HC Deb 24 February 1937 vol 320 cc2132-42

9. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £29,400, 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, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."

10. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,000, 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, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."

11. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £153,000, 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, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments, Brompton Cemetery and certain Housing Estates."

12. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,100, be graned to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant in Aid."

13. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £66,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the car ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, 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

14. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,400, 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, 1937: for expenditure in respect of Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Kelly

I hope that some explanation will be given of this Resolution. "Certain statutory salaries" is a very general statement and tie should not be asked to agree to this item without a word of explanation of the details. That applies to a great many other items in these Votes.

11.2 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville)

This Estimate was very fully discussed in Committee and its features were fully explained. It relates in the main to the grant in respect of the administration expenses of the Special Areas Reconstruction Association. About four hours' discussion took place on it in Committee and all possible explanations were then given.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Kelly

I would like to have some explanation of what is meant by this grant in connection with the rating of Government property in London and elsewhere. Is it a fact that we pay rates on all property held by the Government and are those rates paid in the same proportion as the rates on other buildings in London. Further, what is the amount of the grant in aid of the expenses of the London Fire Brigade? I hope we shall have a statement on those points.

11.5 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

This again was considered in Committee, but I am glad to give the hon. Member such information as I can on the Report stage. This excess expenditure is mainly due to a large increase in the aggregate rateable value of property in Crown occupation, and to a lesser extent to a further general increase in the poundages of the rates levied in the Metropolitan area. The first cause that I have mentioned is responsible for about one-third of the excess expenditure, on account of the number of Government properties having been added to during the year and to increases having been made in the assessments of a number of War Department, Air Ministry and Post Office buildings. While the Government do not pay rates in the strict sense, they make contributions to local authorities as a general offset for the amounts which those authorities would otherwise receive in rates, and there is an excess this year of such payments due to the expansion of Government activities. That excess expenditure is really a reflection of the general expansion of certain Government activities during the year.

The hon. Member did not mention Scotland, but the same is true in Scotland, where there have been certain increases in rate poundages, particularly in Glasgow, and also increased assessments in respect of Turnhouse and Leuchars Air Force stations. There are also an Admiralty oil fuel depot on the Clyde and other premises. There is a quite considerable expansion in the amount of Crown property on which the Government make contributions to recoup local authorities for rates which they would otherwise receive. I think that in the main covers the Estimate.

There is, however, another item of a smaller nature which relates mainly to the rates on buildings occupied by representatives of British Dominions and foreign Powers. These lie generally in the Metropolitan area, particularly in the City of Westminster, in Kensington, and in St. Marylebone, where the majority of the embassies and legations are situated. Where there is any change in the situation there, owing to new legations or embassies being formed, the Government have to enlarge their contribution to the local authorities. The main cause of the increased expenditure, however, is, as I have stated, that up and down the country there has been an expansion in the amount of ground required for Government activities.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

I apologise for not having been present on the Committee stage of this Estimate, but I think the right hon. and gallant Member would be the last to put that forward as a reason why those hon. Members who were not able to be present should not ask for an explanation on the Report stage. The Minister explained that a considerable proportion of these amounts was due to increased rates in respect of the added value of property built by the Services. The only question which I desire to ask is whether that figure appears in any part of the total Estimates of the Government in respect of armaments, or is this a figure which, though really part of our rearmament expenditure, is never shown as part of it but only comes under this Treasury Vote? I think there is a large number of items which are really attributable to rearmament, but which do not appear as such in any of the Votes that come before this House, and I should be glad to have some information on that point.

Mr. Tinker

Will the Financial Secretary explain what is meant by a grant-in-aid of the expenses of the London Fire Brigade? The question was put by another hon. Member, but there has been no reply.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Ede

Will the Financial Secretary tell us the amount of the contribution in lieu of rates in respect of the part of Lansdowne House which is occupied by the Government. He said the other night that we could not be told the rent, and I am willing to accept that, but the rating authority must know 'the amount that is to be paid in aid of rates. There can be no secret about that. The Committee could not be told the rent, and as the hon. and gallant Member has taken the line that what was told to the Committee was really told to the House, I assume that he will take the line that what he could not tell the Committee he cannot tell the House. I do not want to go round flogging a dead horse, it is very unkind to the horse and still more unkind to the flogger, but I hope that we may be given this piece of information.

11.12 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

I can speak again only by the leave of the House. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) asked whether this sum appears in any Estimate in connection with armaments. It does not. Rates on Government property, whether used in connection with the Services or for other purposes, fall on this one Vote, and while I pointed out that a considerable part of the increase is due to an expansion of activity in Service activities, it does not appear on any other Vote than this one. The hon. Member who raised the point about the London Fire Brigade has fallen into an old trap. The reference to the London Fire Brigade is in the title of the original Estimate, but all the items mentioned in that are not necessarily reflected in this Supplementary Estimate, in which there is nothing for the London Fire Brigade. As to the third question, I am not in a position to say at present what is the contribution in lieu of rates in relation to Lansdowne House but I shall try to find out that information.

Mr. Ede

Can the hon. and gallant Member tell us how the Government can occupy premises without paying rates?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

In regard to the rates for Lansdowne House I am not in a position to state the general position at the present time, but I can say that there is nothing for Lansdowne House included in this Estimate.

Mr. A. V. Alexander

Do I understand that we are not to be told what is the rent of Lansdowne House?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

That point could not be properly discussed on this Estimate, which has no relation to it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

I rose to comment upon the absence from the Government Front Bench of the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but I see that he has now come in, and my main point is therefore already met. I think it would be in accordance with precedent if the Noble Lord would explain this Vote to the House.

11.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne)

The hon. Gentleman will see that there is an Estimate of £5,800 in respect of salaries, of which £3,000 is for the Passport Office where increased staff has been required. There is an estimate of £2,550 in respect of the additional staff and extra pay, necessitated by the political situation abroad, which, as the hon. Member is aware is very complicated. We have had a number of Debates in this House, and a large number of questions have been asked, and that has necessitated an increase of work in the Foreign Office There is also £250 for the Naval Conference. Practically the whole of that item came into last year's Estimates, but one or two items had to be held over to finish the complete expenditure under this heading.

Then there is a sum of £810 for salaries, etc., in the Communications Department, that is, for increased telegraphing, also necessitated by the international situation, and £400 for telephoning. There is also a sum of £1,000, which is the expected savings on messengers' travelling expenses, partly due to what may be called rationalisation in the services which has resulted in a very welcome reduction in expenditure, and partly to a reduction in expenditure as regards the foreign service mesengers. That leaves the sum of £6,010.I am not going to ask for the whole of that sum because, although the expenditure of the Passport Office has gone up, the proceeds have gone up, and we have been able to meet most of this figure. I am therefore in the very happy position of asking the House to vote only £10.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Paling

I should like to ask for an explanation of the item of £10,600 for remand homes. The details state: The additional provision required is due to the increased use of the remand homes for the temporary accommodation of children and young persons committed to approved schools where no vacancies are immediately available. Is this extra accommodation due to an increase in juvenile crime? If not, what is the explanation?

11.20 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

This Supplementary Estimate is rendered necessary by the increasing use by the courts of the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. I do not think it represents an actual increase in crime, but merely an increased use by the courts of these methods of treating children. The item for new schools explains itself. The item for remand homes is due to the fact that local authorities are carrying out increased duties imposed upon them by the Act. Under the old system, children waiting to be sent to an approved school were detained in accommodation provided by police courts, but now they have to be detained in accommodation provided by the local authorities, and this extra amount is required because local authorities are put to increasing and unexpected expense in this way.

Mr. Paling

One could not help receiving a painful impression that juvenile crime was on the increase, in view of the large increase over the original Estimate. It may be entirely due to the use of new methods; I hope it is.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Benson

Will these grants give the Government any power of selection of the heads of these new schools?

Mr. Hudson

I think the arrangement is that the local authority acts as the agent of the Home Office—I know that that is the case with the London County Council—in running these approved schools. The Home Office have supervisory powers, but the engagement of the staff is left to the local authority.

Mr. Benson

Do not the Government exercise any supervision or power of recommendation in connection with the choice of staff? The hon. Gentleman referred to new methods, but these approved schools are very largely restrictive in character, and there is no new method about them; as far as I know they are just the old industrial schools under another name, and the whole question of new psychological methods for dealing with delinquent and difficult children is left out of account.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Kelly

I do not object to being answered by the hon. Gentleman, who is always extremely courteous and gives all the information he possibly can; but one might have expected the Home Office to be represented here to-night. Dealing with these young people in approved schools is a very important matter, and those Members of the House who have to deal with juveniles, both in the schools of the locality and in approved schools, would have liked more information about it. We are not being told where these six new schools are, and I think we ought to know, because one finds that some magistrates are making it a practice to send young people to colonies for mental defectives rather than to approved schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not know who it was that said "No," but it is evident that they are not in touch with what is happening at this moment, and has been happening during recent months, in London itself as well as in other parts of the country. There is mention of other schools projected. I do not know whether some of this money is being reserved for that purpose. If so, we might have an explanation. Some of these approved schools have been doing excellent work, and I hope they will do it even better than they have done it in the past, but we ought to be told where these six new schools are and where it is intended that the others are to be opened shortly.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Ede

I must protest against the hon. Gentleman's statement that in the matter of these schools the local authorities are the agents of the Home Office. The great advantage of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, was that these schools ceased to be Home Office schools and became local authorities schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) must not be taken as speaking for anyone but himself when he suggests that the Home Office ought to interfere with the very much more liberal development that the local authorities are giving to these schools. The most disastrous thing that could overtake them would be for a combination of the Parliamentary Secretary, answering for a Department about which he knows less than usual, and my hon. Friend trying to impose the Home Office on these schools again. It is a most hopeful thing that these six new schools are in the main being started on experimental lines and, to my knowledge, local authorities are exercising the widest possible discretion in their attempt to induce people who have made a profound study of child life and in their endeavour to ensure that these young people shall be rescued from a life of crime and given a reasonably fair start in the world. It is regrettable that the old joint standing committees, which were responsible to the Home Office, left the work in a derelict condition. I hope no one will be misled by the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary into thinking that local authorities have other than the widest discretion, with reasonable consultation with the Home Office, in setting up these new schools and carrying on this experimental work.

Mr. Alexander

I think it would be a great advantage if the Home Secretary would withdraw the Vote, because there are many questions arising on it on which we have had very inadequate information. We have had no information at all about the position which makes it necessary to ask for additional money. The Vote slipped through Committee almost without challenge. Unless we are going to have considerably more information, I trust that the Vote will be withdrawn.

11.29 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon)

I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

I am afraid that for the moment I had not appreciated that at this stage there was likely to be discussion. I recognise the importance of the subject, and I think the best thing will be to do as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Kelly

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who speaks for the Office of Works in this House, will give an explanation with regard to the £40,000 for salaries and expenses in connection with works and public buildings. There is not the slightest explanation here at all.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

My recollection is that I gave the Committee a very full explanation, but I will endeavour to summarise it again. The House will know that as a result of the Supplementary Defence Expenditure has been necessary to take over a number of buildings throughout the country for the use of the Defence Services, and the Office of Works has been asked to act as agent to the War Office in building some of the new munitions factories of which I gave particulars on the last occasion. Naturally, the result of that is to cause an increase in staff of draughtsmen and architects, and, in addition, as I explained in Committee, certain of the grades of the officers concerned, especially draughtsmen, have been granted an increase of salary under agreement, and this item covers that expenditure.

Mr. Garro Jones rose—

Mr. Speaker

When hon. Members have had an opportunity of raising questions and they have been replied to by the Minister, hon. Members cannot put further questions to which answers are demanded. The Minister would really be out of order in making a statement.

Mr. Ede

The Minister rose before anyone else had a chance.

Mr. Speaker

He waited quite a time.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

I respectfully acknowledge the point which you have just put before the House, Mr. Speaker, but I rose not to put further inquiries to the Minister, but to draw the attention of the House to a very important piece of information which has emerged from our discussions this evening. It is that, in addition to the vast sums—and I am not now discussing their merits—which are being expended on armaments Votes, very considerable sums are being asked for under Votes which have no connection with armaments Votes at all. Here we have some of these sums included in the cost of buildings which come under the Office of Works. A short time ago a large amount was asked for by the Treasury which was clearly due to rearmament, but which would not appear on the rearmament Vote.

I observe that when we are drawing comparisons between these expenditures which we are making and the expenditures in foreign countries to justify these increases, of which this is one for which we are asked to vote this evening, we include in the foreign expenditures the expenditure coming within this whole range, whether capital expenditure upon roads or buildings, or whatever it is. But the comparative figure which we put forward from our side is the only figure which comes under the direct heading of armament Votes. I merely rise to call attention to that important fact and to submit to the Treasury Bench that it may have important repercussions on the Defence Loans Bill which is now before the House. At another stage, I hope that my hon. Friends who will deal more particularly with that Bill will endeavour to ascertain the consequences, in some of the provisions of that Bill, of the addition of these amounts to the expenditure on armaments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

11.37 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander

In view of the increased cost in respect of Customs and Excise Buildings, have the Government any idea whether we have reached anything like the limit of the increase required in this respect? There has been increased expenditure for staff and new buildings for the Customs from time to time. We are now collecting £90,000,000 more in Customs than in 1931, thereby increasing very largely the proportion of taxation paid by the working classes. In this Vote we have an indication that we are making provision for extra buildings. Can the Minister give us any idea how far this programme of buildings is to be extended?

Mr. R. S. Hudson

This is an item of £3,000 in respect of minor alterations which cost less than £500. It relates to minor alterations at the Liverpool and London Docks.

SUPPLY [22ND FEBRUARY].

Resolutions reported,