OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS. (Hansard, 27 February 1936)

§ The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore)
The Committee will observe that this Vote is not a request for more money but an indication that the Appropriations-in-Aid which we expected to receive in support of our work this year did not come up to expectations. The Appropriations-in-Aid or this Vote, Vote 6 of Class VII of the Estimates, arise in this way: There are certain services which the Office of Works carries out for other Government Departments on, as it were an agency basis, a recoverable basis. An outstanding example and the main reason why this Vote is before the Committee this afternoon is the Post Office. We do some of the Post Office work. We put up the actual buildings of the telephone exchanges and -then recover from the Post Office a charge of 11 per cent. for the expenses of our architects, quantity surveyors and the like. We cannot get that money back from the other Departments for whom we have provided such service until we have completed the work. The main cause of this Vote coming forward this afternoon is to be found in the new Post Office expenditure for the year. The Post Office estimated for a new capital expenditure during the year of £1,365,000. We have underspent on that anticipated programme for new Post Office buildings by approximately £100,000. Therefore, we reckon to be approximately £11,000 down in our receipts this year as an Appropriation-in-Aid.
690 The next item is the Unemployment Assistance Board. When we framed our original Estimates in January, 1935, we anticipated that Part II of the Unemployment Assistance Act would come into operation and that we should have to provide, on a recoverable basis, for certain buildings and works for the Unemployment Assistance Board in connection with the carrying out of Part II of that Act. As the appointed day was postponed we have not had the expenditure, and therefore cannot recover the amount estimated for in the original Estimate as likely to be received from the Board as an Appropriation-in-Aid.
I come now to Employment Exchange buildings. The reason why we are;tot getting back what we expected from the Ministry of Labour in this connection is clue to one general cause, and to one or two particular causes. The general cause is that in the last few weeks since Christmas, owing to weather conditions, it has not been possible for the contractors to make the progress they had expected on account of excessive rain and periods of frost, and several of the exchanges provided for in the Estimates last year will not be completed as rapidly as was expected. In regard to certain exchanges which were voted in the general Estimates early last year we have been held up and, therefore, cannot recover from the Ministry of Labour the 11 per cent. in respect of overhead charges.
At Newcastle-on-Tyne we were on the point of buying a new site for the Employment Exchange. It was provided for in the Estimate last year, but the Ministry of Labour asked us to cancel the site and explore the possibilities of another. Unfortunately the alternative site has now been rejected, after discussion with the local authority, and it is too late to complete the purchase of the original site this year. Consequently, we shall not get our agency fee for this important exchange in the current financial year. Other Employment Exchanges which have been held up, and which are the cause of this depreciation in the Appropriations-in-Aid are in London; Acton, Shepherd's Bush and Hackney. In one of these cases the programme has been held up by difficulties with the vendors of the site in completing the conveyance. Until we get a satisfactory 691 legal conveyance and obtain full possession of the site, we cannot get on with the building and, therefore, we have not been able to recover the agency fees. I have explained, I hope, the way in which the deficiency arises in these Appropriations-in-Aid, and I hope it will satisfy hon. Members.

§ Mr. LAWSON
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his detailed information. It is interesting to know that some of this underspending is due to the fact that the Department does not need the money originally intended to be spent on offices for the Unemployment Assistance Board. That is one way of breaking the news gently to us. This is the second stage in the grand retreat on unemployment assistance business. Considering the kind of offices which are being used in some parts of the country I should have thought that instead of coming to us with this Estimate of under-spending, the Department should have asked for more money in order to provide proper accommodation. I do not know who is responsible.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Anything of that kind connected with policy does not come under this Vote. The First Commissioner of Works acts as a builder employed by the Minister of Labour or the Post Office, and the hon. Member will, therefore, realise that he cannot discuss the policy of these other Departments.

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
There are some Votes for which I am wholly responsible, such as the new Government buildings in Whitehall, put up by the Office of Works, but this Vote is "recoverable services." it has nothing to do with me as to whether the appointed day under the Unemployment Assistance Act was or was not postponed. All I have to explain to the Committee is that because it has been postponed there is consequently a decrease in the Estimates in respect of Appropriations-in-Aid as compared with the Estimates I presented to the House last year. It will be clear, therefore, that the policy of postponing or otherwise the appointed day does not arise.

§ Mr. MAXTON
Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he cannot say to the various Departments, "Look here 692 you are upsetting the whole of my programme?" Could not the right hon. Gentleman raise it at a Cabinet meeting?

§ Mr. LAWSON
I am aware that on this Estimate the subjects which can be discussed are limited, but I think I am entitled to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has anything to do with policy as regards the Unemployment Assistance Board. Why is it that they are not spending the necessary money to provide proper accommodation instead of underspending?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is exactly what the hon. Member cannot do. That is a question which should be addressed to the Minister of Labour.

§ Mr. LAWSON
Then it, comes to this, that we have to talk upon nothing in particular. Not only is the right hon. Gentleman's Department underspending in reference to the offices of the Unemployment Assistance Board but generally throughout the country the whole accommodation for the Unemployment Assistance Board is in a ramshackle condition.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That, again, is not a matter which the hon. Member can raise on this Vote. I agree with him that it is rather difficult to find anything to say on the Vote.

§ Mr. MAXTON
Say that the First Commissioner is in a ramshackle condition.

§ Mr. LAWSON
The right hon. Gentleman has not told us upon which offices this money has been saved.

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I did. I gave Newcastle as one example. The total amount of underspending in connection with the Unemployment Assistance Board is £16,705, and it affects this Vote to the extent of £1,850, that is, our agency fee. That is the underspending as regards what we anticipated would be the requirements of the Unemployment Assistance Board under Part II of the Act.

§ Mr. LAWSON
Having made the point that there is very shocking and doubtful accommodation in respect of the Unemployment Assistance Board in all parts of the country, I will leave the matter. Take the Employment Exchanges of which the right hon. Gentleman has given us 693 particulars. It is difficult to deal with the question of the provision of Employment Exchanges in those parts where there is no provision.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member cannot deal with that topic.

§ Mr. LAWSON
Let me deal with the question of the Newcastle Exchange. I understand that no proper accommodation has been made for shelter for the unemployed, or for lavatory accommodation in that exchange. Why is it that in the design for that exchange his Department are not taking steps to make proper arrangements for shelter in times of cold and storm, and also to provide the necessary lavatory accommodation?

§ The CHAIRMAN
This matter is entirely one for the Minister of Labour, and the First Commissioner of Works has no competence to deal with it.

§ Mr. LAWSON
I submit that if the right hon. Gentleman has laid upon him the obligation of building an employment exchange, it is well within the limits of this Vote to ask that when the right hon. Gentleman is building that exchange he should at least make proper accommodation for the people who have to go to it.

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman and the Committee by intervening at this point. The final design for this exchange has not been approved. The delay has been due to the problem of selecting a site. As a matter of fact, I am informed by my architects who are planning the exchange to the requirements of the Ministry of Labour that they are including a shelter.

§ Mr. LAWSON
I am very pleased indeed to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is having that done. It is in line with the policy followed by the Ministry of Labour years ago of making proper arrangements for those who have to be catered for by the exchanges. One of the questions which has arisen in connection with the Newcastle Exchange is the provision of lavatories. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the council says it is not its duty to supply lavatories for people who have been called to the employment exchange, for which the council has no responsibility. I submit that it is time the right 694 hon. Gentleman had come to a settlement with that particular council on this matter.

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I would like to assure the hon. Member that the matter has been settled. The new site on which the exchange is to be built is exactly 100 yards from a large public lavatory provided by the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation.

§ Mr. LAWSON
The position which the council takes up is that that particular lavatory is for ordinary public purposes, that the exchange is bringing a great many extra people to it, that considerably more accommodation is needed than exists at the present moment, and that it is not right that the council should be called upon to supply accommodation in a case where the Ministry of Labour is entirely responsible for bringing the mass of people together. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to discuss the principle that lies behind this matter, but it is the same with the London Exchanges. The Newcastle Council has a big grievance, in common with the councils and local authorities generally. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to ignore the claims that the councils have made in regard to this matter. The Trades Union Congress have been compelled to make many complaints in this matter, because their unions in various parts of the country have had to raise the question. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make investigations in this particular case, through the Newcastle Council, with a view to seeing whether it is not possible to arrive at an arrangement which will settle the matter. I know there are difficulties and that it is a very delicate matter.

§ Mr. DENMAN
On a point of Order. Is it in order on an Appropriation-in-Aid to discuss the details of building Estimates? Is it not a fact that such criticism should come under the building Estimates proper, and that on an Appropriation-in-Aid the only subject that may be discussed is whether or not the appropriation is adequate?

§ The CHAIRMAN
My Rulings have already been very troublesome to the hon. Member, but on the question of the Newcastle exchange I am prepared to allow 695 suggestions or criticisms on matters which the hon. Member thinks are within the province of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. LAWSON
I am surprised that the hon. Member, who is a supporter of the Government, should object to a discussion on a great social matter which is of considerable importance in all parts of this country. This matter comes within the competence of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and it is his business to see that these exchanges are properly built, and that there is adequate accommodation. There has been a complaint made, and it is no answer to say that a public lavatory exists within 100 yards distance of the exchange. That does not satisfy the council. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consult with the authority with a view to seeing that a settlement is arrived at as to where the responsibility lies and with a view to seeing that some of the disgraceful scenes which have arisen in various parts of the country because of this sort of thing are made a matter of the past. It is very difficult to discuss a matter of this kind at this time, but the question is an important one, and in the nature of things it cannot receive proper consideration under the ordinary Estimates, since then there are general debates upon unemployment insurance. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to seek a settlement of this matter and to ensure that proper accommodation is provided.

§ Mr. KELLY
After the experience of my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, I must endeavour to restrict my remarks to the Office of Works and on matters which engage their attention. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether or not the saving we are discussing is entirely due to bad weather or whether it is due to the fact that the Department have spent a considerable time in securing sites for this particular building. Further, I would like to ask whether there was delay because of his having had to consult with other people. On that I would ask him whether, in connection with the buildings for the Ministry of Labour and for the Post Office, he consults with the local authorities—either their town planning committees or their building Acts 696 committees—with a view to making his buildings conform with those in the town or with the plans that are laid before him? I know the claim is made by Government Departments that they have no need to consult anybody, but may put up any building they wish without having regard to the feelings of those having buildings in the vicinity. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any part of this saving is due to a delay caused by such consultations, and whether he has consulted with the London authorities particularly regarding the buildings for Employment Exchanges in various parts of London, some of which he enumerated in his opening statement.
I would particularly draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Post Office, some of the buildings of which are much higher than the buildings around them. The Office of Works are responsible for the construction of those buildings, and I hope they have consulted the local authorities; if so, I am very sorry that the local authorities were in agreement that those very high buildings for telephone exchanges should be erected Further, is the fact that some of the money has not been spent due to the Office of Works having obtained the sites for some Employment. Exchanges required in London—for which the Ministry of Labour gave an instruction—but not having engaged in the work? We on this side of the Committee ate very much concerned about the conditions of some of the temporary exchanges and would like to know whether any part of the saving is due to the Office of Works not proceeding with the work that is required in order that people who are unfortunate enough to have to attend at the ex changes should be accommodated in buildings which are suitable for them and which are less uncomfortable than those now existing. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will satisfy the Committee that he is consulting with the town planning committees and the building Acts committees in the various districts, and that he is not taking the line which was taken by some of his predecessors that a Government Department may do what it likes without consulting the local authorities.

§ Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN
I would like to emphasise the point raised by my 697 hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). We are particularly fortunate in having the employer of the Office of Works on the Front Bench at the present moment, and I hope he is noting the manner in which his subordinate is discharging his duties. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is not discharging his public duties, in that he has not provided lavatory accommodation in the building in question. He has said that there is a public lavatory within 100 yards. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever been in Newcastle or whether he is familiar with the climate there during some months of the year. I wonder whether he would like, if be needed to avail himself of the convenience, to walk 100 yards through sleet and snow and then return to the exchange again.
I would like the Minister of Labour and the right hon. Gentleman to realise that they are not being fair on the staff of the exchange. What happens in these exchanges when there is inadequate lavatory accommodation is that men who have to wait very many hours there are given the use of the accommodation for the staff. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that if you have a staff in a large building with lavatory accommodation available for them, and there are large numbers of men hanging around, very often these men use the accommodation for the staff, and you get a very unhygienic set of circumstances arising. The right hon. Gentleman exposes the staff to a very undesirable set of conditions in not providing lavatory accommodation for the men on the building itself. I do not see why these particular Departments of the State should be exempted from a provision that most private undertakings have to fulfil.
There is another point. Men who visit these exchanges have to hang about for very many hours, and very often there is a long queue waiting, while many of them hang around in the hope that applications for jobs will come in, particularly in the cities. It is always unpleasant to read in the Press that an unemployed man or woman has been carried out in a fainting state, and I would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman will consider providing suitable waiting rooms with seats. Very many of these exchanges are like quadrangles, with counters all round and an open space 698 in the centre, in which men hang about for very many hours. Is the right hon. Gentleman providing suitable waiting rooms in the new buildings, so that they can be a model for the other buildings which are to be constructed hereafter It is important that people who have to travel, it may be, many miles to an exchange and who have to stand on their feet a very long time should have seating accommodation provided for them, otherwise they may get faint very easily. I think we ought to look on the unemployed as ordinary members of society who are entitled to have the same amenities and facilities as other members of society and that we should not organise employment exchanges like barracks for a number of industrial robots who happen to be out of work.

§ Mr. ELLIS SMITH
I want to make a few observations with regard to under-spending during the year on the Postal Loan Services, with particular reference to the post office at Euston Road, Eccles. The right hon. Gentleman will have control of the architects and surveyors in connection with these Post Office buildings. It is not often that we get an opportunity of doing so, but I want to congratulate the officials, through the Minister, on the policy which they are adopting in connection with this building and other buildings. When you consider the architecture of Post Office buildings, and particularly of this one, it is quite a treat to see it as compared with the old type of buildings. They are roomy, well lighted and well built, and they are a real credit to the Office of Works. But there is on this Vote an underspending during the year. I have been in a number of post offices, and I find that very often it is common on pension day to see old people standing there. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if in future, instead of underspending, he will consider the provision of seats for these old-age pensioners rather than that they should have to stand there as they do now awaiting their turns.
With regard to employment exchange buildings, I want to support what has been said by the hon. Members for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). My father-in-law, during the Christmas holidays, was supposed to be signing on, and he complained to me about having to stand in 699 the open. I investigated that particular exchange, of which he complained, and I found that it was during an abnormal period, due to the large number of people who were signing on at Christmas time. At the same time, one is bound to be critical of the lack of accommodation at exchanges generally, and, therefore, I want to support the plea which has been made that the Minister should in future consider the provision of more accommodation, so that men and women should not have to stand in the cold, and also the provision of lavatory accommodation.

§ Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS
I realise that we cannot discuss policy on this Vote, but I gather that the Office of Works is responsible for the design and construction of these buildings that are under discussion. I hope the First Commissioner of Works will appreciate that unemployment is likely to be with us for a longer time than any of us would desire, and I hope that greater care will be exercised in the construction of buildings which the Office of Works may be authorised to construct—such care as is now evidenced in the construction of post offices, for instance.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid the hon. Member is now rather up against another difficulty. When it is only a question of a Supplementary Estimate, we cannot discuss general policy. I have been unwilling to interrupt in so far as remarks hitherto could be hung upon the question of particular buildings in the Supplementary Estimate, but the construction of buildings generally, whether post offices or employment exchanges, cannot be discussed on this occasion.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I take it that it might be possible to discuss what has applied to other exchanges if it can be related to the Newcastle Exchange?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid I must not let this develop into what would be a Debate on general policy, and I must ask hon. Members to confine themselves very strictly to the particular buildings covered by this Supplementary Estimate.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
Then I will conclude by saying that I hope the Office of Works will appreciate the remarks already made 700 by my hon. Friends here relating to rest rooms and the like.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS
I should be very sorry if the action of the right hon. Gentleman's Department were in any way to impair the situation in Newcastle, where there is a very strong feeling on this subject of the provision of lavatory accommodation, and we know that Newcastle has sent forward evidence in regard to it. I have been wondering whether this policy is not an extension of the policy of the Government generally, inasmuch as they are compelling the local authorities to bear a great deal of the burden of unemployment which we believe ought to be borne by the Government. If it is correct that this Department should not make this provision, why should not the Post Office extend that principle and order the Newcastle Corporation to undertake the necessary works in connection with the Newcastle Post Office? One matter is the same as the other, and if the principle is sound for the Office of Works, it would be sound also for the Post Office. Probably there has only been a little remissness on the part of the Department, and it will be rectified.

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), as to the height of buildings, I can only say that in the programme of the Post Office there is no place in the London area exceeding the height allowed under the London building regulations.

§ Mr. KELLY
What is that?

Mr. ORMSBY-COPE
Well, what it was when we decided on the elevation to be allowed. Ever since. I have been in the Office of Works it has always been my endeavour not only, to conform to what the local authority regards as fitting, but on any important building scheme always to consult it, and I also preach to my architects and to my Department generally the duty of neighbourliness in the use of materials and the like. All that, however, is pretty definitely out of order on an appropriation-in-aid. I will re-examine this eternal problem of the respective duties of the local authorities under the Public Health Acts of providing lavatory accommodation for the public and the special duty that 701 may fall on a public Department in relation to people who have to remain on the premises for a considerable period of time. I am confident that neither at Newcastle nor at other exchanges is it the duty of my Department to provide what I call a public convenience, which is properly the job of the local authority, but where people have to remain for long periods for any given purpose, admittedly there must be emergency accommodation. We do not want, as I say, to have an overlapping provision with the local authorities.
As regards seats, I hope my hon. Friends have visited some of our newest exchanges. We have grown in experience of housing design in the new exchanges. For instance, in the new big Stepney Exchange and the like, they will find the women's hall properly seated and regularly cleansed, and there is definite improvement, I think, each year in the design of our Employment Exchanges. It is the policy of nay Department to replace temporary buildings by permanent exchanges and steadily to learn from our experience in the working of these exchanges how best to design them for the convenience of all concerned. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith), and so too, I am sure, will my Department be, for the kind things he said about our rather brighter post offices. I fully realise what was in the mind of the hon. Member and I will bear it in mind.

§ Mr. E. SMITH
Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question with regard to providing seats for old age pensioners?

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I will take up that matter with the Post Office. We have to do with the beautification of the buildings, the materials and so forth. With regard to seats it is often a question as to how they can be fitted into the accommodation that is required by the Post Office for other purposes.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS
Should I be in order in raising the question of the type of fuel used?

§ The CHAIRMAN
No.