PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN. (Hansard, 23 February 1931)

§ Mr. LANSBURY
This is another Estimate which makes provision for work for the unemployed in what I am sure will be considered a very useful way. We have saved a small sum of money, £15,000, relatively a small sum compared with the Estimate, but it has reduced the total from £75,000 to £60,000. We undertake this kind of work usually during the winter, and this time we have concentrated on improving the amenities of the ancient buildings and monuments which are entrusted to our care. Everyone who has visited Richborough or any of the old places that come under our jurisdiction—I am not saying this at all in favour of the present Parliamentary head of the Department—will agree that the work of the ancient monuments department, and the Department generally in the care of ancient monuments, is very excellently done, but it does cost money. In asking for this Supplementary Estimate I want hon. Members to keep in mind the beautiful buildings that have been improved and kept in a state of thorough repair.
Let me say one word about one voluntary worker, one man amongst many, who winter after winter gives us his time, his energy, and his knowledge, and also helps us occasionally to get money, and that is Mr. Klein, who is in charge at Richborough Castle. No one who sees that castle to-day will deny that it has been improved and made infinitely more valuable since Mr. Klein started, and I should like to express how much the Department is indebted to him for the work he does so cheerfully and voluntarily each winter. We have had as many as 1,350 people engaged at work throughout Scotland, Wales, and England, and the men who have been employed have been largely from the distressed areas. The one part of the country of which this is not wholly true is the South Coast, and the reason is that there is a considerable number of seasonal workers from Eastbourne around the coast to Margate for whom provision has to be made, and in dealing with Richborough and other castles in these parts it has been found of very great advantage to employ the same kind of men who have got used to the work. We have not in- 1881 terfered with them. I have a long list here of all the various castles and buildings which will be dealt with under this Vote. I will spare the Committee reading it through but I shall be glad to answer any questions in relation to any of them. The whole of this expenditure is on ancient monuments and castles, for the preservation of the amenities of the buildings and the buildings themselves.

Sir H. YOUNG
I am sure that the object of the expenditure under this Supplementary Estimate will appeal to every Member of the Committee. If expenditure there must be, then it is some compensation that it should be on such an admirable purpose as this. I assume that the buildings upon which this public expenditure is being undertaken are those which are to be protected permanently for the benefit of the public, and there can be no question of the expenditure being ultimately allowed. At the same time I do not think that the admirable object in view should divert the criticism which ought to be made on this, as well as upon the Estimate which preceded it. The Committee will observe that this is the second Estimate presented of what I should call a casual and unrelated object of expenditure on unemployment relief, and the criticism which should be made is that it is not satisfactory that schemes of expenditure for the sake of unemployment relief should be produced as an afterthought and unrelated to each other. Let me put it in the form of a question, and ask the Minister to tell us what is the real governing consideration in this expenditure; is it the needs and objects upon which the money is spent or is it the needs of unemployment?
Let me ask this question in regard to this Estimate: Is this expenditure of £60,000 the actual net amount required by the object and, in particular, is it part of some unforeseen programme for the maintenance and upkeep of these buildings? Or is that not so? Is it merely that the Minister in his ingenuity has been thinking of something plausible to do with the money, and is the expenditure really dictated by the fact that he has thought that £60,000 might be spent in relief of unemployment? What has led to the amount being £60,000 and not some other sum? One wants to find 1882 out what is the scheme of the Government in these proposals. Surely it is very obvious that with our finances in their present condition we must get the best value we can out of every pound of public money spent for the benefit of unemployment. Surely it is also obvious that we cannot hope to get the best value out of the money we are spending on unemployment unless we undertake that the whole of the expenditure is expenditure under a single co-ordinated scheme.
What co-ordination is there in these forms of expenditure? Can the Minister say that they have been considered in relation to each other by any unified coordinating body? Systems of relief expenditure by local authorities are most carefully considered by various committees which consider the expenditure from every conceivable aspect. What has been done in the case of this additional expenditure to make sure that it has some relation to a common scheme? The same consideration which was so forcibly urged by my right hon. Friend in relation to the last Supplementary Estimate, applies to this, that you have here expenditure which, owing to the nature of the case, is attached to certain districts, and that those districts may not be the districts where you most need to have relief of unemployment. I feel that in connection with this Estimate we should have a reassurance on these heads.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
I think I can answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman without much trouble by saying that a good part of this money has probably been spent already.

§ Mr. CULVERWELL
The right hon. Gentleman thinks that this money has already been spent?

§ Mr. JONES
I suggest that a great deal of it has been expended. I rose, however, to congratulate the First Commissioner of Works on the correctitude of this Estimate in comparison with other Votes which we have discussed. He asks for the whole sum. That is the correct procedure. I must thank him for this Estimate in its correct form, and I would express the hope that in all his future Estimates he will follow this correct practice.

Major DAVIES
It is peculiarly fortunate that we have two Front Benches 1883 that can give answers to out questions. I would like to draw attention to one curious thing about this Estimate. It is exactly the round figure of £60,000. My right hon. Friend the Member for Seven-oaks (Sir H. Young) had rightly diagnosed the situation—I do not criticise it adversely under these condiions—that the Office of Works was asked to see what it could do with regard to the provision of additional employment, and it was suggested that £60,000 worth might be done by the Office of Walks in connection with historic buildings and ancient monuments. The object is very desirable but the method is open to question. In the expenditure there seems to have been a primary object and a secondary object. The primary object was to provide a certain amount of work for the unemployed, and the secondary object was to use the money in a direction which no one criticises. I would like to add my rimed of praise to the Department for the work that has been done up and down the country on these ancient buildings and monuments. In the last year or two I have been able to compare the conditions to-day with those that I knew some 20 years ago, and the metamorphosis is most remarkable. Scientific and historical skill, wisely applied, is going to give to posterity a source not only of scientific interest but of enormous pleasure.
Here there is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had in the forefront of his mind the provision of useful work for the unemployed. But if there is any work in which thoroughly skilled and experienced labour is necessary, it is this work, which is as important as the work of preserving great cathedrals, such as Lincoln and St. Paul's. Therefore there is a very limited area in which the right hon. Gentleman is justified in applying that labour which we class as unemployed. In his anxiety to justify the expenditure of this peculiarly round sum of £60,000 the right hon. Gentleman may have rather pushed forward the employment feature and allowed those for whom he is responsible to lose sight of what has hitherto been kept in the forefront, and that is applying the best brains and the most skilled labour to achievement of the object in view. I hope that the 1884 right hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us on that particular point.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
The right hon. Gentleman deserves a medal for the way in which he has dealt with this Debate, and he owes a vote of thanks to the right hon. Member for deputising for him. If I may, I will answer the right hon. Gentleman for him. The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) said he was wise in this, as compared with previous Estimates, because, although there was a deduction for services not to be carried out, he had not shown it in his Supplementary Estimate, but took the full sum of £75,000. He commended him for that, but the right hon. Gentleman is a little misguided after all. This is a new sub-head and a new service.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
No; this sub-head EE is a continuation Of sub-head E. In the main Estimates there is provided £62,000 for "maintenance and repair of ancient monuments." Now there is a Vote for the same subject with two EE's this time.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
The right hon. Gentleman has failed me. I certainly thought he would give a better reply on behalf of his leader than that, because I do not know how E can be the same as EE. It may be in Cornwall, but not in this part of the country. If he looks at the Supplementary Estimate, he will see that it refers to "Original Estimate, £…" That is to say, this is a new service. According to the Ruling given earlier from the Chair this evening, we could have opened out a much larger discussion and treated it as a new sub-head of the original Estimate. We could have raised the whole question of using unemployment relief funds for ancient monuments. It raises the question as to what is an ancient monument in the meaning of a Supplementary Estimate. The right hon. Member for Camborne is very loquacious, but I do not know if he can explain what his leader has in view when he takes money for relief works in connection with ancient monuments. An hon. Member alluded just now to Lincoln Cathedral. Is the repair work which is now being carried on these and in other public buildings included in this?

§ Mr. LANSBURY
No.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
It is not. As a matter of fact, as far as Lincoln is concerned, we have been relieved of our troubles there by the Harkness Trust last week. Otherwise, I would have appealed to him to assist them. He only mentioned Richborough, and we have heard of a gentleman who devoted a great deal of service towards helping to keep it tidy. One place I have in mind is St. Albans. I remember seeing a great many illustrations about what was being clone at St. Albans. Is that included?

§ Mr. LANSBURY
No.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
We may eventually find out exactly what is an ancient monument. The right hon. Gentleman should give us some more examples besides Richborough. These ancient monuments are to be improved and kept in repair according to him. He talks about improving an ancient monument, but, after all, an ancient monument is not a think to be improved like a small boy by being sent to school. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by improving an ancient monument? There has been a great deal said about the restoration work up and down the country in the sham Gothic era and in the glorious time of the Prince Consort. That would not to-day be considered an improvement. What is the standard of improvement? Is it laid down by the architects of the Department, by the First Commissioner's professional advisers, or has he consulted the Royal Commission, which has had a great deal to do with ancient monuments, or the Fine Arts Commission? Or perhaps he sees that there are a great many unemployed in some parts of the country and says, "There are some funny looking mines in some fields there, let us dig them up." Is that the standard by which he picks out these monuments, or does he take some place like Fountains Abbey or some other ancient abbey and, realising that there is repair work to be done, set about it scientifically? [Interruption.] The hon. Members round me are being frivolous. Will he clear up this point? He said that 1,350 men are employed on this work for £75,000. Not long ago I heard it said by him that it cost £1,000,000 to employ 4,000 men. There is a great discrepancy in these figures. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman might not have said that, but 1886 that is what Ministers have said on the Front Bench. The Treasury Bench should all tell the same story. The right hon. Gentleman agree with that, and I expect his deputy in front of me agrees.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
The figure is 4,000 men per year.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
That is exactly what I am complaining about. We simply do not know, and we have not been told. Will the right hon. Gentleman then answer these points? I What is his standard of improvement and of keeping in repair? What is his standard of an ancient monument, and what is his standard of the amount of employment any given man is going to get out of this work?

§ Mr. DIXEY
I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman, who is in a very unfortunate position. I should like your guidance as to whether you hold that this is an entirely new Vote or whether it is a supplementary Estimate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman asks me to give a ruling upon a point of Order. This Estimate is certainly a new Estimate for a specific purpose, but it continues an old service. It is rather too late in the day now to inquire what ancient monuments are.

§ Mr. DIXEY
It is an extraordinary situation; when an estimate is presented for a given sum, to find the right hon. Gentleman announcing to us that this sum of money has already been largely spent. I hope he will let us know whether we are simply wasting our time on this matter. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to appreciate that this is the taxpayers' money. It is up to them to try to assist us in getting a proper statement of all the financial expenditure in which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite are lavishly indulging at this critical time in the country's history. Surely the right hon. Gentleman who, with his great gifts and his services to his party, occupies a position of confidence in the Government, is aware of the very pertinent observations which have been made-by his right hon. colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of expenditure. Yet we are debating here an, item of £75,000 to be spent on something which the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand.
1887 We have only had one weak reference to one particular object of this expenditure. Several questions have been asked by hon. Members to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reply in detail giving us some idea as to the general standard of upkeep in connection with these monuments. As far as we have been able to learn up to the present, this money is being expended, not to maintain any proper standard in regard to these monuments, but simply to provide jobs of some sort for people who are out of work. I object to hon. Members being asked to vote upon an Estimate of this kind when we know that it is not really necessary and is a mere sop to the workers because the Government have no proper programme to deal with unemployment. We know that the party of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne has an extensive and progressive policy to deal with unemployment—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
They may have, but it does not arise on this Estimate.

§ Mr. DIXEY
I was carried away by my enthusiasm and I quite agree that there is au element of doubt as to the practicability of the programme of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. But I suggest to the Minister that it is not enough to come here with an Estimate of this kind and to assume that because we know that there are people out of work, his Department can undertake expenditure without giving any proper explanation. I know that an arrangement has been arrived at regarding these discussions, but, before we sanction this expenditure, I would like to insist upon a proper and detailed explanation.

§ Mr. BRACKEN
I join with the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) in pressing upon the First Commissioner of Works the necessity for giving to the Committee some details of this enormous expenditure. So far we have only had the one reference to Richborough. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to The quite frank about this matter because £60,000 is a lot of money to spend on ancient monuments—probably much more than the ancient monuments cost to build. It is embarrassing to know to whom to address inquiries upon this subject— 1888 whether to the First Commissioner of Works or to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne should presume to answer for the Ministry. One can only come to the conclusion that he is an ancient monument himself. [Interruption.] I quite agree that if all monuments were as useful as the right hon. Gentleman we should consider it worth while to maintain them, but £60,000 is, as I say, a great deal of money to spend on an object like this, especially without any proper explanation.
The First Commissioner of Works has been making perfervid appeals for homes for the people in Bow and Bromley, and I cannot understand why he should now be so much concerned about ancient castles, whose artistic value is unknown and about which no one ever heard until now. I certainly cannot understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have approved an item of expenditure such as this. It is really disgraceful that we should be asked at this time to spend £60,000 on an unknown object. Through a process of severe cross-examination, we have learned that the object is not the upkeep of cathedrals. What is it? Perhaps it is on Roman walls. We know the right hon. Gentleman's passion for Roman walls. We know that he travelled at the expense of the Office of Works all over the North of England searching for those interesting curios. But to come here at a time when the finances of the State are in such dreadful peril, and to ask us to find this sum of money for the upkeep of monuments, is disgraceful.
It is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), who has done more than anyone else in this country for the protection of local amenities, should show some hard-heartedness towards this proposal. But while all these questions are being raised, the Minister sits there mute, inglorious—and hungry—while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne attempts to explain this expenditure. I cannot understand the devotion shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne in connection with this matter, unless it be due to the fact that these ancient castles are surrounded by moats and that the moats are full of 1889 water. But this is a serious matter, and I beg of the First Commissioner to give us a list of the works involved in this Estimate, to touch upon each of the monuments concerned, and to give us the exact sum which it is proposed to expend on each one. If the right hon. Gentleman is fatigued by the evening of obstruction which he has spent in resisting our natural inquiries into these subjects, perhaps he will ask the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) to provide an answer in order that we may proceed through these Estimates with greater swiftness. We only want a detailed list of the sums to be spent upon each of these, no doubt, worthy objects, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to waste no further time in giving us such a reply. No doubt he will be able to do so from the material provided by his very diligent perambulating Parliamentary Private Secretary, who has been so active during the evening.

§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAM
I wish to ask for your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, on a point of Order. On a previous Vote you ruled that where an entirely new subject was raised, the discussion might take a more general form than otherwise. I wish to know if in this case discussion would be permitted on the question of the desirability of grants of this kind for the general purposes of unemployment relief.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I have already given a definite Ruling on that point. I pointed out that this is not strictly speaking a new Estimate. It is an Estimate for a new purpose, namely, the employment of unemployed people. But the general service to which it relates is covered by the original Estimate. It would be quite proper to ask whether it is advisable or not to employ unemployed men on this particular work.

§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAM
I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Dunnico, for your Ruling. It appeared at first sight to be an entirely new Estimate which would justify a much wider range of discussion. I wish to reinforce the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) in the interests of economy. It is true that the sum of £60,000 is a mere bagatelle compared with the millions which we are voting in 1890 other respects daily, but the Minister himself has laid stress on the importance of saving even such a sum as £50,000. I feel certain that to-day he is in no extravagant mood and that he has probably had a consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the previous week.
It is surprising to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has allowed him to spend this money, because, much as we all value the preservation of these castles and ancient monuments, there comes a time when the country, which is in such financial straits, would wish that at any rate for a year or two these ancient monuments should chance their luck and wait till we can afford to repair them and keep them in order, £60,000 can ill be afforded in these days; it represents the interest on about £1,500,000. In view of the appeals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to all of us to economise, it is a great surprise that we should be voting £60,000 for matters which can under certain circumstances wait. If we are right in spending this money, I think we shall be asked why we are spending £60,000 on tumbledown castles when we might be spending it on tumble-down cottages.
It is all very well to spend this money to provide room for ancient ghosts, but it would be better to provide new houses for living folk, and perhaps the Minister will explain how it is that when we are in such financial straits he can still afford £60,000, when even half that money would be very useful to any of our constituencies to improve our housing. The Attorney-General appears to be amused. I happen to know Preston, and, if he is happy about the housing conditions in Preston, he is very easily pleased. If some of this money could be spent in Preston instead of at Richborough, it would be of very great advantage to his constituency, and I hope that he may have some influence with the First Commissioner and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and divert a part of this sum.

§ Lord BALNIEL
I do not feel any particular hostility to this Estimate, though I think it is an unfortunate moment at which to produce it. What proportion of this sum of £60,000 is to be spent on Brompton Cemetery, and does Brompton Cemetery properly come under the description of a historic build- 1891 ing or an ancient monument? The right hon. Gentleman said the whole of this sum was to be spent on ancient buildings and public monuments, in spite of the fact that the first sentence in the Estimate says, "Public Buildings…including Historic Buildings." We have not been told whether the £60,000 is for pure relief work, whether the work would be done supposing there was no unemployment. Under Item "EE," unemployment relief works are described, and lower down on the Paper we see "Details of the above," and the details of the above are described as follows: Provision for works for the purpose of relieving unemployment. In fact, that is precisely the same meaning in longer language. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying he has a long list of castles. He must tell us, at any rate, the names of a few of them. It is no use, by a process of negative criticism, my hon. and gallant Friend giving a certain number of cathedrals which he could remember and discovering that not one of them is included. That is not good enough. We must have a few concrete, definite statements as to what the right hon. Gentleman is doing with this money. Is he, for instance, doing anything for the castle at Berkhamstead?

§ Mr. LANSBURY
Yes.

§ Lord BALNIEL
Then I am afraid I must criticise the work that is being done there. I passed it recently in the train, and I looked with horror at the work which was being done compared with the position as I knew it some years ago. I believe the work is most extravagant and unnecessary, and that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has treated the trees round that castle is deplorable. He has cut down any number of very beautiful trees; he has levelled the ground in a way which I believe would incur the condemnation of all archaeologists; he has ruthlessly destroyed all vegetation round the castle. He has destroyed the whole thing, both from the archaeological point of view and from the point of view of the person who merely looks for something picturesque. Not only so, but he has filled in a moat round the castle, and a more complete and futile waste of time and money could 1892 scarcely be imagined. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is really satisfied with the work that is being done under this Vote, and whether he thinks those to whom he is giving work, very properly, are doing the work well. I want to know how many men have been employed altogether—it is no use being told how many were employed in a certain time—and what proportion of this £60,000 has been spent in wages.
Perhaps, when criticising that particular piece of work, which, as I say, I have seen from the track only, it seems fair to say that on the whole I agree that the work of the right hon. Gentleman's Department with regard to ancient monuments could not well be improved. The right hon. Gentleman has filled many roles in the past few months. We have seen pictures of him swinging in a swing and rowing in a boat, which was far too small for him. We have seen the various phases of the right hon. Gentleman's development, bat I think this Estimate shows one of the most curious phases of all. We remember the revolutionary, the iconoclast, of former days, but now, under this Supplementary Estimate, the right hon. Gentleman is spending his time and the money of the public in propping up relics of feudalism and in breuilding medieval castles. By such means the ancient traditions of the old world redress the balance of the new. By such means is Socialism in our time being made possible. If it were in order, one might invoke the shades of Lenin to try and find out what he now thinks of the decadence and fall from the path of virtue of his one-time disciple and ardent admirer. While we congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his change of heart, probably his one-time master is turning in his grave.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I hope that the mausoleum where Lenin lies is all right. With regard to the last part of the Noble Lord's speech, I happened to be one of the small group of people who, with the aid of William Morris, who was as good a Socialist as ever lived, prevailed on the people of this country 45 years ago to prevent the destruction of a beautiful set of ancient buildings in the Mile End Road—the Trinity Almshouses, and also to preserve Bow Church in the middle of the road. My interest 1893 in ancient monuments and the preservation of historic buildings is no new-born enthusiasm. I have always had it. It happens that in Russia one thing strikes everybody who goes there. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir M. Conway) visited Russia, and wrote a story of his visit and of the picture galleries and the ancient monuments—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman is rather departing from the discussion.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I withdraw, but I am a little susceptible to the criticism that I am taking up a new point of view about these things.

§ Lord BALNIEL
My criticism was not meant to be taken too seriously.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
All the criticism about the way the work has been done must, I think, be humorous. Hon. Members cannot mean what they say, because the work is carried through not by the transient person who happens to be First Commissioner, but by the permanent Chief Inspector of the Ancient Monuments Department. Mr. C. R. Peers is the authority on these questions in this country, and no step is taken without his advice and approval. I was asked whether the object of spending this money is to give work to the unemployed, or to preserve ancient monuments. The expenditure has both objects in view. The work is necessary, and we have taken advantage of there being so many unemployed to get the work done. The bulk of the work is unskilled work, and, when I speak of restoring, preserving or improving, I mean the removal of vast quantities of rubbish from works that it will reveal buildings as they were originally. The number of schemes is 77. I want to express my appreciation of the fact that it is realised that we have really presented one Estimate in the proper way, and I bow my acknowledgements to everybody.

§ Mr. REMER
Is the statement of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) correct, that this money has been spent?

§ Mr. LANSBURY
This Supplementary Estimate deals with public expenditure 1894 in the same manner as other Supplementary Estimates which come before the Committee at this time of the year. The bulk of the money has been already spent.

§ Lord BALNIEL
How many men have been employed?

§ Mr. LANSBURY
1,300.