments were still being carried out to find out the best stone to be used. That was the general impression of the House, and that was why we did not put any Motion on the Paper.
§ Mr. GARDNERFor my part, I understood that Stancliffe stone would not be used and that experiments were to be made with other stone. I am unaware of any answer given by the Under-Secretary of State to the effect that we should use the stone suggested.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONThe hon. Member is wrong. I certainly answered a question to that effect. It was a very 713 long answer and caused me a considerable amount of trouble. The point, however, is not relevant, because there was no considerable body of opinion in the House opposed to the policy of the Government. If there had been it was open to them to have raised the question on Supply last year. The decision to use Clipsham and Ketton stone has enabled us to make greater progress with this work, and has resulted in this Supplementary Estimate. It has also resulted in our being able to get on with the repair of the House itself. I have been asked several times why the work on the Central Tower has not been started. Hon. Members will have seen the scaffolding which has been rising recently around the Central Tower. I hope it will be completed by an early date next month. We have also made progress with the work on the south front overlooking the Victoria Tower Gardens, and it is making good progress.
If it is in order I should like to say that this work, which has now begun, will go on for a matter of 10 or 12 years before it can be completed, and, as it will make considerable difference to eventual expenditure whether we go on with a regular ordered procedure or are brought to a stop for one reason or another, the First Commissioner of Works has decided that it is desirable to have an Advisory Committee, who can advise him and both Houses of Parliament as to the way in which the work should be carried out and do their best to try and meet the convenience of both Houses in the matter. He has therefore established a Committee consisting of himself, Mr. Speaker, the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Lord Chancellor, and three private Members of the House, representing each party, and one Peer representing the House of Lords Offices Committee. This Committee will ensure that the convenience of Members is not unduly interfererd with and at the same time that the work makes steady progress. Time will not be unnecessarily wasted, which would result in greater expense.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONYes, Sir.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONI cannot give the name of the Conservative Member because his consent has not been obtained. He is ill with influenza. The Labour representative is the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy) and the Liberal representative is the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir H. Hutchison). I do not think I have anything further to say, but if any hon. Member desires to raise any point I should be pleased to give him an answer.
§ Mr. W. THORNEI do not know whether I shall be in order in raising the matter I desire to bring before the Committee. This is a Vote for the buildings of the Houses of Parliament and I am not sure whether we shall not have to confine ourselves to stone alone. The point I want to raise is the very indifferent way in which the windows in these buildings are cleaned.
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid that I cannot allow a discussion on it on this Vote.
§ Mr. THORNECan you tell me when I shall have an opportunity of discussing the way in which the windows are cleaned?
§ The CHAIRMANYes. The hon. Member has only to approach the proper authorities in his own party with a view to that being discussed on the Vote of Account.
§ Mr. THORNEThey are as black as soot.
§ Mr. GARDNERI have not yet been furnished with the answer which the Under-Secretary says authorised the Government to proceed with the work in this stone. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not confusing a conversation he had with me with a question in this House. I did not move a reduction in the Estimates last year because I understood the Government were experimenting with Ketton and Clipsham stone. Ketton stone is known to be of excellent quality and so also is Clipsham stone, and as far as colour is concerned it is the most suitable stone that could be used in this building. The point I want to raise is that the Office of Works 715 has given no evidence to the Committee to show that the present stone that is being used is durable in the London atmosphere.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONThe hon. Member will pardon rue. I have said that we have the authority of the Scientific and Industrial Research Committee who assured us that this stone is suitable.
§ Mr. GARDNERYou had the assurance of scientists and experts years ago and you see the result to-day. You have had the opinion of select committees and other recommendations and you see the result. This is one of those cases where the scientists have always been at fault and common sense has been disregarded. With regard to Clipsham stone it has not been used in any building sufficiently long to enable one to form a judgment as to whether it can be used with advantage in the London atmosphere, but the present stone which is being used is a soft stone and for that reason it will not stand the London atmosphere. If you start patching with it you will have to keep on patching. When the Government brought forward their programme for patching the Houses of Parliament, I told them that when they had finished they would have to start patching all over again, with the expenditure of many more thousands of pounds. However anxious the Government may be to exercise economy, there are only two ways of facing the problem. One is to spend no more money at all now, and to wait until money is available for tackling the problem properly. The method that the Government have adopted is wasteful and extravagant, and will lead only to further expenditure. There is another point that is all important. The Minister has not assured us that there is any guarantee that the amount of stone necessary is available. The Ketton quarry has been exhausted long years ago, and those who know say that at Clipsham there is not enough stone available for the job. The Government ought to tell the Committee whether or not that is the position. The cloisters outside the House have stood for 700 years, but the stone of the building has not lasted for eighty years.
§ Mr. CLAYTONI would like to reply to the last speaker with regard to the durability of the stone. The Scientific 716 and Industrial Research Committee, who looked into the matter, decided that if the stone is laid in the building in the same way as it lies in the quarry, it will stand. The trouble in the past has been that the stone has been cut and put up in blocks on end, and not in the strata as found in the quarry. So laid it will not last. The experts are satisfied that it would be safer to replace the stone in this building with similar stone, but that it should be laid in the right way.
§ Mr. VIANTWe have no guarantee that we are not going to make the same mistake as was made when the House was originally built. It is all very well to say that the stones are to be laid as taken from the quarries, but there is no guarantee that at the quarry there has not happened what has happened before, namely, a geological disturbance that has caused fissures in the stone. In the past that has been one of the main causes of the trouble we have had. When this matter was under discussion before, I suggested that we ought to face it in a practical way. As far as architecture is concerned, the buildings here surpass anything that we know of in this country. If we are going to start with a process of patchwork we are not tackling the problem in the right way. It is just as well that we should face the fact that, sooner or later, the whole of the buildings will have to be refaced. There is no, denying that. One has only to go round the buildings, and to make a close inspection—as some of us have had the privilege of doing when the matter was first discussed—and one becomes painfully aware of the fact that no patching, will be successful.
We are starting with the Tower, and putting in certain stone there, not because we are sure of its durability, but simply because the colour is pleasing. There are many other stones of a colour which approaches that of the stone in these buildings. Portland stone has been mentioned before. We know from past experience with London buildings that are made of Portland stone, that in the London atmosphere there is no stone approaching Portland stone for durability. We have had no reason advanced to-day against the use of Portland stone. I think it would have been far better if the First Commissioner of Works had 717 taken Members of the House into his confidence and set up a Committee to consider the advisability of approaching the problem in a practical way, so that whether the work is to go on for 10 years or for 20 years, we would be prepared to do the work thoroughly. We are handing on buildings to generations that are to follow, and it is property that from an architectural point of view is well worth preserving in every way.
In these days no one would be prepared to put in two or three different kinds of stone in a building like this, but that is the sort of thing that has been advocated by the Minister in charge of the Estimate. I hope that the Department will give further consideration to the question and consider the advisability of approaching the problem as it should be approached, that is with a view to having ultimately to reface the whole of the building. The Department, is going to the expense of erecting a scaffold at one end of the building, and is putting in a few stones. A considerable amount of money is being spent on that scaffold, and when it is removed from the South to the North end of the building, for repairs to be effected there, I predict that in the course of 12 or 18 months it will be necessary to o back to the Tower to do more repair work where it was originally started. Such a piecemeal policy ought not to commend itself to the House. I plead with the Department to realise that what will ultimately be necessary is the refacing of the whole building.
Marquess of HARTINGTONI think I shall be obeying your Ruling, Mr. Chairman, in suggesting that, as the Minister has told the House that this Supplementary Estimate of £5,000 becomes necessary owing to a decision having been reached earlier than was anticipated, the decision was reached too quickly and even with unseemly haste, and was a wrong decision, and that the £5,000 ought not to be voted. With much that the last speaker has said, I fully agree. I think it is more than doubtful whether any patching will prove satisfactory. We know that the stones of this building have in the past shown signs of decay a few months or a few years after they were apparently sound. It may be taken as absolutely certain that when this patching has been completed in 12 or 718 20 years, another patching of a great part of the structure will be necessary. For that reason the only satisfactory way of proceeding would be to tackle the whole problem of refacing. But, even without raising that question, I believe it is a very great mistake to use any of the stones, excellent as they may be in many ways, that have been used. They are all of them stones containing a very large proportion of lime. All of them are suitable enough, even in the atmosphere of London, for use in flat planes, but for the very intricate Gothic work that is necessary in this House, I believe it is certain that no calcareous stones can possibly survive very long.
A day such as to-day, with fog and frost, is and must be destructive to stone containing lime, and stone as soft as any of those which have been suggested. The Anston stone has already decayed and I see no reason to suppose that the Clips-ham and Ketton stone will not decay in the same way. I would ask that reconsideration should he given to the decision, which was very hastily abandoned, to use at any rate for portions of the work a siliceous stone, which cannot possibly be subject to decay to the same extent as limestone is when exposed to the chemical action of the London atmosphere. I quite agree that there are difficulties about the harmonising of the colour but in places where the colour will not show, and where the quality of the stone is of great importance, I suggest that the work should be done in siliceous stone, such as was recommended by the Commission which originally dealt with this matter.
§ Mr. HARDIEThe hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Clayton) was interesting when he spoke about the natural lie of the stone. I understood him to indicate that if the stone was laid in the lie of the natural strata, and given the same level in the building, there was less chance of its deterioration, but that if the same stone were placed on edge, lamination would occur and there would be scaling. I should like with all deference to the hon. Member's scientific knowledge, to point out some things which he may not have taken into account. In the municipal buildings of Glasgow a similar problem arose and for 20 years experiments were going on to find out whether 719 or not this question of the natural lie of the stone had anything to do with the question of resistance to the effects of the atmosphere. I take it that what we are fighting against here is the effect of sulphur in the London air and it does not matter whether the stone is laid in its natural lie or the reverse—it is not going to prevent the action of the sulphur. I think the hon. Member for Widnes will agree with that view.
The difficulty of finding out whether a stone is durable or not—apart from long experience—is one on which science has not yet got a full grip. Take the case of hair faults. If you take a stone freshly quarried it may look absolutely solid, just as the stones in this building looked when they were first put into it. But after being under the action of the atmosphere for some time, especially if the atmosphere contains sulphur, faults begin to show themselves in the form of a sponge growth. There is no guarantee in regard to the stone which has been chosen here, as to the absence of what has been found in the stone used previously. Nothing has been said to show that there is any proof, which we could ask anyone to accept, in this respect. In t:, considering the change in the character of stone, especially in a wall, you have to take into account, not only the action of the atmosphere but the weight which the stone is bearing. The character of the stone at the base of a building is quite different from the character of the stone at the top of a building because the latter does not sustain the same pressure. All these things ought to be seriously considered. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury smiles, but I ask him to remember that this is a question of money. We are always crying out that we have no money for the things that really need attention. It is by inattention to details such as I have been mentioning that this Supplementary Estimate is due. All this could have been avoided by attention to details 80 years ago. I am trying to save money and to get at something which will make this building permanent.
We are told that the progress of the restoration of the stonework has been greater than was anticipated. We have not been told what has caused this 720 great change from advancing two steps at a time to advancing four steps at a time. Why has this progress been possible? Has it been found by experience that taking out the defective stone and replacing it with the other stone, is easier than was expected? Has some better and cheaper method of scaffolding been found, or has it been found possible to ascertain, by tapping the stones, those which require to be replaced and those which are sound? With regard to the turrets, I would like to know if this stone is to be used for replacing those turrets which have been removed? If these turrets are to be carved like the existing turrets, the argument of the hon. Member for Widnes fails absolutely. If you are going to have perforated turrets like those which now appear on the top of the building, you cannot carve them without having the stones placed on the vertical. Consequently, the hon. Member for Widnes, with all his scientific experience, cannot give any guarantee that this stone—which must be placed on edge if we are going to have these turrets—is not going to scale just the same as any other kind of stone under the action of the sulphur. The question of money is a very serious consideration, especially with a Government of the type which we have in charge. It is always lack of attention at the foundation of things which leads to these Supplementary Estimates. How much better would it be if we could say that this building differed from the present Government in that it was not decaying?
§ The CHAIRMANThat might have been said last year when the Estimate was first brought in.
§ Mr. HARDIEWhile the gaps were very wide last year, it is this year that pieces are beginning to fall.
§ Captain FAIRFAXI would like to ask if, in connection with this Supplementary Estimate, any consideration has been given to the question of treating the surface of the stone. Does this expenditure include any treatment of the surface of the stone with preservatives instead of replacing the stone? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to reply to give a little further detail as to how the economies amounting to £2,500 have been effected.
§ Mr. CHARLETONI wish to raise the question of the selection of the stone. I am assuming that the Office of Works have finally decided what stone they are going to use, and I would draw the Committee's attention to the fact that when this fabric was being erected we had about the first known labour troubles as far as building is concerned. The builders were treated badly and we had successful strikes. When the stone was being quarried it was quarried at piecework rates. Therefore, the only object of the men was to get the stone out in blocks and to get paid for the largest quantity possible. One of the interests I have in life is to ramble over our ancient buildings. I have been in scores of old churches, I have explored nearly every cathedral in England, and I have been over the vaults of one or two of the naves, but I have never seen any of our old fabrics which have the stone so shamefully chosen as in this fabric.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie), with his knowledge of scientific matters, has told us that many of the faults, when stone is quarried, are hidden. I assume that he means that they are hidden from the ordinary observer, but I suggest that the expert quarryman will recognise those faults when he sees them, and I would suggest to the Office of Works that, instead of trying to get the stone cheap by allowing the men to be employed on piece work, so that their only object, and probably the only object of the owners of the quarry as well, is to get as much stone out as they can, regardless of quality, they should go back to the same way that the mediaeval builders used and send men to quarry stone with instructions to give us the very best stone and reject all stone that has any indication of faults. Let them exercise the same loving care over each block of stone as the mediaeval builders did, and we shall have a fabric which, in succeeding generations when we are gone, will be found to have stood the test of time. If we do not do this, I am sure we shall have the same trouble a few years hence as we are having to-day.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONI do not know whether I should be in order in attempting to answer all the questions that have been put to me, but I would like to reply in particular to the question which the 722 hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Gardner) put. I made a mistake when I said that I answered a question on this subject a year ago. As a matter of fact, I have answered a number of questions on this subject, going back for more than a year, but the actual decision was given last November when, in answer to, I think, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power), I explained that the First Commissioner had definitely come to the decision, in repairing this House, to draw the stone from Clipsham and Ketton quarries and that Anston stone would also be used in certain positions. No supplementary question was put to me on that question, and nobody has ever raised a question since, nor, either on the Consolidated Fund Bill or on any other occasion, has the matter ever been raised. Therefore, I think I was right in assuming that the House was satisfied with that decision.
§ Mr. VIANTI suggest that when the Estimate was originally before this House, there was an understanding given to the House that every consideration would be given, before this work was proceeded with, that the best possible stone would be selected, and the House, if I sensed it correctly, was under the impression that, a decision having been arrived at, the matter would be brought before this House before the work was proceeded with. Rightly or wrongly, that was my impression of the Debate when the Estimate was passed.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONThe hon. Member is referring to a matter of two or three years back. This Estimate was not discussed last year at all, and I think it Las not been discussed for two or three years. I certainly do not agree that it was the decision that nothing should be done until the actual Estimate had been discussed. I think it was the decision that nothing should be done until a question had been put in the House and the feeling had been expressed as to whether or not the House agreed. It is frequently the custom to get the sense of the House by getting a question put and judging from the way in which the answer is received whether or not the House agrees. Frequently that is done. With regard to the other point that has been put, I would like to stress the point that the First Commissioner must be guided by his technical 723 advisers. In this matter his technical advisers are the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the principal architect, and it was their opinion, after lengthy tests, that Clipsham and Ketton stone was suitable for this purpose. I understand there is sufficient stone in the quarries to serve the purpose for which we require it. If that is the decision, I think the First Commissioner must naturally be guided by it.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONRoughly speaking, we do know what it is. Therefore, I do not think it can be suggested that the Minister has not taken the best advice. He has taken the only possible advice that he can reasonably take, and he has been guided by that advice and has acted on it.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONIt would mean the most prodigious expenditure entirely to reface this House with a new stone altogether, which is in no way in keeping with the existing stone, and for these reasons I hope the Committee will pass the Estimate.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASIs there not an easy way out of this difficulty? I once heard it said that on any subject under the sun you could find an expert in this House, and I am quite sure that there is a large number of Members who have come here this morning without the least idea what it is all about, and who are about as wise on the merits of the stone now as they were before. But the fact remains that the Debate has already shown that there are hon. Members who take the keenest interest in the subject, to the general advantage of the community, and the position at this moment is that the expert advice on that side agrees with the Minister and his technical advisers, but that expert advice does not square with the practical and expert advice on this side. The difference is that an impartial observer, listening to the Debate, would be bound to drop down on this side, because we have got expert advice as well as practical knowledge.
That being so, while I quite see the difficulty of any attempt to interfere with the money already spent, could not the 724 Minister, in order to bring that peaceful, Friday afternoon atmosphere into the Debate, get up and say, "I came down to the House this morning entirely ignorant of the subject—in other words, in the condition of most Ministers—but, having heard the advice given, I propose to benefit by the experience of the Opposition, and I will go further into this matter and get additional advice and assistance." I will pledge, on behalf of my hon. Friends, that they will give to the Government, gratis, all their knowledge and experience, and with that combined knowledge surely the country will benefit. Let the Government give further consideration to the technical difficulties in regard to this stone, where they should get it from, how they should get it, how it ought to be faced, and so on. Indeed, I want to say that I am somewhat disturbed as to whether this stone comes by road or rail, and I can quite conceive that perhaps most of this damage has arisen because it has been coming here by road. All these are practical matters which might reasonably be reconsidered, with a view to getting hold of all this Parliamentary experience in the matter.
MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONMay I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to give some answer to the points which have been raised? We have had no information yet as to why the decision has been arrived at not to use siliceous stone from Derbyshire, lie cannot ride off on the advice of his experts. His experts advised him, and he tore up their advice and took outside advice. I think the Committee is entitled to know the reason for the decision of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department.
§ Mr. HARDIEI should have thought we might have had some scientific advice this morning. Reference has been made to people having knowledge and people having none. There is always plenty of flatulent phrases in this House, and when it comes down to hard facts, of course there is a sneer, but it is better to have something in your head than an empty head. This is not a matter of which to make fun. The maintenance of this building is a very serious matter, and I hope the hon. and gallant Member in charge will tell us whether the scientific committee has gone into the matter of whether 725 stone laid vertically or at an angle prevents it from being attacked by the sulphur in the atmosphere.
§ Mr. GARDNERReally the answer e have received is not satisfactory. When this topic came before Parliament we had an excellent book prepared with an estimate. The First Commissioner has revised his decision and there is no estimate now of the total cost. I am afraid that this Vote will go through without protest, and that the Government will continue on the lines they have adopted. I am fully aware that the Fine Arts Commission turned down the stone that was recommended. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that we cannot afford the sum necessary to replace the stone. There is only one way of dealing with this job. I am sure if building experts—I am not talking about scientific experts—were asked, they would say that the proper way would be to begin it all over again, and replace the present stone with stone known to be durable. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to ask the Committee to pass this Vote in the circumstances.
§ 12 n.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONDerbyshire stone was turned down because it turns a dead black colour. We showed in the courtyard of this building a specimen of this stone to show how it did turn, and it was because of the colouring that the Fine Arts Commission refused to agree to its use. For that reason Stancliffe stone was turned down. An estimate has been made but it is early yet for us to consider whether the cost for this building is going to be exactly within the Estimate or not. I can only give my hon. Friend the assurance that if the Committee passes this Supplementary Estimate to-day obviously the First Commissioner will not immediately decide the whole question. We are experimenting in this matter as much as anyone else. We have to try to learn as we go along, and we can only learn by experience. When we have done the two bays of the south front we shall have more experience but after all those are small bits corn-pared with what we have to do.
§ Mr. GARDNERrose—
§ The CHAIRMANI must ask hon. Members not to interrupt. If they wish 726 to raise further points they must do so later.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONI will ask hon. Member, to realise that this ƒ5,000 is not to do with the actual stone work of the Central Tower. We cannot repair until we have put up the scaffolding and made our survey, but before making our survey we must put up our scaffolding. Having done that, we shall be able to, decide perhaps what the cost of the Central Tower is going to be, and we shall have experience on the south front and be able to judge what this stone looks, like when completed.
§ Mr. THOMASMay we take it, then, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is in a position to say now that before further expenditure is incurred in the direction he has indicated, Parliament will have another opportunity of expressing an opinion on this subject?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONParliament will have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on this subject on the Office of Works Estimate, which is generally put down at the time of moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates, early in the financial year before any expenditure can be incurred. If the House desires, I can quite well arrange for this Estimate to be put down early.
§ Mr. THOMASAnd we may take it that further expenditure will not be incurred before then?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONIt cannot be without the sanction of Parliament.
§ Mr. VIANTThe Committee has been informed that it has been decided that preparations are already being made for the use of this particular kind of stone?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONAt two places on the south front, as an experiment.
§ Mr. VIANTThis is far too serious for anyone to be joking. Here is public money being expended, and, as an experiment, we are going to put in two different kinds of stone, because the colour blends with that of the existing stone, and not because we are persuaded of the durability. Before anything further is done, the whole matter ought to be reviewed by this House and thoroughly discussed. 727 The advice of the experts is being turned down in connection with one type of stone for which the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has pleaded. It is quite possible that, in the light of existing knowledge, we should turn down even this particular type of stone, because some of us are persuaded that there is one type of stone which alone, as the result of practical experience, can be used for this work. If we repair one portion, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested, in Clipsham stone, we may feel ultimately that money has been inadvisably spent, in so far as we have to review the whole problem and get a stone of different colour in order to get durability. I hope that this matter will be reconsidered before we spend any more money in this direction.
§ Captain FAIRFAXHas this Estimate anything to do with preserving the face of the fabric?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONNo, it has nothing to do with that.
§ Mr. HARDIEWill the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what he means by experimenting with this new stone?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONI have tried to explain that to repair a building of this size is something which stands by itself, and that therefore we must to some extent experiment and judge by results as we go along. Hon. Members are wrong in thinking that we have no experience of Ketton stone. The South African Committee Room is of Ketton; and Clipsham and Ketton are very similar. To suggest that we are working in the dark is to suggest something which is inaccurate, as we are taking the advice of the Department of Scientific Research who know as much as hon. Members opposite.
§ Question put, and agreed to.