HC Deb 23 February 1931 vol 248 cc1843-59

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £19,500, 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, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices abroad, and for certain Expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department.

Mr. LANSBURY

This raises a subject about which we heard so much in the last discussion. It is not possible to particularise all the Services for which this money is asked. It certainly is not possible, when the Estimates are made up, to say that the whole of the expenditure will or will not take place during the year. This year we really have expedited work as far as possible, mainly to get the work done, of course, because always it is necessary work, but also in order to assist in some small way with the unemployment problem. But as the work was of a necessary character and would add to the efficiency of the various Departments, we expedited it as far as we could. That necessitates the £19,500 for which I am asking. I can only repeat that the whole of these Services were required, and that we could not have made up the Estimate, but we wanted to safeguard ourselves in the way that the Departments have always safeguarded themselves. This is not an invention of the Office of Works.

Sir H. YOUNG

It is very fortunate that the Committee should so promptly have had such a striking example of the most regrettable and unsound state of affairs as a result of which the Committee of the House is brought by this procedure to restore a super-cut. I should say that this case is without example in the financial procedure of the House—that a Minister should come here and should have to tell the Committee that he is totally unable to give us any account of the purposes for which this money is to be spent. The right hon. Gentleman has my sympathy. In a way I think he is right; I think it is quite possible that he and his Department are quite incapable of telling us exactly for what the money is wanted. But I say that that is a state of affairs that ought to have been avoided.

I must put this matter, subject to the rules of Debate, that you, Sir Robert, have indicated—that we must not refer to the original Estimate and that this evening we can discuss only the actual restoration of the super-cut. Owing to the nature of this particular form of increased expenditure demanded the Minister is unable to give to the Committee any statement as to what the money is wanted for. That is a totally undesirable and improper state of affairs. The point of view is this: The existence of the super-cut demands the most absolute rigidity of observance by Departments, because if it is not observed, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will explain to the Committee if we are allowed to hear him, it is possible for the Department and the Treasury completely to falsify the original Estimates. That is why it is so peculiarly grave that, when the Supplementary Estimate comes to us, we should be presented with it in. this form. I shall feel that there is a most dangerous looseness in financial control if on this occasion the Financial Secretary to the Treasury does not assure us that this has not became a practice and that the Committee in future is not to be asked by the Minister to pass expenditure of which he is totally incapable of giving details.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)

I had better answer the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. It was raised by him on the last Vote and it shows that he is under an entire misapprehension. The facts are not as he has stated them; they are quite different. It is not that the Treasury has imposed on the Office of Works certain reductions or has said "You must make your expenditure in the year so much," and that during the year the Office of Works has disregarded the instruction given by some superior authority. That is not the position at all. The position is this: The Office of Works estimates that in the course of the year certain works, covering a great many different places and a great many different objects, are works which they expect to be able to complete. Over a considerable time in the past it has been found that unexpected conditions have arisen and have prevented the Office of Works carrying out what they had intended to do. In consequence of these unexpected conditions the actual money spent by the Office of Works has fallen short of what they had anticipated they would be able to spend, and fallen short of the sum which the House of Commons was perfectly willing to give them the opportunity of spending. In order to prevent the Estimates giving a misleading picture of the expenditure that might be incurred, it has become the practice during a great many years to deduct amounts—I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the precise words— in respect of services which might not be carried out during the year. 7.0 p.m.

So far as this particular Vote was concerned, that was done to the tune of £19,500. I would have the Committee observe that that was on a very considerable Vote of £1,151,000. The Committee can take one of two alternatives. It is obviously impossible for the Office of Works to be able to judge exactly how much work it will be able to carry out in a specific year. The Committee can, if it likes, vote the full amount every year, although there is a probability that that amount will not be expended; or it can adopt the course which the present Government, like other Governments, have adopted, and vote a sum which allows for the probability that the full amount will not be required. It has been found in years past that, through exceptional circumstances, the full amount has not been actually expended. In this particular year my right hon. Friend has been able to carry out, in regard to Revenue buildings, the full programme of building which he thought he might be able to do. In other words, his original Estimate has proved much more nearly correct. That is a matter on which we must congratulate him.

The idea which the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) has, that the Treasury imposed pressure, and that, in defiance of their wish, and in defiance of the wish of the Committee, he spent this £19,500, is not the fact. The fact is that none of the obstacles which might have prevented the work being done have occurred, and, therefore, it is possible for the Office of Works to do all that they originally estimated. In accordance with constitutional practice, we are coming to the House of Commons to get authorisation for spending up to the full programme which the Office of Works originally projected without the cut which was made when the Estimates were proposed.

Mr. LEIF JONES

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not realised the full force of the criticisms which have been made. A new practice appears to be growing up which I am bound to take this opportunity of depre- eating. The hon. Gentleman said he had not made a cut as a result of pressure from the Treasury at all, but as a growth of practice in past years. I know it is not due to the pressure of the Treasury, but it is partly due to the pressure of the Public Accounts Committee, which has pointed out year after year that the Department did not do so much work as they put down, and that it was not necessary to vote so much. This has been due to labour disputes or to difficulties of getting labour or material. This, however, is not the issue now. What the hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise is that this £19,500 for which he is now asking has never been voted by the Committee. In the original Estimates this sum would have been distributed over 21 or 22 heads, and we would have known for what this money was being asked. In the old days, the deduction was always made from Sub-head A, the provision for new works. This spreading of the money over the whole of the Sub-heads from A to V and asking for it in a lump sum is really an innovation. These heads and sub-heads of the Vote have been made in order that the House may know clearly where the money was being distributed among the various heads. It was never intended that money should be asked for in a lump sum, yet in this Vote we have all the Sub-heads from A to V lumped together.

The Department are spending £19,500 more than we voted them, and they are asking for it in a lump sum. That is an unreasonable departure from the practice of the past. It is a small sum, but it might just as well be £190,000 or £1,500,000, and the Treasury must look into this matter. It is of the Treasury that I arm complaining. It ought not to come to the House and ask for large sums of money undistributed among the sub-heads in which the original Estimates were put forward. I hope the matter will be looked into. I do not see why this extra amount that is asked for is exactly the sum of the over-all deduction. They might have spent £19,000 or £20,000 more. Is it really the case that in the next month they are going to spend exactly the £19,500 which was deducted 12 months ago? What has happened is that they have made more progress with their work than was expected, and they want money. They may want £10,000 or £15,000, but they ought to come to the House and ask for that extra amount distributed through the sub-heads of the amount already voted. I hope that in the future that will be done.

Captain WATERHOUSE

I do not like to find myself in disagreement with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but I cannot congratulate him on having spent the whole total he is allowed to spend. Surely this is not the time in the nation's history for the hon. Gentleman to try to carry out, as he said, all the expenditure upon which, in certain contingencies, he thought it might be necessary to embark? On the last Vote we were told that the increased expenditure was due largely to the fact that there are more unemployed, which is a very good explanation, but here we are discussing Customs and Excise and, although the services are down and revenue is yielding less, we have this expenditure on revenue buildings. If the services are down, why should the expenditure on the buildings to house those services be up? Again, how is this super-cut arrived at?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must have been absent from the Committee, or he would have known that the super-cut, or how it occurred, does not arise on this Vote.

Captain WATERHOUSE

I bow to your Ruling, but I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that all he was doing was to re-impose the super-cut.

The CHAIRMAN

That is quite a different thing from asking how the super-cut was arrived at.

Captain WATERHOUSE

I bow to your Ruling, of course, because I must. May I ask this question? The right hon. Gentleman allows in the main Estimate £140,000 for repairs and maintenance. Was it not possible for him to save this £19,500 out of that vast sum?

The CHAIRMAN

It might have been possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have saved out of that vast sum, but the question before the Committee is this £19,500. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to ask what that was spent on, and not what it could be saved on.

Captain WATERHOUSE

I am suggesting why the Committee should not vote this money and that, instead of asking for this £19,500, the right hon. Gentleman might have gone round his Department and made cuts. I am inviting him to look round it in the next few days and see if he could not save this sum.

The CHAIRMAN

If I allowed that, there are a number of other items on which similar questions could be put.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR

I would like to ask some questions in connection with the boats and launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department, which are referred to in this Estimate. We are not told how much of this sum is spent in this way, and I wish to ask how much of it is spent on the employment, upkeep and repair of these boats and launches? Presumably, the Customs and Excise Department is buying new boats and launches and, as, owing to the very regrettable cuts in His Majesty's Service, His Majesty's Dockyards must be full of boats and launches which would be quite efficient and suitable for this work, I would suggest that any boats required should be obtained in this way, as that would bring about some economy. I suggest, too, that it might be possible to economise in this expenditure. In many cases, although it refers to launches, rowing boats would be sufficient. We would like an assurance that full use is made of rowing boats where they are sufficient for the purpose. Trade is very much down at the present time, and one would have imagined it was not necessary for the Customs and Excise Department to ask for an increased amount for their work. The number of boats used throughout the country for this Department must be very large in the aggregate, and an economy might be brought about where it is possible to use rowing boats instead of steam launches.

Mr. REMER

I was amazed at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. I have always regarded him as one of the most intelligent Members of the Front Government Bench. That is not really paying him a very great compliment, because there is not a great deal of intelligence on that bench. Yet he made a speech which was almost an insult to this Committee. He gave us no explanation of any kind, but told us that this was the usual practice, that he had no money at all, and finished up by telling us that the money for which he was asking would probably not be spent at all. In all my experience I have never heard a right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench put forward such a "twopenny halfpenny" excuse for lack of knowledge of his Department. The Financial Secretary said one of the most amazing things that I have ever heard from a custodian of the public, purse in Committee of Supply. He told us that at the beginning of the year the Office of Works estimated the work which they would be able to carry out. Surely it is the duty of the Treasury at all times not to see what work can be carried out, but to see how much money can be saved. Surely it is their duty not to throw money away in bucketsful, as has been suggested, but to come forward with a sound practical scheme of economy and to ensure that every item of the national expenditure is closely scrutinised. I should like to know if the hon. Gentleman consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he made his remarks of this evening, because I have a vivid recollection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer making certain observations—

The CHAIRMAN

There has been a good deal of repetition in the speeches on these Estimates already and I would ask the hon. Member not to indulge in repetition. At the same time I wish to call his attention to the fact that this is a definite Estimate for a sum of £19,500.

Mr. REMER

I was asking the hon. Gentleman whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been consulted in view of his statement recently that every item of expenditure must be carefully scrutinised. I wish to know if this item has been scrutinised.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must assume that these Estimates have been issued with the authority of the Treasury.

Mr. REMER

If that be the case, then I very much deplore the method by which these Estimates come before this Committee. We have heard to-day, in the plainest terms, from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there is no scrutiny of any kind.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE indicated dissent.

Mr. REMER

I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he would like to deal with the point but the fact is that on the main Estimate there was a reduction of £19,500. The arrangement was that this sum of £19,500 was picked out and the Department was told, "This is the money you must save." Now the hon. Gentleman comes forward on behalf of the Treasury and actually boasts that they have been able to spend this money. I think it is the duty of every Minister, in the crisis through which we are passing, to try to save every possible penny. I believe that in this matter the Government have been negligent in not scrutinising this item and have once again shown themselves to be absolutely incompetent to occupy the Treasury Bench.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON

This Vote comprises two distinct things—first the buildings which are used for the purposes of the Inland Revenue and the Customs and Excise, and, secondly, the buildings used by the Post Office. There is a marked distinction between them, because the Inland Revenue buildings are a part of the ordinary machinery of Government, whereas the Post Office is practically a self-contained entity standing on its own legs as far as revenue and expenditure are concerned and presenting its own accounts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) and I have been pursuing the Office of Works for many years on the subject of the presentation of these accounts. We thought that we were getting within sight of the desired objective, hut now we find all the ground that we had gained, taken away by this method of a lump allocation. I will not pursue that point but I wish the right hon. Gentleman would, at least, indicate if this £19,500 is to be spent on buildings for the Post Office, or on buildings for the Customs and Inland Revenue.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

As I exercised great patience with the Minister on the previous Estimate, in refraining from putting some of the questions which I had for him, in regard to it, perhaps he will excuse me if I raise certain points on this Estimate. The Minister stated that this £19,500 was due to the efficiency of the Department; that they had been able to expedite certain work, and, for that reason, were compelled to ask for this money. He did not, however, indicate on which of the various branches of the Department this sum was expended. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman was doing his best to explain this matter and I recognise his difficulty but I had hoped that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would have been able to tell us precisely on what this money has been spent. The Financial Secretary, however, merely said that the full programme of work had been carried out.

In other words, the Financial Secretary, who is supposed to be keeping down expenditure, was boasting that this sum had been spent because the Government had been as wasteful as they could be. [HON MEMBERS: "No!"] I think the hon. Gentleman's statement was that the full programme had been carried out and that there had been no delay in spending this money. This is a very important sum of money, not so much on its own account as on account of the other items dependent upon it. If this were the only occasion on which the Financial Secretary was going to ask us to waste money, it might be possible to overlook it, but this is only one of many items of this kind, and all that we have been able to extract out of two speeches from the Government Front Bench is that they boast of having expended this money. It has possibly been spent in some totally useless and incompetent way. It must be so, otherwise they would tell us at once of instances of the way in which it has been expended. But they are keeping that in the background. The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) wants row boats—

The CHAIRMAN

I have been looking at the original Estimate, and I can find nothing in it covering the question of boats.

Mr. LANSBURY

The Estimate before the Committee only relates to such matters as the supply of ropes and so forth for boats and launches.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE

On a point of Order. Is it not perfectly clear from the Estimate itself that part of this expenditure is for the purchase of boats?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member will notice that it is for "certain expenses in connection with boats and launches," but I cannot find any item for boats and launches in the original Estimate.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I was not quite sure myself how the connection with boats arose, but, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has introduced the question of ropes, perhaps he will tell the Committee the precise material of which these ropes are made, and where they are manufactured, and other matters in connection with these launches.

The CHAIRMAN

I think I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that the question of launches does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I was most particular to use the words "in connection with launches," and I think that is covered by the Estimate. However, will leave the launches and go back to the more important point about this expenditure of £19,500. I wish to know what proportion of this sum, if any, has been definitely spent on the Customs and Inland Revenue. How much of this money is being spent in the collection of taxes, and how much in the provision of buildings for the Post Office and telegraph services? I think that the right hon. Gentleman, for the convenience of the Committee, ought to have divided this sum into sub-heads, and I should like a definite answer on those points.

Captain CAZALET

I have always looked upon the First Commissioner of Works, certainly, as being one of the most benign Members of the Cabinet, but in asking us to accept the statement which he has made to-night he is asking too much. Here we have an Estimate exceeded by 2 per cent., and the right hon. Gentleman says in effect "I am afraid I cannot tell you how the money has been spent." I agree that it is difficult to explain. There are some 20 subheads and this sum may have been expended on one of them, or it may have been divided between the other 19. We do not know; we cannot tell. But I believe I am right in saying that this is a totally new method of presenting Estimates. The Financial Secretary said that because he had spent more money it was a matter on which the Committee ought to congratulate the First Com- missioner. If the right hon. Gentleman had made a saving on the original Estimate there would have been reason for congratulation. But surely he cannot ask us to accept the present position without a protest. Surely, this is the very kind of small extravagance which it is the primary duty of the Government to curb and check. We must protest in the name of the taxpayers of the country against this loose method of spending money and presenting accounts.

Major DAVIES

I do not wish to repeat any of the arguments so ably advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) but I would like to point out to the Committee the situation in which we find ourselves on this Estimate. You, Sir Robert, have ruled that we are entitled to inquire why this money is being asked for, and on what is it being spent. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Estimate said that all he could tell us was that the sum was necessary, and that there was no good asking him what it was for. That attitude stultifies the whole work of this Committee on Supplementary Estimates. Following the Ruling of the Chair on the matter, we are asking what this additional sum is required for, and there are certain items on which I am anxious to get certain information, as to whether this additional expenditure is directed to this particular part of the Estimate or not.

My right hon. Friend below me has already drawn attention to the fact that the service of Customs and Excise is in an entirely different category from that of the Post Office. As a representative of a rural constituency, I have been very much interested in the policy of the Government in its extension of postal facilities in the more widely scattered areas, and I want to know whether any of that additional sum has been expended in following up more rapidly what I think we all agree is a sound policy, namely, the speeding up of the provision of facilities in the rural areas. The Post Office buildings themselves are used very largely for telephone purposes, and while that word is not used in the Estimate, and possibly it might be out of order to pursue that particular facility, undoubtedly there are many cases where postal facilities are a long distance away from certain of the smaller villages and hamlets.

When the original Estimate was introduced, the Postmaster-General said it would be part of the policy of his Department, as it had been that of his predecessor, and I want to know therefore whether any of this additional expenditure has been incurred in this direction, because, if so, I support the request for a Supplementary Estimate, not only because it is being spent in what I consider a very desirable direction, but because expenditure under that heading is revenue-producing expenditure, which remark cannot possibly apply to Customs and Excise or indeed to the rope for which the right hon. Gentleman asks us, for some purpose which he is unable to specify.

With regard to certain post offices abroad, that is rather a remarkable inclusion here. How does it come about that post offices abroad, which are obviously outside the Empire, are a charge and therefore demand a Supplementary Estimate in this House? I think we are entitled to know which foreign post offices—

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to ask whether any of this amount is being spent for that purpose, but not to ask about post offices abroad.

Major DAVIES

I think you misunderstood me, Sir Robert. I was asking whether any of this money has been spent on post offices abroad. We are very much confined in our discussion, because of the lump sum way in which the Estimate is brought in, and I am afraid that we shall merely get the reply again, "You must take our word that this money is necessary, but we do not know what it is for." That is not the way in which to present Supplementary Estimates, and I wish to add my protest in regard to the way in which this expenditure has been brought before the Committee.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I will try to make the position a little clearer. It is suggested by one hon. Member that I said that the Treasury had used no attempt to cut down the Estimate, had used no effort to see that an undue expenditure was not incurred. The Treasury go into every Estimate with the most meticulous care to see that any Department—and the Department of my right hon. Friend is an example—does not spend one penny more in carrying out a necessary piece of work than it ought to spend. Therefore, the Treasury in conjunction with the Department, fixes the total sum which a job is going to cost, and the reason why we are confronted with a difficulty in this particular case is because of the way in which Estimates are presented to the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] But that is a practice which is constitutional. The practice in this House is not to show a kind of profit-and-loss account, but to deal with a particular year.

There are buildings required, say, for Customs and Excise. Some particular building may be going to cost £100,000, and it has been the practice for centuries to present to the House of Commons the amount of expenditure that will come within the 12 months from the 1st April in one year to the 31st March in the next year in respect of that £100,000. Whether a particular building is going to cost £100,000 or £90,000 all complete is a matter of real economy, but whether of the £100,000 or £90,000, £70,000 is going to be spent this year and £20,000 or £30,000 next year, on the one hand, or whether £75,000 is going to be spent this year and £15,000 or £25,000 next year, is a matter, not of economy at all, but of whether the job is done within the 12 months or whether some of it or more of it is postponed. The hon. Member shakes his head, but he cannot understand the elements of work of this kind. The point as to whether we spend the full amount in one year or whether a part of it is postponed to another year is not a matter of economy but of whether the job is carried through in the 12 months to the full extent anticipated or not.

Whether it is desirable to carry through these jobs to the full extent may be a matter of opinion, but at a time when we are pressing municipalities and all kinds of public bodies to press on with work, which some of them are rather loath to do, to suggest that that is a time when work which is necessary and has been scheduled to be done should be delayed does not seem to me, to be an argument worth listening to. The House of Commons, by passing the original Estimate, has sanctioned to the full the items of expenditure incurred. The Office of Works has sanctioned the principle of that expenditure and also a particular amount of the whole, on the principle that some of these must be carried out in the year. Therefore, we come a second time to the House of Commons for sanction to spend the full programme in the year. It is not possible, therefore, to single out any one particular item and to say that that £19,500 is being spent on this and not on the other.

The answer to that question is that the full programme which was foreseen when the original Estimate was presented is being undertaken, and my answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies) is that the full programme anticipated by the Post Office is being spent, and he can rest assured therefore that the cut made in the Post Office, as also in other Services, will not hold with regard to the Post Office. Therefore, it is true to say that a part at any rate of this £19,500 is being spent on the work which, I understand, he wishes to see promoted. The cut which might have occurred owing to work being held up has not been brought into effect, and the work has proceeded to the full extent. Therefore, we come back to the House of Commons, having first sanctioned the principle of these items and secured the whole amount, with the exception of £19,500, to secure the Committee's sanction for the remainder. I hope the Committee will now give us the Vote.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON

The hon. Gentleman still appears to misunderstand the position taken up by my hon. Friends and myself and, I believe, by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). It is not that I object to the Office of Works bringing forward Supplementary Estimates. On the contrary, I have said before now that that is rather a virtue, because it enables the Office of Works to budget more closely, and accordingly more money than is required is not raised from the taxpayer in any given financial year. That is the crucial point to which we have addressed our criticisms in previous years. We have to consider the taxpayer first, and I am not complaining of the existence of a Supplementary Estimate at all. I am complaining that, having adopted this salutary practice, this year for the first time, instead of directly referring to this Vote in one way or another, by using this word "service" you then lump the whole Vote into one set of items, and, when asked to indicate what the £19,500 means, you are unable to do so.

That is really a departure, and a bad departure, and I certainly hope the Treasury will not pursue it again. If these items had been in the main Estimate, you would have had to specify them in black and white, but I trust that you will not be able to get away with it without specifying the items. My point is that these items have not been specified, and we are now told that they cannot be specified, and there appears to be some doubt even as to whether they belong to the Post Office or to the Inland Revenue.

Major COLFOX

Has any of this money been spent? If it has, it makes a farce of our financial procedure. The Committee votes that a sum not exceeding a certain amount should be allocated, but I believe that the sum voted has been exceeded; and now the Government comes to the Committee for authority for money which they have already spent. That is an absolute farce, and, if there were no other reason, that would be amply sufficient for refusing to grant this supplementary sum. I want to make another attempt to get some kind of answer to the question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yeovil (Major Davies), whether any of this money is being spent, or will be spent, on the improvement of rural telephone facilities. Obviously, rural telephones require Post Office buildings in which to be accommodated.

Mr. LANSBURY

On a point of Order. I am afraid that rural telephones have nothing to do with this Vote.

Major COLFOX

I do not see any point of Order arises. Post Office buildings come under the Vote which we are discussing, and so do foreign Post Offices, which were referred to during the time that the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to absent himself from the Chamber, Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that this is another point which has been left unanswered by him or anybody else. We have also had no reply on the subject of roads, which he told us was included in the Vote. I have always looked upon the right hon. Member as an optimist, though an unthink- ing optimist. The way in which he presented this Vote proves that he is a great optimist, because he apparently imagined that by making a few discursive remarks he would convince hon. Members on this side that this sum of £19,000 was urgently required. At this time, of all others, when it is sufficiently obvious to every intelligent person who takes the least interest in national safety and the position of industry, that all Government spending must be curtailed in the interests of the country, the right hon. Gentleman comes to the Committee with an Estimate for the further spending of Government money without any argument or reason to show the necessity for doing so. It is bringing the whole state of affairs to the level of a farce, and I hope that he will not be allowed this money.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

I was interested to hear that most of this money is to be spent on the Post Office, but I question the way in which it is spent because of a dangerous speech by the Postmaster-General, who said that a large sum is to be spent on beautifying the post offices. In rural areas some of the post offices are badly arranged, and the interiors are such that nobody can speak on the telephone in private. In some instances, the telephone is in the kitchen of the post office, where anybody can hear what is said. I suggest that some of the money could be used, if it has to be used, in putting up sound-proof telephone call-boxes in rural post offices. I have an instance, which I am sending to the Postmaster-General, where certain business has to be carried on, and where it can be heard by anybody in the village who likes to listen. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to spend the money in putting these things in order, there is something to be said for the expenditure. But the country is not in a position to have money wasted on what the Postmaster-General calls beautifying the post offices.

Mr. LANSBURY

I will take care to convey the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion to the Postmaster-General.