§
Motion made, and question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,500, 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, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of Public Buildings Overseas.
§ 2.34 p.m.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREUnder the first heading, maintenance and repairs, we 1522 have two items which could not have been foreseen in the original Estimate. One item is in connection with the Legation at Prague in Czechoslovakia. The British Legation is an 18th-century house, which was acquired soon after the war. It is situated on the side of a hill, and we were suddenly warned that unless one of the wings was underpinned at once there was a danger of that part of the building falling down. Two thousand pounds had to be spent as an emergency in putting the building right again. As regards the increase in respect of furniture, etc., the custom is to review the furnishing of an embassy or legation as and when the ambassador or minister is changed. Last year we had a rather unexpected increase in the number of changes in important embassies with the result that the furnishing of those buildings had to be considered and there was consequential expenditure on changes. Changes at such important embassies as Paris, Rome and Brussels all fell within the year and account for this item. Then we had a special service in fitting out the late consulate at Nanking for His Majesty's minister in China. The legation headquarters remain at Peking but, as it is essential that our minister in China should be in touch with the Government at Nanking from time to time, we have had to spend a certain amount in re-equipping the Nanking consulate.
As regards the sum of £5,000 under subhead E, that is purely a matter of accounting. It arises in connection with the legation at Tehran in Persia or Iran as we are now to call it. There was to be a road-widening scheme in Tehran which would have involved the British Legation. The arrangement was that we should do the work and recover the cost from the municipality. We took the money for that purpose but the municipality have not gone on with the scheme and the £5,000 has therefore not been paid this year, though I shall probably receive it next year.
§ Mr. PALINGDo I understand that changes in the furnishing of the embassies are made at the caprice of the individual ambassador or are made to suit the personal taste of the new occupier? I would also be obliged for a more detailed explanation of the deficiency in the appropriations-in-aid under Sub-head E.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI thought I had explained that item. It all arises out of the postponement of the road-widening scheme at Tehran and is purely an accounting point. As to the other point raised by the hon. Member it is not merely as a matter of taste that these changes are made. In the past many of our embassies and legations were furnished by our wealthier ambassadors out of their own pockets. In these more democratic days we cannot rely on always having ambassadors who are in a position to contribute a large part of the embassy furnishings from their own homes in England or at their own expense and most of these embassies are now furnished mainly by the Office of Works. We make it a rule that while an ambassador and his wife are in a particular place we do not make many changes but when a new ambassador is appointed we take advantage of the interregnum between the old and new ambassadors to take a complete inventory of the furniture and make the necessary repairs and replacements which are supposed to last for the new ambassador's time. That is how this increase arises.