HC Deb 16 May 1938 vol 336 cc157-75

(i) Every local authority shall publish annually a report of their proceedings under the principal Act, and such report shall contain, among other things, the following particulars, namely:

  1. (a)the names and addresses of the owners to whom assistance has been given;
  2. (b)the houses in respect of which such assistance has been given and the works carried out or to be carried out in respect thereof;
  3. (c) the amount and nature of the assistance.

(2) A copy of such report shall be supplied to any local government elector within the area of the local authority applying therefor upon payment of such sum, not exceeding sixpence, as the authority may fix.—[Mr. Johnston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Johnston

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

I trust this proposed:new Clause will command widespread support in all parts of the House. It is designed to secure that local authorities shall publish annual reports of their activities under the Act, and that the annual report shall provide for the names and addresses of the owners of the houses to which assistance has been given, the works carried out, and the amount and nature of the assistance afforded, and that the report when printed shall be made available to any local government elector at a price not exceeding 6d. I submit that if public money is to be given to private individuals it should not be done in secret. If it is right and proper that an individual should receive assistance, surely there can be no harm in the people who pay a third of the cost, that is the local government electors, being made aware of where the money goes. I ask hon. Members opposite, Is there anything unreasonable in that proposition? It is the esesnce of local government that the people should know precisely where their local rates go, and if there are some authorities who are at great pains now to hide from the local electors how the money is expended that state of affairs ought to be terminated as early as possible.

The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), in a speech earlier this evening, agreed that the utmost publicity should be given by the local Press to expenditure under this Act, but we have no control over what the local Press may or may not publish. In some areas the local Press may publish the information and in other areas they may be ashamed to publish it. A newspaper proprietor might be ashamed to publish the fact of the late Sir John Ellerman, with his £40,000,000, coming along with his hat in his hand cadging for the reconditioning at the public expense of 16 houses on one of his estates. Usher's Brewery might be ashamed to have the fact published that their cottages were reconditioned at the public expense. I have already referred to the fact that 7d. in the £ of the local rates goes in expenditure under this Act, whereas only id. goes in expenditure under all the other Housing Acts combined, in the production of new houses.

We are entitled to ask, therefore, that the greatest possible publicity shall be given to the expenditure of public money upon what is at the best, in some instances, a very dubious proceeding. The public pay; why should not the public be aware of where their money goes? Hon. Members of this House, some on these benches, have told me to-night that they have refused to have their cottages reconditiond at the public expense. One of them said that he was able to do it himself and he declined to go to the public funds for assistance. Well, there may be many gentlemen all over the country who would refuse in the same way, but there are also many other people who are less finicky in these matters and who have no hesitation whatever in taking public assistance if they can get it. That relates to the names and addresses of the beneficiaries. What about getting particulars of the class of subject upon which the moneys are expended?

In the last Debate, the right hon. Gentleman declined to make it a condition of grant that minimum standards of sanitation should be laid down. We had the opinion expressed that county councils would see to the matter. I have a memorandum here containing detailed answers to a questionnaire sent out to practically every parish in rural Scotland by the Farm Servants' Union. After getting all the replies from their branches as to what was happening in every parish, they made this comment: A very large proportion of the houses which have been reconstructed under these Acts are so radically defective in structure that it is impossible to bring them up to any reasonable standard of habitability. They remain damp, with inadequate windows, without proper storage facilities, with unventilated concrete or stone floors and without water closets. In many instances, money has been spent in providing the minimum statutory requirements and in carrying out repairs which were overdue without doing anything to the existing accommodation. In some houses, even the minimum statutory requirements have not been provided. While houses which have been repaired are better than they were, many of them have been given a new lease of Life when they ought to have been closed, and a definitely lower standard of housing is perpetuated for farmworkers than is accepted for other workers. That is the comment of a responsible trade union organisation, upon evidence submitted to them by their branches. I can give the experience of some 14 counties in Scotland. I can give the name of the parish and show that, so far from the Act being a public benefit in the way it has been administered in the past by local authorities, it merits the description of the majority of the Royal Commission, composed of political friends of the right hon. Gentleman, when they said that there was the greatest waste of public money. They say that it is a great waste of public money. What does the report say about Kirkcudbright? I will take the parish called Haugh of Urr, where houses have got the grant without water, without water closets, and with defective rhones. In another parish called Shawhead it is reported that the local authority have given a grant, and after the grant there is no water or water closet. If you take any county you like in Scotland, you will find that the conditions are pretty nearly the same. In Roxburgh itself grants have been given to houses with leaky roofs and which were damp and smoky.

It is idle for the Government to say that this kind of thing can continue and that there ought to be no publicity. I do not say that in every case there has been waste. I personally know of poor people who have received benefit under these Acts. Every poor housewife who gets water laid into her home where she has previously had to carry it in buckets for a quarter of a mile or more has received a benefit. But what I do say is that a large part of the money expended under these Acts has been swallowed up by very wealthy proprietors—swallowed up in doing repairs which they ought to have provided for out of their own resources. I do not say that that is so in every case. I believe there are some large owners in the South of Scotland who are honestly trying to provide benefits under the Act, but, speaking by and large, there has been a waste of public money.

In proposing this new Clause we ask that at any rate there shall be publicity, for publicity is the only public safeguard. We ask that there shall be a record of names and addresses and the other particulars set out in the Clause, and that any local government elector who wants the record shall be able to get it on payment of 6d. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who pretend that they are the guardians of the public purse, ought to come into the Lobby with us on this occasion at least. If it is right that the property should be reconstructed, no harm will be done by publicity.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Bernays

I will try to dispel from the minds of hon. Members opposite this cloud of suspicion, for which there is really no occasion, about the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman talks about secrecy, but there is no question of secrecy in connection with these grants. He would surely admit that no grant can possibly be obtained unless the local authority is fully acquainted with all the circumstances under which the application is made. No such requirements as those involved in the proposed new Clause are attached in any other Housing Act to subsidies granted by local authorities for the erection of new houses, including the Wheatley subsidy. I ask the Committee to reject the Clause, because we believe that its requirements are quite unnecessary, and that they would place a heavy burden on local authorities. The Government do not see any purpose in their insertion in the Bill, except to discourage owners from applying for grants if they would prefer that their names should not be published. We come back to the question of who is going to benefit under the Bill. It is, we argue, not the landlord but the tenants. Therefore, the result of discouraging owners from applying for grants would be to deprive agricultural workers and similar persons of the benefits which it is intended to bestow on them. It is my right hon. Friend's object not to discourage owners from applying but to increase very considerably the number of cottages improved; and I ask the Committee to reject this Clause, because the Government believe that it would diminish the number of cottages that would be reconditioned for agricultural workers.

10.27 p.m.

Sir P. Harris

We have listened to a very remarkable speech. I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to say—and there would be a good deal to be said for such an argument—that the Clause was unnecessary. I thought he was going to argue that these requirements would be necessary under the ordinary Local Government Acts. But he put forward the remarkable argument that if there were any publicity as to who was to get the grants landowners would be discouraged. I have considerable experience in the London County Council, and so has my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), who, I think, will confirm my statement, that there is no precedent in local government for grants being given to a private individual unless they pass through the minutes of the local authorities. But the hon. Gentleman put forward the extraordinary argument that we should not pass this Clause, because if we did landowners would not apply for assistance, as they would resent publicity. It is inevitable that if money were given by the London County Council it would have to go through the Finance Committee, and in due course be published in the minutes of the council.

All that this not very revolutionary Clause proposes is, as I understand it, that there should be published once a year a summary, which could be got for 6d., of the various people who received grants under the Act. I believe that most well-run authorities will publish an annual report of the proceedings of this particular committee. There is certainly no harm in this Clause. Whether it will make any great difference I do not know, but I respectfully suggest that the case put up by the Minister is thoroughly unsound. As far as my knowledge goes, it will be necessary, under all the regulations of the Ministry, for these grants to appear in documents which are open to the public.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Ridley

I doubt whether any minor piece of legislation has ever been piloted through this Committee with so many expressions of narrow class prejudice as has been the case in connection with this Measure. Here is a piece of legislation which proposes to provide public money for the renovation of private houses without any means test at all and with the minimum amount of secrecy. I wish that the same regard expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health with reference to the tender susceptibilities of landlords could be expressed by the Minister of Health or the Minister of Labour when many hundreds of poor women in my constituency have to toddle down the street and ask for public assistance in order to obtain a few extra shillings with which to make life more tolerable than otherwise would be the case.

I turned to the Debate on the Second Reading of the Housing (Rural Workers) Bill in 1926 and discovered that the then Minister of Health, the present Prime Minister, said that, in justification for transferring the powers of rural district councils to county councils, a man would be too sensitive to apply to a district council because he would have to do so in the presence of his friends and his neighbours. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to shake his head in denial of the accuracy of the statement which I now make, and I will therefore repeat the words. The then Minister of Health justified the transfer to the county council on the ground that a man would be too sensitive to have it known to his friends and neighbours that he was applying for public assistance in this fashion. If he had to apply and it was known that he was making this kind of application, he would be ashamed to make the application in many cases, and therefore the application would not be made. I wish that the same regard were had to many hundreds and thousands of working-class women to-day who, because of the means test and the need for seeking public assistance, have to go in full view of their neighbours and friends, and seek a kind of public assistance which enables them to make life a little less intolerable. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, always reminds me of what was once said of another hon. Member of this House, that he had opinions but had no convictions.

The hon. Member for East Fife, who was supported later in the Debate by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), said that he was all in favour of a kind of publicity in respect of a class which was under discussion at that moment. An opportunity is now provided for the hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman to secure the kind of publicity which it seemed at that moment they wanted. All that this new Clause seeks is that there shall be information made available which will enable us to know who seeks relief, who gets it, the reason why he seeks it, in what direction the relief shall be applied, how much relief he seeks and how much relief he gets? If the disbursement of public money is not to be accompanied by some kind of publicity, it can only be supposed that, on the Government side of the Committee, this matter is to be enshrouded in such mystery and secretiveness that will increase the suspicion which hon. Members have on this side of the Committee that this is a piece of class legislation and that the Government desire to be as secretive as possible, and to avoid the natural and voluntary publicity which the acceptance of this new Clause would give. The Debate and the Division will be, in their essence, a revelation of the class view which the Government take on this question.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Ede

In less degenerate days the Minister of Health would have jumped to the Box, when my right hon. Friend rose to move this Clause, and would have apologised for having omitted such a Clause from the Bill. He would have assured us that it was an oversight and would have blamed it upon some miserable draftsman or some other person who was not here to speak for himself. I am under no cloud of suspicion about this matter, because ever since the passing of the original Act I have participated in its administration. When the newly appointed Secretary of State for Air made an appeal to the county councils of England to work the Measure, because he thought that some of them had not worked it in the past as they might have done, I took part in trying to get the Act more fully worked.

I would say to the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), whose local government experience has been very largely with the London County Council, that the London County Council, with all its great advantages in the width of its services, can hardly be described as a rural housing authority. In the county that I know best these matters are not published. The agricultural committee considers the application originally, and only the county agricultural officer knows the names of the applicants. In order that there shall be no prejudice, the applicant is referred to by initials. [Interruption.] We do not make a convict of him, but we refer to him by initials. In the whole of the records he is referred to by initials, and unless you happen to spot who he is, there is no real publicity. When, as chairman of the Surrey County Council, I was rather suspicious about certain initials and had the documents produced, I found that the initials concealed a Peer of the Realm. That was quite consistent with the arguments adduced at one stage of his speech by the Parliamentary Secretary, and the statement of the present Prime Minister, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley). The only other people who are so treated by the Surrey County Council are the applicants for public assistance whose individual cases have, for certain reasons, to be reported to the County Council. I suggest that that is a very good analogy to bear in mind. It is recognised that this is a form of public assistance, and that in some cases those who go there can do without it.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that although this was already done, we should be imposing a heavy burden on the local authorities by insisting upon it. That argument was inconsistent with his other arguments. I cannot believe that in any county this would be a very heavy duty to impose upon the local authority. It is essential that it should be known who are the people who are to get these grants, under the very limited conditions that are now attached to them. I do not believe that it would be altogether to the detriment of an owner making an application, because I stick to the belief that in the rural areas to-day it is by no means a bad thing for it to be made known in regard to a particular farm or a particular estate that it is a place where some attention is given to providing good cottages.

I sometimes meet people who complain of the independence of the modern agricultural labourer, and particularly the independence of his wife. I have been assured by those who have come to me and asked that their cottages should be reconditioned, that nowadays the agricultural labourer brings his wife when he comes to inquire about a job. She goes into the cottage, and if it is not up to her liking she is quite likely to tell him to turn it down. Apparently the agricultural labourer's wife in circumstances like those determines whether he shall take the job or not. Therefore, if people who take this money get some publicity and it becomes known that they are trying to get their cottages put into a proper condition it may prove to their advantage in securing better labourers and in persuading their wives to come with them. I hope the Committee will insist that where public money is being given without a means test and in very limited conditions, publicity shall be given to the names of the persons who. receive it and the conditions which are attached by the local authority.

It is evident from the report read by the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) that many of these grants have been given under conditions which do not warrant the expenditure of public money, but if it were known to the labourers and other interested parties what conditions were imposed, it would enable local authorities to find out whether the conditions had been complied with. I hope the Division Lobby will show that there are still a few people listening to an ex-Liberal Parliamentary Secretary who think that the old canons of the Liberal party with regard to public money being accompanied by public control still hold good. We were told in the "Sunday Express" that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health had many searchings of heart with regard to his position. I can only hope that on this occasion his searchings of heart will have a rather better conclusion than the "Sunday Express" 'thinks they have led him on other occasions. One could hardly believe that it was an hon. Member calling himself a Liberal making the speech he delivered just now. I hope the Committee will insist on the Amendment being inserted in the Bill.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Loftus

I intervene in the Debate only because, like the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I have been concerned with the detailed administration of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act since it was passed in 1926. May I say that I did not wait until I received a circular from the Ministry to start advertising the Act in every conceivable way in the local Press. On the question of publicity, I am astonished at the speech of the hon. Member in which he described the procedure of the Surrey County Council. It differs so vastly from the procedure of my own county council. The procedure there ensures absolute publicity so as to make this Amendment absolutely unnecessary. What happens is this. All applications come before a sub-committee of the general purposes committee, with the full name, full details, and reports by the county architect. Then they come before the general committee in a printed agenda with full details, the name of the -holder of the property, the amount expended on the property, the amount of the grant asked for and the amount of the grant given, and the amount of the rent fixed for the next 20 years. In addition, that report is printed in the quarterly agenda of the county council, so that every member of the county council can see every quarter a full and detailed statement of every grant, the name of the owner of the cottage, the total expenditure, and the amount of rent. Therefore, I suggest that the new Clause is unnecessary.

Mr. Ede

There is nothing in the original Act or in the amending Act which makes that procedure obligatory on a county council.

Mr. Loftus

I was going to suggest that -the new Clause, which involves extra work being placed on county councils, is utterly unnecessary because the Minister has power to make local authorities follow the procedure which is followed in my own county and, I believe, in most of the counties of England.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Paling

Surely, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) supported the new Clause, for everything he said contradicted the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member said that his county council are doing everything which the new Clause provides should be done, that they do not find it any particular trouble, that it does not involve any great expense, and that it works very satisfactorily. That is what we are asking from the Minister.

Mr. Loftus

No. I suggest that the new Clause asks for the whole procedure of a special annual report. My submission is that in the ordinary course of procedure of the ordinary county council, it is embodied periodically in the agenda, and that therefore the new Clause is entirely unnecessary.

Mr. Paling

Perhaps we are asking in the new Clause for slightly more than is done by the hon. Member's county council, but if there was as much publicity in this respect throughout England as there is in the case of the hon. Member's county council, we should not be proposing this new Clause. The county council to which the hon. Member refers gives information which other county councils do not. I was astonished by the speech of the ex-Liberal Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. The hon. Gentleman was amazed that anybody should want any information about this public money which is being given to landlords. His Liberalism, if ever he had any, must have altered a bit. I think we ought to have this information. About 12 months ago, I raised the case of a landlord in Norfolk who was nearly a millionaire. He had a house reconditioned, and I was told that the house was almost pulled down and rebuilt; inquiries were made into the matter, and eventually the subsidy was withdrawn. What the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are saying, in effect, is that there are many wealthy landlords throughout the country who own rotten houses which they will not repair, and that in order to compel them to do what should be their public duty, they have t.£ be bribed and given £2 of public money in every, £3 which they spend on a house. They say that if the fact that we have to pay them is to be published, we cannot expect them to do their duty. That is a pretty state of affairs for an ex-Liberal to support.

Mr. Bernays

That is a travesty of the Bill.

Mr. Paling

Perhaps we need not be surprised that such arguments should come from the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister in a Government which has adopted that attitude in regard to public money. The Government are giving subsidies in the case of agriculture, and in almost every department of life now. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), when he was a Liberal, said that the Tory party were always putting their hands into the public purse for the benefit of private individuals. The Tory party is doing that to-day more than ever it did in its history. It is because of that fact that the publicity sought for in this Clause is needed as a deterrent.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Lipson

I do not know if hon. Members opposite are aware how many county councils adopt the procedure which has been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus). In Gloucestershire we adopt exactly the same policy.

Mr. Ede

To my knowledge Surrey is not the only county council that acts in the way I described.

Mr. Lipson

The truth of the matter is that those who are supporting this Clause have no faith in the Bill, and no faith in county council administration, and therefore they are not bringing up this question of publicity where it can and should be dealt with, and that is in the county councils. I agree as to the value of publicity, but publicity at the proper time and the proper time is when it is proposed to make a grant. That is the publicity we give in Gloucestershire. We very often have a debate lasting for an hour or more as to whether or not a grant should be made, and that report is published in the local Press. Hon. Members opposite who are not satisfied with the way in which the Act has been administered in their own counties, or with the publicity that is given, should deal with the matter at that end. There is only one test that should be applied to this Clause: Is it going to improve the working of the Act, or is it not? I think, after the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, landlords are likely to be deterred from making applications if they know that every year a list will be published of those who receive grants. If this particular piece of county council administration is to be singled out for a procedure that does not apply to its other work, the county councils will feel less inclined to have resort to the Act. Because I believe in the Act and want to see it fully worked, and because I believe the Clause is likely to hamper it, I shall vote against it.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths

I do not know who is in charge of the publicity side of the Government now that the right hon. Gentleman is leaving for the Air, but I think that it is a very big order to arrange the business of the House so that to-day we are discussing this Bill and to-morrow the Vote for the Ministry of Labour. I hope full publicity will be given to the contrast between the general attitude adopted to-day and the attitude we shall see tomorrow. We have been discussing one means test to-day and we shall be discussing another to-morrow, and the country will be able to note the class bias on the other side of the House. The Parliamentary Secretary made a speech tonight in which he gave a justification for the means test. His colleague the Minister of Labour belongs to the same section of the National party and I hope he will get a copy of the hon. Gentleman's speech to-night in which he justified the means test on the ground that the benefit was ultimately passed on to the tenant. I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates how destructive that argument would be of the arguments advanced in favour of the means test applied by the Government to the unemployed.

The hon. Gentleman's speech to-night was amazing, coming from one who voted for the setting up of the Unemployment Assistance Board and for a system of prying into private lives of poor people. The Government send their investigators not merely into the houses of the poor people, but actually into their bedrooms in order to see whether the bed clothes need replacement or not. That is what they do to these poor unemployed who have to ask for public assistance, but when it comes to rich people who ask for public money in order to enable them to recondition their property, then we are told by the Government "We must be very careful." I would like the same consideration shown to the unemployed. I have seen applicants for public assistance having to queue up in the streets. No consideration whatever is shown for their feelings, but every consideration must be shown to the feelings of the well-to-do who are also applicants for assistance from the State. I hope the country will note this extreme consideration on the part of the Government for the feelings of rich people in connection with these grants, and the extreme contempt shown for the feelings of the poor people who have to apply for public assistance.

An hon. Member opposite asked what right we had to impose this task and this burden upon the officers of county councils by asking them to make out a list such as is proposed. For several years the people of the two largest counties in South Wales have been fortunate in having Labour majorities in control of the county councils, and it ill becomes hon. Members opposite to talk about added burdens on county councils when we consider the fact that 95 per cent. of the time of the Conservative party in South Wales is spent on trying to have inquiries made into the circumstances of poor labouring men. Talk about investigation—it is not investigation: it is prying. If hon. Members opposite will only ask the clerk to the Glamorgan County Council they will find how many communications he gets from the Conservative party in that district about matters of this kind. Of course, those communications are not sent in the name of the Conservative party; they are sent in the name of the Economic League, just as this Government is not called a Conservative Government but a National Government. Then hon. Members opposite talk about adding to the burdens of the county council. It is they who are adding to the burdens, and I hope the country will be made aware of the fact. I hope that our own party's publicity agents will publish to-day's and to-morrow's Debates in this House side by side to show how the National Government speak about the means test for the rich to-night, and how they will speak about the means test for the poor to-morrow. When the country realises the difference, the day will be nearer when we shall have another Government.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher

I wish to try to clear up a misapprehension, while supporting this very important Clause. It has been suggested that if you give publicity to these matters, you will deter landlords from applying for the grant. There could be no greater mistake. I do not care how much publicity is given to it, or how it is blazoned forth, you will never deter these people from coming forward for the grants. We had a discussion recently about the £66,000,000 of loot which the royalty owners are getting. Are they concerned about publicity? Why, in another place they are complaining that they have not got enough loot. You dare not turn your back on the till while they are about. But there is another reason why they are afraid of publicity. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has drawn attention to the case of certain of the people who have been getting a share of this grant. When they pass to a happier or a hotter plane one sees in the newspapers that they have been unable to take with them some £2,000,000 or £3,000,000.

A friend of mine has told me of a case of a widow who had been getting some relief from a public assistance committee, but she was insured, and she left a will in which she left her insurance money to this friend who came to see me, and her insurance money is being held up because the public assistance committee are going to make a claim. If you give publicity to the case of Lord So-and-so, who has been granted £200 or £300 of public money for reconstructing his property, and you find that he has a will leaving £500,000 or £1,000,000, what will happen? The people who are acquainted with the case of this widow will want to know why the public authorities are not getting after this particular crowd and taking the money back. Mention has been made of the means test. It is very nice to sit down and discuss what money you are going to give to your own pals, but if you have a public statement issued that So-and-so, with an income of £10,000 a year, is getting £200 or £300 of public money with which to repair his property, what are the men and women going to say who are getting hit by the means test, not even legally, but who are actually having extra-legal methods used against them?

We had questions asked in this House about young men and women who got jobs away from home and who had to keep themselves, but the means test officials included their income in the family income, and when the Minister was challenged about it and asked about his legal rights in the matter, he could not give them. Do you think the people of this country will stand for that sort of thing? When you get a list made out showing how public money is being squandered and how these wealthy people are deliberately getting their hands into the public purse, do you think the people will stand for that sort of thing? No. I deny that the acceptance of the Clause

Division No. 209.] AYES. [11.5 p.m.
Adams, D. (Consett) Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Poole, C. C.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Price, M. P.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Pritt, D. N.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Hardie, Agnes Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Harris, Sir P. A. Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Banfield, J. W. Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Ridley, G.
Barr, J. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Riley, B.
Batey, J. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Ritson, J.
Bellenger, F. J. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Hopkin, D. Rothschild, J. A. de
Benson, G. Jagger, J. Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Broad, F. A. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Sexton, T. M.
Bromfield, W. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Silverman, S. S.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Kelly, W. T. Simpson, F. B.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (s. Ayrshire) Kirby, B. V. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Charleton, H. C. Kirkwood, D. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Chater, D. Lawson, J. J. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Cluse, W. S. Leach, W. Sorensen, R. W.
Cocks, F. S. Leonard, W. Stephen, C.
Cove, W. G. Leslie, J. R. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Logan, D. G. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Daggar, G. Lunn, W. Summerskill, Edith
Dalton, H. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Thurtle, E.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) McEntee, V. La T. Tinker, J. J.
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr) McGhee, H. G. Tomlinson, G.
Dobbie, W. MacLaren, A. Viant, S. P.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Maxton, J. Walker, J.
Ede, J. C. Messer, F. Watkins, F. C.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Milner, Major J. Watson, W. McL.
Evans, D.O. (Cardigan) Montague, F. Welsh, J. C.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R, T. H. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) White, H. Graham
Frankel, D. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Gallacher, W. Nathan, Colonel H. L. Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Gardner, B. w. Noel-Baker, P. J. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Garro Jones, G. M. Oliver, G. H. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Owen, Major G. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Paling, W. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Grenfell, D. R. Parker, J. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Parkinson, J. A.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Pearson, A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W. Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Aske, Sir R. W. Balniel, Lord
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. C. Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Albery, Sir Irving Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

would in any way prevent these landlords from applying for cash or that it would retard the operation of the Act. The Government are afraid to accept the Clause because they dare not give publicity to the spending of public money on the private property of landlords and at the same time carry on the operation of the means test and the public assistance committees' investigations that are being conducted at the same time against the poor. I ask hon. Members who have any feeling or sense of justice at all to support this proposed new Clause and to give the greatest possible publicity to what is going on in connection with this Act, so that it may strengthen the fight to put an end to the means test against the poorest people of the country.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 196.

Beechman, N. A. Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. Procter, Major H. A.
Bernays, R. H. Hannah, I. C. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Birchall, Sir J. D. Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Ramsbotham, H.
Boulton, W. W. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Rankin, Sir R.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Boyce, H. Leslie Hely-Hutchinson, M. R, Rayner, Major R. H.
Brass, Sir W. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund Holmes, J. S. Remer, J. R.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Hopkinson, A. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Horsbrugh, Florence Ropner, Colonel L.
Bull, B. B. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Burghley, Lord Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Rowlands, G.
Butcher, H. W. Hume, Sir G. H. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Butler, R. A. Hunter, T. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Hutchinson, G. C. Russell, Sir Alexander
Cary, R. A. James, Wing-Commander A. W. H. Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Jarvis, Sir J. J. Sandys, E. D.
Channon, H. Joel, D. J. B. Scott, Lord William
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Keeling, E. H. Selley, H. R.
Christie, J. A. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Shakespeare, G. H.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Clarry, Sir Reginald Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Colman, N. C. D. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak) Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Conant. Captain R. J. E. Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Leech, Sir J. W. Spens, W. P.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Cox, H. B. Trevor Levy, T. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Craven-Ellis, W. Liddall, W. S. Storey, S.
Critchley, A. Lindsay. K. M. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Crooke, Sir J. S. Lipson, D. L. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Llewellin, Colonel J. J. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Lloyd, G. W. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Cross, R. H. Loftus, P. C. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Crossley, A. C. Lyons, A. M. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Crowder, J. F. E. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Titchfield, Marquess of
Cruddas, Col. B. McCorquodale, M. S. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Davidson, Viscountess Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Davison, Sir W. H. McKie, J. H. Turton, R. H.
Denville, Alfred Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees) Wakefield, W. W.
Dower, Major A. V. G. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Duggan, H. J. Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Duncan, J. A. L. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Markham, S. F. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Warrender, Sir V.
Erskine-Hill, A. G. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Fildes, Sir H. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Fleming, E. L. Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. Wells, S. R.
Fremantle, Sir F. E. Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Furness, S. N. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Fyfe, D. P. M. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Goldie, N. B. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Gower, Sir R. V. Munro, P. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Grant-Ferris, R. Nail, Sir J. Win, A. R.
Gridley, Sir A. B. Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Grimston, R. V. Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Gritten, W. G. Howard Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor) Palmer, G. E. H. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W) Petherick, M.
Guinness, T. L. E. B. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Captain Hope and Major Herbert.