ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.

HC Deb 23 February 1931 vol 248 cc1860-79

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £42,000, 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, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.

Mr. LANSBURY

I am glad that the subject matter of the last two discussions does not come under review on this Vote. This is entirely a new Vote, and it is for two purposes. One is the provision of work for the unemployed. Each year for many years past a sum of money has been voted in this way. It is used for work on improving the amenities of the parks. The Committee, the country in general, and London in particular, are very proud of the parks which indirectly come under the jurisdiction of this House, and the works that are carried out, whether they consist of making roads, cleaning out pools, or thinning out and lopping trees, is only undertaken on the advice of our skilled advisers. The condition of our parks proves that these men are worthy of our confidence and support. In addition to the ordinary work on paving, tarring, fencing, lakes and ponds, the removal of dead trees, the relaying of drains, etc., there is an extra piece of work which we propose doing in Hyde Park. We are spending £1,050 to improve the drainage at the bathing pavilion near the Serpentine. This was very much needed. The greater part of the expenditure applies to London parks, but £4,340 is being set apart for Scotland, where we have the Botanical Gardens, the park at Linlithgow, and the park of the Royal Palace at Holyrood. The number of men to whom we have given employment on this relief work is 566 for a period of 26 weeks.

Earl WINTERTON

I rise because I take a considerable interest in the maintenance and repair of the Royal Parks. This appears to be a new Vote. That is to say, in the original Estimates under Sub-head G.G., nothing was allowed for unemployment relief works in 1930, although in 1929 the House voted £33,770, which is slightly less than the sum asked for to-day. The right hon. Gentleman has not explained why, in the original Estimate, no allowance was made for the money which was to be spent on unemployment relief works. I do not specifically complain of that, although I should have liked to hear from the right hon. Gentleman why no allowance was made. I presume that the answer will be that it was not until later in the year that the right hon. Gentleman was able to say the amount that was to be spent, and that he therefore decided not to put it in the original Estimate.

Mr. LANSBURY

The reason was that we had a fairly large sum of £208,000 for all services, and, at the time we made the Estimate, we felt that we might possibly do without an amount under the head this year. We found as time went on, however, and on further consideration, that there was a considerable amount of work for which we should not be able, as we were last year, to raise the money voluntarily, and we have had to come to Parliament.

8.0 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON

I do not complain of it, but I suggest that in future years it will be better to allow a further sum under Sub-head G.G. for maintenance and repairs, rather than provide for it by Supplementary Estimates. To those who take a genuine interest in the maintenance of the parks, it is a great advantage to know the exact sum which is being spent under this Vote on each park. Though it is actually in order to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions as to how the money is allocated, it is not convenient to do so, and I do not want to take up time in asking him, but that £42,000 is allocated among numerous parks. Nine or ten are included in the original Vote. I was glad to hear that the money is to be spent in ordinary maintenance and not on any fresh schemes, because I am always a little suspicious when the right hon. Gentleman enters upon fresh schemes for beautifying the parks. I am sure no one desires to re-open the rather unpleasant controversy into which we were plunged last year, and if you will permit me, Sir, though I am afraid I am technically out of order, I would like to express my personal thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy he showed to me in sending me a number of interesting documents, in particular the one on the bird question. I wish to ask whether some of this money cannot be spent in providing proper protection for the bird sanctuaries in Hyde Park. I am assured that at present they are not protected from the depredations either of the human boy or of the domestic cat. In Battersea Park one sees a great deal more bird life than in Hyde Park. In Hyde Park and in Kensington Gardens there is a growing decrease of thrushes and blackbirds, whereas any visitor to Battersea Park in the Spring of the year will be delighted with the chorus of song from the birds. I was told by one of the keepers in Hyde Park that there is nothing to prevent people landing from boats and doing damage to the bird sanctuary on the banks of the Serpentine, or to prevent cats from getting in. We might have wire netting with what is known as a "turnover" at the top placed on the landward side of the bird sanctuary, and that, I am told, would prevent cats getting into the enclosure. I am glad to hear that money is being spent in re-draining some of the ornamental waters. If the bathing in Hyde Park is to be a success, the water will have to be kept clean. There have been suggestions in the past that the water was not sufficiently clean to make bathing safe from a health point of view.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

I apologise to the First Commissioner of Works for casting a possibly unfair burden on his voice, seeing that he is suffering from a cold; and before I go further I would like to join with the Noble Lord in expressing my affection for the right hon. Gentleman and for the great assistance he has been to many of us who care for the Royal Parks. If I am in order, I would also like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his recent birthday. I hope he will be spared for many years, not as First Commissioner of Works, but in any capacity that will give him the happiness of his home and good health and the goodwill of his friends. I have every hope that in 10 years' time or so, when the right hon. Gentleman has shed all his frivolities in the matter of bathing ponds, Lido pools and the like, he will make a very good First Commissioner of Works; and I hope that with the care which we shall always exercise over him, and the constant advice we give him, he will eventually become a credit to his party and a great asset to the Royal Parks. Whatever his faults, the right hon. Gentleman has enthusiasm and ideas and a certain constructive determination, and it is such a relief to find that in a Member of the Government that I give him every credit for it. Long may he sit on the Front Bench, even though his ideas are misdirected, even though his constructive purposes are in the wrong channel.

The CHAIRMAN

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member in paying these compliments, but I must point out that they bear no relation to the Vote which is under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

I am sorry, but I was merely trying to do some little justice to the right hon. Gentleman who so happily and so successfully sits on the Front Bench. I have felt during the afternoon that very little real consideration has been shown for the magnificent efforts, I do not say successful, which the right hon. Gentleman has made to make the parks a happier and a jollier place for some people. There are one or two points on which I wish the right hon. Gentleman would make his ideas clear. When his Estimates were under consideration last year he put forward certain ideas which have now become actual facts, but he said then that if those visions which he had of the future of the Royal Parks did not actually materialise he would be perfectly willing to reconsider what had been done in the light of experience and would be the first person to acknowledge his mistakes. He has still the youth to do that, and to rectify them as far as possible. There are certain mistakes which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and I know that he will try to correct them before long. In particular, I refer to the paddle-boat ponds for the children.

The CHAIRMAN

We are dealing with a particular item relating to relief works for the unemployed, and I do not think the paddle-boat ponds come under it.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

Yes. The unemployed have been occupied in the work of constructing these ponds.

The CHAIRMAN

This year?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

Yes, Sir.

Mr. LANSBURY

If the hon. and gallant Member is referring to Regent's Park, it does not come under this Estimate, because the pond there was paid for out of money which I raised voluntarily.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

That is one of the points which we have been trying to ascertain—where the money was actually expended. As we have not had that information I had to assume that part of it was given to Regent's Park.

Mr. LANSBURY

Since the Noble Lord finished speaking I have been able to obtain the figures which were asked for. These are the approximate figures of expenditure—I do not say they are right to a pound or two: In the central parks, that is, Hyde Park, the Green Park and St. James's Park, £7,900; Richmond Park, £4,000; Hampton Court and Bushey Park, £9,000 Greenwich, £6,000; Regent's Park, £6,000.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

I can assume that £6,000 of the amount we are discussing was actually spent in the relief works to which I have referred?

Mr. LANSBURY

In Regent's Park? Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

I speak for Regent's Park particularly, because I know it so well, living near it, and I take a great interest in the poor people in the vicinity. There is one point about the paddle-boat ponds on which I wish to register an objection. They were constructed to allow children to enjoy boating in little paddle-boats, and the right hon. Gentleman stated that they were to be for poor children. What has happened? The pond there has been handed over to a capitalistic monopoly, a licencee who charges, mark you, at the rate of Id. per minute to these poor children. I should explain that that charge has reference to the little motorboats; the charge is less for the rowboats, being 4d. for half-an-hour. With these charges in force poor children are unable to enjoy the ponds, and I suggest that we, as a democratic House of Commons, ought not to allow that unfair treatment of these poor children to continue. Knowing the affection of the right hon. Gentleman for children, I hope he will break this capitalistic monopoly and give these poor children three free days a week, so that they can thoroughly enjoy themselves on those ponds instead of, as now, having to hang round asking for money to pay for a boat or go without a boat altogether. Another thing on which this money has been spent is the construction of the toy-boat pond. I do not know whether they exist in other parks, but there is one in Regent's Park. It was constructed for the purpose of allowing small children to sail toy-boats, but the trouble is that there is no water in the pond.

Mr. LANSBURY

That does not come under this Estimate.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

There is no water in the pond, and when there is water in it it is so filthy that the children develop diseases, from which, so their mothers tell me, they very rarely recover. There are two of these ponds at the moment, and I believe he contemplates more—he has got a deep mind—and I suggest that he should take the paddle-boat pond away from its present site, where it is an eyesore to the community, and plant it beyond the big pond in Regent's Park.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I did not hear the Minister's statement, and am not quite sure what is included in this sum. This money is required to relieve unemployment, and unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to expenditure included in this sum for the purposes he has raised it cannot be discussed now.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

You and I are in agreement, Sir; this is part of the money which we are voting to-night.

Mr. LANSBURY

No. On a point of Order. I have already told my hon. and gallant Friend that it is not so. The matters to which he is referring do not come within this Vote. We are spending no money on paddle-boat ponds in Regent's Park.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND

The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us for what parks this money was required.

Mr. LANSBURY

This comes of the right hon. Gentleman not being here. I have just read out a list of the parks in which the money is to be spent.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I was here and I took down the list—Hyde Park, Green Park and St. James's Park, £7,900 and the rest. I have a fairly accurate note of it.

Mr. LANSBURY

Then I have given the right hon. Gentleman the information.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

What I want to say is that at the beginning we did not have this information. After a certain amount of going to and fro between the Minister's private secretary and the officials under the Gallery we were given this information. That information was given to us, and we were told that the £6,000 was in respect of Regent's Park. I think it is very awkward to be pulled up on these points after we ascertained, first of all, that the subject about which hon. Members are speaking is in the particular park in respect of which £6,000 is being expended.

Mr. LANSBURY

I commenced the discussion by explaining the kind of work which was being carried out in the parks generally. I did not read out anything about paddle ponds or small ponds. All that I did, in response to the request made by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), was to give an approximate figure of what was being expended in each park.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not spending any money on the paddle ponds this year.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

If there is no money for that purpose in this Vote, then it cannot be discussed on this Vote.

Mr. LANSBURY

The list of works dealt with in this Vote are: Additions and alterations to paths, painting or tarring hurdles, fences, shin-rails, etc. Cleaning out and weeding lakes, ponds and streams. Removal of dead trees and timber and replanting. Relaying land drains where necessary and laying additional drains. Attention to under-growth, replanting in shrubberies and plantations. Restoring grass areas and games grounds. Digging and screening gravel for use on roads and paths. That is work for all the parka, and not for one park.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that information. I want to refer to the training of shrubs and pruning. I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has employed as many of the unemployed as possible in the past, but I think there are certain conditions which he should observe, and one is to see that, as far as possible, the men employed are able to carry out efficiently the work on which they are put. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say that there are many unemployed men with no more idea of how to prune a tree than I have. I do not blame the unemployed, because they cannot help it, but I do blame the supervisors, who do not provide proper instructors or overseers in the parks to ensure that the pruning is properly done. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, if he does employ men who do not understand this kind of work, should place men over them who have been trained in the work, and upon whom he can rely. I do not know whether I should be out of order in raising the question of the speed limit in the parks. I notice that for the purpose of carrying out the speed limit regulations one sergeant and two constables are employed.

Mr. LANSBURY

I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that not a single penny in this Estimate is for that purpose.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that many of the people with whom he comes into contact are not always directly interested in the parks as such. They do not live around the parks or spend their vacant time in them. Therefore, I think it is the public who enjoy the amenities of the parks—the young people who do their courting there, the children who play in the parks, and others who use them in other ways—who should have some say as to how this expenditure produces amenities for them. That is why I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should have a committee to guide, advise and instruct him in regard to what the parks really represent to the people and what the people need. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman's Department supplied him with an answer with which he did not agree, but I do make this suggestion for his consideration. I know that he, with his democratic sympathies, will agree that we in London who use and care for the parks should have some say as to the manner in which they should he administered.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

There is always the danger, in connection with these Supplementary Estimates, that the discussion is apt to get too general. In some cases a, more or less general discussion may be allowable on questions such as a new service or when the amount of money asked for is a very large sum; but this is not a case in which I feel that I can allow a general discussion.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

I accept your Ruling with great pleasure, because, as I have often said, it saves me trouble by shortening a speech which might otherwise drift to too great a length. I will only say, with regard to that point, that I will leave it in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, knowing that he will deal with it with sympathy and understanding. I should like to say that we who are interested in the parks have a feeling of resentment when we see strangers from other parts of London brought in to do relief works that may be necessary in these parks. On two or three occasions I have spoken to unemployed workmen in these parks, and have found that they did not come from the immediate vicinity. I have also discussed the matter with unemployed men in the vicinity, and they feel very sore that they, whose children use and love the parks, should not be employed to do the work of maintaining those parks. The right hon. Gentleman will make for a great deal of ease of mind on the part of those who live in the neighbourhoods surrounding the parks if he will employ these men to do the necessary maintenance work, rather than bringing in from other parts of London strangers who have no particular interest in or love for the particular park in question. I make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman because I know his sincerity, his constructive ability, his zeal and his enthusiasm, and it breaks my heart to see those qualities diverted into wrong and non-constructive channels. I think that if he would, perhaps, withdraw himself into some peaceful surroundings, where he could meditate on what I have said and the advice which I have given to him, it would be for the permanent advantage of the Royal parks in London.

Mr. HARDIE

I understand that this Estimate is for unemployment relief works in Royal parks or pleasure gardens, and that we are not discussing what is produced by this expenditure, but the employment of unemployed men or women. This sum includes what is to be spent in Scotland, which I see is only one-tenth of the total. If, however, there is any argument for using money to relieve unemployment, it should be on the basis of the distress in each area. The unemployment percentage in London is very much smaller than in Glasgow. Why is it, then, since this expenditure is for the relief of unemployed people, that areas such as Glasgow, which are suffering mare than London from unemployment, have not received the major portion of this money? I could understand it if this had been a question of providing pleasure grounds or improving parks, but that is not the object; the object is to give relief work to unemployed men. In Glasgow we have our Botanic Gardens, to which this Estimate applies, and there is the famous Holy-rood in Edinburgh. In Edinburgh and in Glasgow the percentage of unemployed is such that there is practically no comparison with London. I hope that the First Commissioner will get to understand just what is meant by the Botanic Gardens to a place like Glasgow. London is more fortunate in its open spaces, even on the basis of population—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I do not know whether the Botanic Gardens at Glasgow are a Royal park or not. If they are not, to discuss it is out of order.

Mr. HARDIE

They are in the list which the First Commissioner read out.

Mr. LANSBURY indicated assent.

Mr. HARDIE

If we look to the question of real unemployment relief in relation to numbers, and if we wish for a more emphatic argument as to the need for more area, we can find that argument in the congested areas of cities like Glasgow, and it seems to me that it is in such places that this money should be spent. The natural beauties of a situation like Holyrood are something than cannot be improved upon, and the Palace of Linlithgow also is in a fortunate situation, but when you come down into the industrial belt, to places like Glasgow, you not only have a greater number of unemployed, but you have a greater necessity for the expenditure of money. Really, the position ought to be reversed; the £4,300 ought to be spent in London, and the remainder in Scotland. I think the Committee will agree that, where the figures are so high as they are in these areas of Scotland, consideration should be given on that ground, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able in same way to review the allocation of this sum so that Scotland may be given a bigger share.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD

I should like to refer to a subject which has been criticised in this House on one or two previous occasions when we have been dealing with a Vote of this kind. I intend to keep my remarks well within the bounds of order, and only to deal with work which at any rate appears to be done, at the present time by the unemployed in the London parks. Of course, it is rather difficult for an ordinary uninstructed observer to differentiate exactly between an unemployed man and a man who is normally employed in the park, but, as a result of my observations, it certainly looks as if some of the men who are doing the work which I am now going to criticise belong to the category which one calls the unemployed. The subject that I wish to raise is that of planting trees in the parks, and the series of events which have led up to that planting.

It seems to me that a mistake is being made in not planting trees which are suitable to the soil and the locality. There is also rather a tendency to plant what I may call specimen trees rather than large groups of the trees which we have for long been accustomed to look upon as typically English. One of the most picturesque trees that one sees is the elm, but its very picturesqueness has led to its destruction. It has the unfortunate habit of throwing out very heavy boughs and, until quite recently, one of the works which the unemployed were doing in the parks was to lop off the lower branches because they had become dan- gerous. In localities which at times are as crowded with pleasure seekers and children as the London parks, notably Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, it would be asking for trouble to leave branches which were in any way dangerous. I am told by experts in forestry that it is almost impossible to detect from external appearance when a branch has really become dangerous and, therefore, it has become necessary to lop and very severely disfigure a certain number of these trees. To replace them a good deal of planting has been going on.

I have looked carefully at some of the young trees which have been put in. A large number of them are elms. Therefore, in two or three hundred years time we shall have the same series of circumstances arising as are arising at present. I admit that that will not affect the right hon. Gentleman any more than it will affect me, but, at the same time, I think we ought to have a certain regard for posterity. I think it is rather a mistake to replace trees of a similar character, especially when we have among the English forest trees trees of equal beauty which are longer lived and are of such a character that it would not be necessary to disfigure them for the safety of the general public. There is the lime. We have a number of specimens in the parks, but, as far as I can make out from the planting that has been going on, very few lime trees have been planted by the unemployed, and I think that they would add to the beauty of Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park. We could not have anything more beautiful than an avenue of lime trees. The same applies to the horse chestnut. There is no more beautiful thing in the world that the horse chestnut flower, but I cannot find out that the unemployed have been put to work planting horse chestnut trees. Specimen trees have been planted here and there. There is the hornbeam, and, I think, a certain number of conifers. Those are naturally exotic trees which one cannot expect to flourish—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is certainly entitled to discuss the character of the trees planted, but I can visualise in the next two or three hours going the round of all the trees in the forest. That would obviously be an abuse. When the annual Estimates come up, a speech of that character would be quite in order, but I think it is rather trespassing beyond the usual ruling.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD

I will say nothing more on the subject of trees. My Noble Friend the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) referred to the bird sanctuary in the north eastern corner of the Serpentine. There is no doubt that many of these wild aquatic birds, if given a fair chance of a sanctuary undisturbed by the local youth and the local cat, would breed there, to the great pleasure and great enjoyment of many thousands of Londoners who do not get an opportunity of studying bird life. I have seen during the past winter five or six kinds of aquatic birds which one does not normally expect to find in the centre of a city like London—the wild duck, the teal, the widgeon and the sheldrake.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Are these things in the Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. LANSBURY

There is nothing in the Estimate to do with birds.

Sir A. LAMBERT-WARD

I will only say I hope some of this money will be expended on fencing the bird sanctuary in such a way that it will be a real sanctuary and not merely an enclosed piece of ground which is a hunting ground far the local cat and on which boating parties may land.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

The bounds of Order are a little difficult to ascertain this evening. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with ponds in various parks, but, when it comes to ponds where there are birds and in which people paddle, those are not the ponds that he has dealt with.

Mr. LANSBURY

I never said anything about the birds. It is not the ponds in which the birds paddle that are being dealt with.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I thought the right hon. Gentleman's expenditure on the ponds had a direct connection with the birds that paddled in them. It is a little humorous that, whatever the right hon. Gentleman's activities, either on ponds or parks or the relaying of drains, whenever any particular subject comes up that is not a subject on which he has spent money. I think, if there is any blame for straying from the immediate subject matter, it lies a little with the right hon. Gentleman, from whom information has been extracted bit by bit through constant references to his advisers in the course of the Debate. I was a little surprised when I heard that the paddle ponds in Regent's Park, on which £6,000 has been spent, were not in order, but the question of the unemployed in Glasgow is in order. The point I want to put is not with regard either to the birds or the trees in the London parks, but with regard to the employment that is actually given there. What is the employment that is given, and to whom and what is it worth? From that point of view I can sympathise with the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie). He has been emphasising that here in London the percentage of unemployment is almost the lowest in the whole country, with the exception of just the area round London and here we have a supplementary Estimate for work done in relief of unemployment in London, and there is a certain amount in the Vote for Holyrood, but, as far as I know, there is none for such other areas as Glasgow, in which the hon. Member is interested.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, if he is here—I saw him here a few minutes ago—what is the labour to which he is giving extra employment in the parks? In my time, the real justification for giving additional labour in the London parks was not the relief of unemployment in London, because we did not feel justified in spending extra national money on relieving unemployment in the place in which unemployment was the least heavy. Therefore, in the days of the last Government when money was spent on the parks, it was not spent principally upon unemployed people in London. Clearly, that seemed inequitable, because had there been money to spend at all, it would have been better to spend it on those places which most needed relief. What was done in those days was to use it for transference purposes. I ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is done in this case We gave employment in the London parks in those past years to transferred men from Wales and from Durham. We took the places where un- employment was most acute in the depressed mining areas. We realised, in face of opposition from London itself, that every part of the country had to try to help bear the burden which was most heavy in particular places.

Therefore, while no one ever suggested transferring people from Glasgow to London, at the same time there were areas harder hit than Glasgow, areas such as the depressed mining areas, one or two Lancashire areas, but principally Welsh and Durham areas. I would ask the First Commissioner of Works if that is the purpose for which he is giving extra employment in London? If so, that is the justification of it. If it is not so, it is the condemnation of it. It is not fair to spend money in this way, in a time of great financial stress and strain, unless it is directed towards helping people in places where they need it most. Therefore, I want to ask him if this has been the means at the present moment of giving men from Durham or South Wales a chance in the southern districts, even though employment is worse than it was in those days, when London was having almost the boom years of its existence.

Mr. BROOKE

How many men are concerned?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

About 160, I should think. There is a year's work for 160.

Mr. LANSBURY

Twenty-six weeks for 560.

Sir A. STEEL-MMTLAND

Let hon. Members realise what that means. When it was a case of bringing people from other areas into an area like London, it was expected that a man might find his feet in about 12 or 13 weeks, and very often less. There was a regular change in order that he might go out and get work elsewhere. We kept a record to see how far they remained in the south or went to their own home again, and once more fell into the morass of unemployment in the original mining districts whence they came. That was the real value originally of unemployment work in the London parks. There was really no question then—and I venture to say there is not now—as to the actual beauty or extra polish in London parks. There was little in it from the point of view of attraction. It is all very well to have the London parks pleasant and beautiful. At a time like this, when money is scarce, if you spend money in relief of unemployment in order to put more polish on London parks it is difficult to justify unless, by so doing, you manage to switch the benefit on to those places where unemployment is most severe.

I should like to ask the Minister the following questions. I have not the least doubt that he has been in touch with the Ministry of Labour in regard to the employment of men. Can he tell us where the men come from? What is the average amount of time they are given in the parks? What is the value of the work done? I gather from him that he gets, roughly speaking, about 10,000 weeks' work out of £40,000, which is not a very high amount. We should like to hear exactly what it is, and whether the work is really justified in London, a well-off place in comparison with the rest of the country, just when the financial stringency is most acute?

Mr. LANSBURY

The Debate has ranged over various matters more or less relevant. I would like to say with regard to the compliments of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore), that, of course, I am very much obliged to him, and I hope I shall live to warrant those compliments. I should also like to say to the Committee, that although my voice is no doubt a nuisance to them, there is no pain to me. It is tired, that is all. I am not suffering any physical pain except the physical disability of knowing that my voice must he a nuisance. To take the remarks of the Noble Lord first, I make no apology to the Committee or to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to my advisers under the Gallery. Anyone can do better except when he is standing here. No Minister would be fool enough to say that he could do without their presence, and that is why there is a lobby for them. It is nothing new for me to have them there any more than it was for the right hon. Gentleman. I am a little tired of hearing rather a cheap sneer because I send for or ask to be given a piece of information which no Minister could pretend to carry about in his head.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

There was no cheap sneer intended.

Mr. LANSBURY

I think that three times to-might I have been reminded about the people under the Gallery. I take it in quite good humour, and will only say in that respect that I am like the rest of you, no better and no worse.

I am extremely sorry not to be able to agree with the hon. Member or with the Noble Lord about bird sanctuaries. I really have taken a good deal of trouble in this matter, and I am assured by those best able to advise me that the cats do not fare very well, and that the birds have a very good time. I will look into the matter again, though I have not any hope that the people in charge will alter their views. With regard to the prices charged for the paddle boats, it is necessary that we should be accurate about it. I am very sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs is not in his place. He said that we charge a penny a minute. We charge 6d. for seven minutes for an electric boat for two children. For the ordinary boats, the charge is 4d. per half-hour for two children. That is very different from 1d. a minute.

Lord BALNIEL

Is 6d. the minimum charge?

Mr. LANSBURY

Yes, for the seven minutes for the electric boats. The children who want the electric boats can afford to pay that. Our prices compare very favourably even with the County Council prices. That is the test. In regard to pruning trees, does anyone imagine that I would go round ordering this tree or that tree should be pruned? It is all done under very skilled advice. The unemployed men are not employed on that job. The pruning is done by skilled men. We should never dream of putting unskilled men to do it. As to planting, I will discuss the matter with the Department and see if anything can be done. With regard to replanting, I can assure hon. Members that a great deal of thought is given to it, and the best advice is taken. With regard to elms and any tree that is susceptible to smoke, I would say that when we get rid of the smoke nuisance our trees and foliage generally will have a much better chance, but until that time comes we must take a great deal of care in the choice of trees that can stand up to the atmosphere test to-day.

The right hon. Gentleman's most important question was, Where do the men come from? They come from Durham, Yorkshire, Nottingham and the poorer boroughs of London. The hon. and gallant Member for the Ayr Burghs complained that I brought men from the outside. He thought that I was doing a very bad thing to bring people from outside districts when there were unemployed living around the parks. The answer is, that the work is paid for by the nation and we are obliged to take the men from the areas that are most distressed. I think the right hon. Gentleman would not rule out the very distressed parts of the Metropolis, as well as those outside the Metropolitan area. That reply is an answer to the hon. Member for Springburn. The Botanic Gardens in Glasgow are not under my Department, but the Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh are. There is very little work being done there. The main part of the work is in Queen's Park, Linlithgow. We arrange with the Ministry of Labour for the men who are to do the work. I have nothing to do with it except to take the men who are sent by the Ministry of Labour. That is the course which is adopted in London. Any hon. Member who goes round the parks can find out from the men from what parts of England and Wales they come.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the proportion of the men that come from different parts? Anyone going round and asking the men could not ascertain that information.

Mr. LANSBURY

The proportion is about half and half. That proportion, however, will not be the same everywhere. For instance, in Bushey Park the men are from the Metropolis. I have been round on several occasions and the supervisors tell me that the men do their work very well. As experience proves, they improve as they get regular food and regular work. For the first few weeks some of them are not able to do as well as the able-bodied, fit, well-fed man can do, but as the days pass they improve very considerably. Those in charge of them are quite satisfied that the men do their very best. After the very full and friendly discussion that we have had, I hope the Committee will now allow me to get the Vote.

9.0 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB

I do not wish to delay the Committee or to go into details of the work done, but I should like to ask a question with regard to the total amount of money which has been spent. In the Vote there is a sum of £42,000. I want to know whether the £42,000 represents what has been spent by the Department, supplemented by grants from other sources, or whether it is the total sum?

Mr. LANSBURY

The total sum this year.

Captain HUDSON

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have been very much interested in the Ministry of Labour for some years past, and I was particularly interested in his remarks about the transferred men. In the time of the last Government he and many other hon. and right hon. Friends of his objected strongly to transfers on the ground that when men were transferred to a district they took work away from men in the district to which they were transferred, and this objection was particularly made in respect of transfers to London. I had a good deal of correspondence on this matter. It would be very interesting to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has found, as the Minister responsible for his own Department, that there is a great deal of difficulty in putting up the transferred men from the districts which are so badly hit. I ask this question because we have had many Debates on this subject, and it would be interesting to know whether the objections which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues raised when the late Government were in office have proved to be as serious as they made out at the time. I have always believed that, although we had serious unemployment in London, it was absolutely necessary to move people from the black areas, where there is no chance of employment. I should like to know what has been the right hon. Gentleman's experience during two years in his Department.

Mr. LANSBURY

It is quite obvious that I am not in a position to-night to discuss with my hon. and gallant Friend what my view may or may not be on the question of transfer, and I do not propose to do so, but I will try to answer his specific question. There is great difficulty with regard to married men, so that we are driven in the end to rest aimost entirely on single men. We have gone into the matter very thoroughly. It is true that we do get overcrowding and sometimes unsatisfactory conditions but, on the whole, I think the men would say that they get fairly decent lodgings, some of them excellent, and some of them make good friendships which will last them for years and probably for life. There is, however, a difficulty in bringing down any number of men into so congested an area as London. The Ministry of Labour and officials of the Office of Works do their best to help by sorting out those who are the right men for the job. There is a difficulty with the single men but there is a greater difficulty still with regard to the married men.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

Then the system for which we were criticised by hon. Members opposite is working admirably?

Mr. LANSBURY

That is the difficulty of raising a discussion of that kind. I am quite prepared on a suitable occasion to answer the right hon. Member.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM

The right hon. Gentleman has said that some of the men who have been transferred come from Nottingham. I wonder whether he has any record of their previous occupation, because some uncharitable person might suggest that they were formerly engaged in the lace trade and have been deprived of this occupation by the action of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. LANSBURY

Most of them are miners.