HC Deb 10 March 1954 vol 524 cc2272-89

Order for Second Reading read.

5.13 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The object of this Bill is to enable the Post Office to put up a new building to replace the present Western District Office. The present Western District Office is spread over four buildings which are very inadequate. One of them is requisitioned and another consists of temporary buildings.

Since the war, the Western District Office has had to cope with vastly increased work. It was overcrowded many years ago, and today the conditions in that office are regarded as pretty desperate. For example, there is no proper parking place for the vans which drive into it. Very often mail vans loaded with bags of mail have to drive round and round, waiting for room to go in, and that causes enormous inconvenience and much discomfort.

When, in fact, we estimate the cost in cash alone of these inadequate buildings, we find that it amounts to something like £80,000 a year. I think that any one who has had anything to do with the Post Office would agree that it is about time that we had a new Western District Office. So we have decided to put one up. The site which has been chosen is between Rathbone Place and Newman Street, a very short distance north-west of where Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Street meet.

We have chosen this site for two reasons. The first is that it has been very largely cleared already by bombs, and the other reason is that it is very close to the Post Office railway which, as the House knows, runs between White-chapel and Paddington. It is proposed to undertake the building in two stages. The first, which will be started as soon as the Bill is passed, affects only an area of 1½ acres and this will entail the demolition of only five buildings.

The second stage, which we do not propose to start for 10 years, will be the remainder of the building in Newman Street, and this will mean demolishing a row of offices and shops. We do not propose to start any of the demolition work on the second part of the site for A period of 10 years, but if any of the people who have interests in this part want us to acquire their interests much earlier, we should be prepared to consider that and allow them to stay on as temporary tenants.

The building which we propose to put up will be five storeys high, and the ground floor will be entirely devoted to loading and parking space, which means that the vans will not have to hang about the streets and will drive in at one side of the building and out at the other.

The House may wonder why his matter comes before it at all in this form. The reason why it has been necessary to present this hybrid Bill is because the Post Office railway has to be diverted for a distance of about 600 yards, and we have to tunnel under other people's property. Most people have heard of the Post Office railway, but I think that very few understand exactly what it does. It carries about 12 million mailbags a year, and but for it we should need another 500 red vans on the streets of London. Now all the traffic from this office is to be concentrated under one roof instead of being spread over the four temporary buildings, and it will be more convenient in its new location than it was in the old.

Perhaps I should add that the estimated cost of the first part of this scheme will be of the order of £4 million. As I have said, this is a hybrid Bill and the usual procedure applies. Anyone who wishes to object because his interests are affected will have an opportunity to petition and have his case heard by the Select Committee. I think that I have dealt with most of the main points covered by the Bill, but if the House have any other matters, perhaps I may be allowed to speak again later.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson (Keighley)

It must be many months since we found ourselves in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. Up till today we thought that he was determined to make every Post Office issue a subject of political warfare, and. indeed, some of the decisions that have been taken by his noble Friend lately have been somewhat amazing and to us fantastic. However, so far as this Bill is concerned, we welcome it.

Its object, as the hon. Gentleman said, is to build a new West Central Office and to couple the Post Office underground railway with the new buildings. It will obviously make the Post Office more efficient and should speed up the transit of mail, particularly from east to west. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if there have been any petitions raised against the Bill, particularly in view of the fact that there are three Metropolitan boroughs involved—St. Pancras, Holborn and Marylebone.

The West Central Office was never adequate, even before the war, for the requirements of the Post Office, and it is obviously hopelessly inadequate now, particularly as so much of the pre-war City business is now conducted in the West Central district. As a result of the future planning of the City of London, it is obvious that much of this business will remain at the West Central Office. In addition, this office has to cope with very heavy mail order services from the West End stores in the area which it serves.

We can all say that the railway is one of the prides of the Post Office. There can be hardly a Postmaster-General or an Assistant Postmaster-General since the opening of the railway in 1927 who has not gone underground, inspected the signal cabins, shunted the trains, and done a bit of signalling and enjoyed the nostalgia of his boyhood. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has done this too.

The Assistant Postmaster-General mentioned the effect of the railway on road traffic. I was surprised to hear that there are now 12 million mailbags per annum passing on the underground railway. By this diversion the Post Office railway makes its contribution to solving the problem of the density of London's traffic.

I wonder whether, when discussing the need for a Bill to deal with the railway, the hon. Gentleman has considered an extension northwards to couple up with the main line termini of Euston, St. Pancras and King's Cross. This seems to me an urgent necessity, and I could never understand why previous Governments, particularly before the war, did not carry out this development, particularly when economic conditions were such that labour and capital were readily available.

I do not want to add a jarring note when dealing with an agreed Bill, but I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman this question. Can he assure us that the Post Office railway will be used particularly when high value packets and special money is in transit by the Post Office? Some of us, even now, cannot understand why the railway was not used for the recent transfer of the £250,000 between Paddington and the King Edward Building. Had the railway been used, the robbery might have been averted. I should like to know whether it is proposed to use the railway for the transit of high value packets, because this is an important matter, particularly when one considers the area that the railway serves.

I wonder whether the Assistant Postmaster-General can explain the meaning of Clause 2 (3, b), which states: in subsection (3) of the said section seven (which imposes a time limit on certain claims in respect of injurious interference with electric wires, lines or apparatus) the reference to the opening of the railway shall, in relation to the new railway, be construed as a reference to the opening of the new railway. After nine years in the House, one gets a little experience in interpreting the meaning of what for the benefit of the Attorney-General, for instance, I would describe as legal jargon. Even after reference to earlier legislation, I do not know what subsection (3, b) means, and I am sure that the House would like an explanation.

Clause 9 deals with claims for compensation as a result of improvement in site value. May we take it that the Government now are prepared to tackle the scandal of extra value that derives from improvements effected on property? In other words, are the Government prepared to tackle the problem of the rating and valuation of site values? Clause 9 is quite categorical and is a revolution in Government policy. One might also say that it ought to have been mentioned in the Gracious Speech, because it goes on to say: In determining the amount of any compensation payable under or by virtue of this Act, the Lands Tribunal shall not take into account any interest in land, or any enhancement of the value of any interest in land by reason of any building erected, work done or improvement. My hon. and right hon. Friends and I welcome that. We only hope that this will not be the first and only Bill which seeks to tackle this problem, which for a long time has been nothing short of a public scandal.

There is one point of interest which I have never noticed in any other Parliamentary Bill. Part II of the Second Schedule contains a full description of the methods to be used in the construction of the railway. Although it makes interesting reading, one wonders why it was necessary to put this in the Schedule, although I agree that the wording is informative. I shall not detain the House longer, for the reasons which other hon. Members gave earlier. We on this side regard the Bill as workmanlike and we think that it will make the handling of the Royal Mail speedier and more efficient, particularly in the centre of London.

5.27 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer (Deptford)

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) has made it clear that we on this side welcome the Bill and will give it our support. We always support the good work that the Post Office is doing. The Post Office has reason to be proud, and the Assistant Postmaster-General should be proud of his responsibility for the clearness and beautiful design that the Post Office uses on such things as its typography, its stamps, and the rest. It has shown to the nation examples of good taste that are unrivalled in any other Government Department or, come to that, in industry.

The Post Office has the advantage in these things of using competent designers and artists. For example, the Post Office is fortunate in having at its disposal the services of so great a designer and typographer as Sir Francis Meynell, who, the Assistant Postmaster-General will agree, has given freely of his considerable talents and time and has made a significant contribution to the products of the Post Office.

Incidentally, I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been able to do something to the London telephone directory, the cover of which is a typographical disgrace. It is a shame that a great city like London should produce so wretched a cover as on the telephone directory, simply in the interests of money paid for advertising. But then, the hon. Gentleman has a penchant for looking after the interests of advertisers.

As a Londoner, I welcome new buildings going up in our city, but I want them to be beautiful. It was the Minister of Works who, I believe, so wisely said that he did not want to see a neo-Georgian London. While the Post Office or Ministry of Works architects have done very good work in the past and have built reasonably decent post offices, which are at least distinct from horrible buildings like Woolworth's and other chain store buildings which have been erected in county towns, and are certainly a great improvement on anything else which has been erected for 20 or 30 years, they are now beginning to slip into the error of simply repeating the successes of 20 or 30 years ago.

Post offices are certainly easily recognisable, but so are public conveniences, and nobody attributes to them any great artistic or architectural merit. The new building to which the Assistant Postmaster-General has referred provides a great opportunity for a proper design. I do not know whether it is the intention of the hon. Gentleman to put these new buildings out to competition. I presume it is, because in my researches on this Bill I came across a speech which he made in March, 1947, when the House was discussing the new Colonial Office. The hon. Gentleman said: What I should have liked would have been to see this site kept free altogether as an open space. However, if that cannot be arranged, I certainly agree with other hon. Members on both sides of the House in saying, For heaven's sake let us see that we get a really good architect. Let us see that this is put out to competition and not handed over to some architect in the Ministry of Works. I think the Government ought to agree this afternoon that the design for this building should be put out for competition and that we should have an opportunity to see the plans and form some idea of what the finished building will look like. Later in the debate to which I have referred, the hon. Member interrupted my right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key), who was then the Minister of Works, to say: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance now that it will be done"— that is, the building will be designed— by competition?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 1612–8.] I am not saying that competition for architectural designs for buildings of this kind is absolutely necessary to get away from uniformity and produce something which is right for our age and time; the hon. Gentleman is saying that. But I do want to ask him to take the necessary steps to see that we do not put up in London just another Post Office building and leave it at that.

This is a magnificent site. It is not in the West End, but it is off a thoroughfare which is used by millions of Londoners every week. These buildings should be something to which we can take people and say, "Here is an example of the truly great architectural and artistic values and abilities which exist in this country." I would recommend to the Assistant Postmaster-General that that can be achieved by beginning now. We have plenty of time, because the second part of this programme does not begin for 10 years. I suggest that we should marry the architects and the artists right from the beginning.

I hope that the Government will adopt the attitude which the Coalition Government adopted during the war towards war-time artists. Then, for the first time for years, public resources were used on art, and artists were encouraged in particular jobs. I do not know how the artist lives today. As I propose to show later, the amount of public money spent on living artists is absurdly small. Public service is neglecting our young designers, established artists and muralists to a quite shameful degree.

It will be said that the reason is that there is no money available. I shall indicate to the Assistant Postmaster-General where that money can be obtained. He should get the assistance of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and take away some of the money which is given to the Minister of Education, who is pouring out money on art schools and upon teachers who are engaged in turning out indifferent artists, and giving them an education which they cannot use. We are spending large sums of money to enable teachers to teach rather indifferent art students, rather indifferently, how to become indifferent artists.

Instead of that, we should be spending some of the money on living artists. The Post Office provides a great opportunity for that. Just because the Assistant Postmaster-General is concerned with 2½d. stamps, there is no reason why he should be concerned with 2½d. architecture or 2½d. art. This Bill provides an opportunity for him to set a good ex- ample in London. The money which is being spent by the Minister of Education is largely being wasted. The latest annual figures I can find show that 1,027 art students sat for the teaching diploma which enables them to teach. Of these, 789 were successful, including 571 painters. Seven hundred and eighty-nine successful students are turned out by art schools each year to become art teachers, and for whom only 14 or 15 jobs are available, while many thousands of ordinary artists, who can never hope to aspire to be anything more than commercial artists, are turned out to work in advertising agencies or on local newspapers and other jobs upon which it is not necessary for us to spend so much money.

The problem of the artists who are in a higher class altogether is something which should worry the Assistant Post master-General, because he needs to foster art if his Department is to go on turning out good stuff as the years go by. How are these artists to be kept alive? The Arts Council is not doing that. It is spending an insignificant sum upon living artists. So far as I can see, the 30,000 or 40,000 living artists can expect to get about £1 per head from the State as a direct subvention for their work. It would be much better for them to help produce opera and ballet—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew)

The hon. Member must not discuss ballet. That is going too far away from the Bill.

Sir L. Plummer

I accept that rebuke, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was only seeking to indicate how the Assistant Postmaster-General could establish a reservoir of art. I will come directly to the Bill. There are many muralists and designers who can be used. This new Bill gives an opportunity for the architects and artists, the designers and the technicians to get together on the drawing board and to see that, both inside and outside the building, work can be provided for our great monumental sculptors, muralists and decorative artists. If that is done it will ensure that we get a marriage of an efficient building and an aesthetically beautiful building for London, and something of which we can all be proud.

In the early days of the Roosevelt Administration a great deal of work was done by the Work Provision Administration, using artists for this very purpose, in the designing of the interiors and exteriors of post offices, the painting of murals and the provision of sculptures. It is true that many have been painted over because the Senator McCarthy's do not like them, but in this country we are in no immediate danger of having that kind of political censorship of art.

For those reasons, I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to consult his colleagues and, particularly, the Minister of Works. The Minister of Works has shown exceptionally good taste for any Minister in the present Government. His handling of the Coronation, where vulgarity might have been predominant, was in impeccable good taste. From the point of view of the artist he is an adornment to the present Government. If the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Minister of Works would get together, between them they could see that these projected buildings would be worthy both of our time and of our people.

The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles)

May I thank the hon. Member for those kind remarks about me. He might like to know that the Ministry of Works acts on behalf of the Post Office in putting up such buildings. We have an arrangement with the Treasury whereby a specific percentage of the total cost of the building can be used for purposes such as those which the hon. Member has in mind—sculptures, interior treatment and treatment outside the building. In that way I think we shall be able to associate with the architects, sculptors and designers whom he thinks will embellish the building. We are putting out to competition the furnishings of some of the new buildings. One very successful effort has been received and I am pressing on with another. In that way we shall give the various designers of modern furniture a chance to show what they can do.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams (Droylsden)

It is said about this honourable House that we live and learn every minute of the day and every day of the week that we spend here. It seems remarkable that we have been able to have such a fine storming attack from my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) on such a narrow front, and I congratulate him most heartily on placing an emphasis on something which the House has completely ignored in Post Office buildings in the past. His contribution to the debate, and especially the assurances given by the Minister of Works, will go far to make the contemplated building very much better and brighter than some of the buildings of which I had personal experience for most of my 30 or 40 years' service in the Post Office.

If I have had a major quarrel with the Post Office, apart from that on salaries and wages, it has been on two matters. First, the Post Office has been perfectly happy to accommodate the staff and transact business in any sort of old place, in any old street, it could get hold of, as long as it was secured cheaply. Cheapness seems to have been the criterion. I am glad that my hon. Friend and the Minister have made the comments they have done, particularly in view of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the new Colonial Office, where he showed some sense of responsibility. I hope they will ensure that this long overdue building will be worthy of the Post Office.

Nothing used to worry me more than to see some of the banks, insurance offices and other business offices erecting fine, commodious buildings while the Post Office, because of an embargo on price, was putting up shoddy stuff, dull and unimaginative and not worthy of one of the greatest services of the country. I certainly hope that my hon. Friend's remarks will penetrate deeply into the soul of the Assistant Postmaster-General and into that of the Department, too.

I should not like to say that there were not some very good designers and architects in the Post Office. The Post Office has some excellent material but, as I have said, it is a question of money. When the authorities put up a new post office they do their best to do so as cheaply as possible, thus satisfying a large number of hon. Members opposite; the cheaper they get it, the better they think it is. I want to emphasise my hon. Friend's comments and to ask that in this case we should get a very good building.

Mr. John Taylor (West Lothian)

I think it might bring my hon. Friend some comfort to learn that the new post offices in the new towns are excellent. Obvi- ously the work is by first-class interior designers. These buildings are a great encouragement and joy to those who see them and use them.

Mr. Williams

Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to hear that, because for years I have been advocating such a policy, urging that the Post Office should become responsible for beautiful as well as for useful buildings. I am glad that in the new towns the Post Office is taking steps to see that the buildings. fit into the aesthetic and architectural schemes of the new communities.

I am glad that the Minister and his noble Friend have at last decided to tackle the problem in the West Central parts of London. For the past 20 years, to my knowledge, this has been a problem affecting not only the post office but also the transport of the City of London and the surrounding areas. This step will solve not only a Post Office problem about the transportation of mails and the disposal of letters and parcels. It will add substantially to the efforts to solve the traffic problem in the inner circle of London.

I know from long experience the congestion and difficulties which have been experienced administratively and from a trade union point of view in connection with this office. I certainly hope that the Minister and his noble Friend will not stop their plans at this office. There is substance in the remarks of one of my hon. Friends that there should be an extension of this railway not only to this office but to one or two others, because the problem of carrying mails across the huge City of London will have to be tackled with great imagination, courage and urgency. There are a number of other offices in London of which I have personal knowledge where the congestion and lack of space is a serious handicap to efficiency.

My hon. Friends, and often hon. Members opposite, criticise the Post Office for lack of efficiency. I suggest that the administration and the staff of the Post Office have a great deal for which to criticise this House and the Department for making it so difficult, by reason of the accommodation provided, for the staff to give of their best and to render the most efficient service. I therefore hope that this new building will be not only beautiful but also will be an easy office in which to work. When he was Postmaster-General, Sir Kingsley Wood did some very good work in connection with the public counter offices, and I sincerely hope that the present Postmaster-General will use the same imagination in dealing with sorting offices.

In the Post Office in the last decade we have been rather inclined to think that if our outside offices looked fairly decent it did not matter about the hovels in which many of our people were working behind the scenes. The Assistant Postmaster-General says that the scheme proposed in this Bill will be in two parts, the first to cost £4 million. He did not say how much the second part would cost, but he said that it might be 10 years before that second stage was completed.

The hon. Gentleman did not say what would constitute the first stage. Will it be made up of offices on the surface with connections to the London Post Office railway below ground? Having regard to the postal and transport problems of London, is it wise to leave the completion of this second stage for 10 years? It seems to me an over-long period having regard to the urgency of these problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), who was Assistant Postmaster-General in the previous Administration, told us of the interest he felt, which no doubt has been felt by other Assistant Postmaster-Generals and Postmaster-Generals, in going below ground to play with the signals of the Post Office railway. But some of our people who work below ground every day do not share the happiness which they see on the faces of those who come to play with the signals. In the new constructions I hope that we shall have some regard for welfare accommodation for the staff who have to work in the bowels of the earth on this railway.

The accommodation in one or two offices is very poor indeed. To overcome some of their difficulties people have had to come up from below to the parent office for ablutions, etc. Now that we are constructing a new tube and new stations there is an excellent opportunity not only to consider the working of the railway but the amenities for the staff. Incidentally, I do not see why there should not be two tracks.

Mr. Hobson

There are to be two tracks in one tunnel.

Mr. Williams

That is all right provided that that arrangement works.

But I should like to stress the need for welfare accommodation for the staff. I strongly support this Bill. I should have supported it even more strongly had it been brought forward when I first came to this House. I hope that we shall not accept the view that of necessity we must spread this new work over a period of 10 years. In view of the ever-increasing traffic in London, I hope that the work will be carried out in a much shorter period of time.

5.54 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

The debate has become for me one of the most important that I have ever participated in since I came to this House. It is true that we had an attempt in March, 1947, at some of the things that are now proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), in quoting from debates at that time, did not mention what my right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key), who was then Minister of Works, said in answer to representations made both by the present Assistant Postmaster-General and myself.

The present Assistant Postmaster-General then asked that plans should be open to competition. He did not receive a categorical answer that that might be done. Indeed, the Minister of Works at the time said that he would look into the matter but that he could not make any promise. That I could well understand It is easy for us who are not architects to say that if plans are put out for competition we are bound to have the best results But I am not sure that we can achieve the best results by using a technique of that kind, particularly in view of the fact that there is so much experience in the architectural department of the Ministry of Works

However that may be, the Assistant Postmaster-General must accept the view that he is a patron of the arts in this matter. A patron of the arts is someone who spends money wisely so that new forms of art are created. I put a Question a few months ago about the B.B.C., in which I said that the B.B.C. devours the arts but cannot be a patron of them because its money does not allow payment for the creation of new forms. It has to take the existing forms of art and present them to us. But here the Assistant Postmaster-General has an incredible opportunity.

The Minister of Works today very kindly gave us his views on what could be done. He is acting as an agent. He tells us that he has money, provided by the Treasury, for use, at his discretion, to embellish buildings with sculptures outside and murals inside, or both. I asked for that in the course of the debate in which the present Assistant Postmaster-General spoke in 1947.

I asked that approximately 2 per cent, of the total cost of the new Colonial Office should be allocated for this purpose. We have progressed very rapidly since 1947, as I hope to illustrate if you, Mr. Speaker, do not rule me out of order. The then Minister of Works said: I share with the House the great ambitions in regard to the buildings which are to be erected upon this site together with the other buildings which it will be necessary for us to erect in central London, and which we wish to be of the highest and finest character it is possible for us to secure. All I am asking for now is the power to acquire this site. I am not asking today for approval for any specific building to be erected there, but I shall give very careful consideration lo the suggestions that have been made with regard to a competition for the architectural work on this site, and that consultations should take place not only with architects but with other artists in the hope that they will provide buildings worthy of the place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 1618.] In 1947 it was possible for foreigners to laugh at our forms of art. I think that they were wrong, but the criticisms passed by the French, Italians and Swiss about our forms of art, whether sculpture or painting either associated with buildings or separately in their own right, were somewhat derisive. Now, in a few years, a situation has arisen in which it is possible for critics to say, as in this quotation from Switzerland: Since the decline of England's world power a new world power seems to be proclaiming itself in England, and it is that of painting and sculpture. The Assistant Postmaster-General and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works have at their disposal the talents of two of the finest sculptors in the world, who are today living and work- ing in this country. That is an extraordinary thing which has not happened before in our history. I refer, of course, to Henry Moore and Epstein, and there are many others of great merit and weight. That is not merely my own view but is what people throughout the world think of these sculptors.

We have our great painters, as can be seen by the fact that a women's organisation in Toronto spent £2,000 for the Toronto Gallery on 16 works of art by British painters in one year—last year. The total sum of money which the Minister of Works has been able to spend out of the Vote this current year has been only £2,400, but we know that he actually spends very much more in fostering the arts, as he has other sources of income. Although I cannot ask him to reveal those amounts now, I shall put some Questions to him in the future to find how much he is able to spend.

It is quite certain that the French show the flag all over the world through their forms of art and they get credit wherever they go. I believe that we have here in Britain a school of mature artists and a great school of rising artists who are capable of assisting in the embellishment of a building of this kind to make it notable beyond anything in Europe, if the Assistant Postmaster-General will give them their head. We could do everything the French do if we did not buy everything on a shoe string.

I sincerely hope that the Minister of Works, to whom this work will be delegated, will insist—whether he takes the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford and tries, in the way suggested, to seize money from the Minister of Education or not—on having enough money to see that this building shall set an example, not only to our people, but to the whole of Europe and the world.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Gammans

I wish to reply briefly to some of the points that have been raised. I am very grateful to the House for the way in which it has received this Bill and for the obvious keenness of hon. Members that when we spend this sum of money we should make a good job of the building. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) asked if any Petitions had been received. The answer is no, because strictly—from a legal point of view—they cannot be received until the Bill has been committed.

The hon. Member also asked whether we were hoping to extend the Post Office railway to other London termini. The answer is, yes, but an underground railway costs far more to build today than it did when the original Post Office railway was built. Therefore, it is a question of whether we have the money to do that. He also asked if the railway was used for high value packets. The difficulty in using the railway for that purpose is that it would mean that the packets would have to pass out of the custody of a particular individual, whereas when they go by road from the terminus to the sorting office, they are in the custody of one man or the same men for the whole time.

The hon. Member asked the meaning of Clause 2 (3, b), and he may well have asked that question. What it amounts to is that under Section 7 of the 1913 Act, electricity suppliers and others were given two years from the opening of the railway in which to make claims for interference to their apparatus. Clause 2 (3, b) makes the period two years from the opening of the new railway. He also asked how the valuation was to be computed. It is to be computed on existing use value with such adaptations as may be appropriate under the Bill which is now before the House.

The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) referred in a very interesting way to embellishing Post Office buildings. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works who dealt with some of the points made by the hon. Member. I think we can leave it to my right hon. Friend, whose impeccably good taste has been referred to in the debate, to do everything in his power to see that nothing horrible is put up. He has had great experience, and hon. Members in all quarters of the House are proud of what has been done by him since he became Minister of Works. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen any of the post offices recently built, but, if not, I should be glad to arrange for them to see them. I think hon. Members would agree that, not only those post offices, but the new telephone exchanges are a credit to this country and we have nothing there to be ashamed of. I think we can leave that matter to my right hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Deptford made a very pathetic plea to me to keep young artists alive. I must remind him that with my many responsibilities I am afraid I cannot ensure that. Although I am sure they are very worthy people, I cannot accept responsibility for keeping young artists alive.

Dr. Stross

In case the Assistant Postmaster-General gets a bad reputation as a result of his joking remark, may I point out that what was meant was that if, when great public buildings are constructed, he ensures that there is space for mural decorations and sculpture, he will keep those young artists alive.

Mr. Gammans

I did not want my remarks on this matter to be taken seriously, but I do not think that I can be asked to keep young artists from starving.

Sir L. Plummer

The hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting that the future of the architectural excellence of the buildings will be safe in the hands of the Minister of Works because the right hon. Gentleman exercises a negative control and will see that nothing horrible is put up, but that is not what I was asking. I was asking that something beautiful should be put up. I was asking that it should be seen that something good was put up.

Mr. Gammans

That is what I meant; I think that my right hon. Friend can be trusted not only to prevent horrors being put up, but to see that something worthy of the country is erected.

The hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) has had to leave us. I think that in his speech he was a little rough on us when he said that we were in favour, when putting up buildings, of "the cheaper the better." That scarcely fits in with what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Deptford. who, on the whole, thought that our level of building had been fairly good.

The hon. Member for Droylsden also asked why we were doing this work in two stages and whether the first stage left out anything which ought to be included. The second stage is much more concerned with the construction of administrative buildings than separate Post Office accommodation. I think that the hon. Member will be satisfied with that answer. We are also very much aware of the fact that we need welfare accommodation, not only for the underground railway staff but also in the building itself. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) raised the whole question of sculpture, but I think that my right hon. Friend has satisfied him on that point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Six Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection:

Any Petitions against the Bill deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the fifth day after the day on which this Order is made to stand referred to the Committee, but if no such Petitions are deposited, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee to be discharged and the Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House:

Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, to be heard against the Bill provided that their Petitions are prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House, and Counsel to be heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions:

Power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Gammans.]