§ 29. Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will place in the Tea Room of this House plans of such rural cottages as the Government approves, stating the probable cost of such cottages?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI hope shortly to be able to lay on the Table the first Report, including plans, of the Advisory Committee which I appointed to consider this question.
§ 30. Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will name the districts, if any, in which land has been offered to the Government free for the purpose of erecting labourers' cottages thereon?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI have received free offers of land for the purposes mentioned in Berkshire, Gloucestershire, Kent, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, and Suffolk.
31. Mr. STANLEY WILSONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, as representing the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, whether he is aware that at Beningholme Hall, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, which is the property of the Crown, the houses provided for the labourers are in a bad condition, namely, in 441 the principal cottage in respect of ventilation and dampness of walls, and as to the sleeping accommodation in the loft, and also as to the want of proper closet accommodation; whether he will consider the advisability of sending a Government inspector to report on the sanitary conditions of all the cottages on Crown property in the East Riding of Yorkshire; and if he will consider the advisability of placing the cottages on Crown property under the same conditions as apply to a private landowner, inasmuch as it is in reality property managed by the Government?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The late tenant, who held on a repairing lease, died in the autumn of 1911 in financial difficulties—the executors determined the tenancy by notice last spring and a claim for dilapidation was made against the estate. The farm has now been relet. I gave instructions some time ago for the necessary repairs and improvements to the buildings, and I understand that the work has been actually commenced. The Crown Receivers, in whom I have every confidence, are reporting estate by estate, on the sanitary condition of cottages on the Crown property in Yorkshire and elsewhere, and there is no need for the intervention of any ether Government inspector. In answer to the latter part of the question I may say that it is already the practice of the Commissioners of Woods to act just as if the Crown were bound by all the provisions of those Acts which apply to cottages.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only way of dealing with a cottage that is in such an extremely bad condition as this one is to pull it down and rebuild it, and would he consider the advisability of placing all the cottages on Crown property under the control of the local authority in the same way as the cottages of private landlords are under their control?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThese cottages are under the charge of the Commissioners of Woods, and it would be impossible to put them under the charge of anyone else without statutory sanction.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are many cottages on Crown property such as 442 this one which are in an extremely insanitary condition, and will he not at once take steps to have the matter inquired into?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI have already answered the question very fully, and I have told the hon. Member that long before he put this question these subjects were being inquired into.
§ Mr. BOOTHArising out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply with regard to the investigations on Crown property in Yorkshire being very thorough, does that apply to the Crown property which is technically under the Duchy of Lancaster, as well as that which is under his own Department?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am afraid I can only answer for those over whom I have control—the Commissioners of Woods.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXWould it not be possible to make some arrangements by which the same control could be exercised over these cottages as over others?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANIf that were done it would mean an amendment of the Crown Lands Act, and I should certainly have to consider that matter.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONWould it not be possible to place a Clause to this effect in the Housing Bill?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANNo, Sir; it would be out of order.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILAre we to understand that cottages on Crown property are not subject to the ordinary hygienic laws?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANYes, the Noble Lord can understand that they are subject to the same laws and customs, and that the same care is being taken over these cottages as is taken over his cottages by any benevolent landlord?
Mr. STANLEY WILSONThe right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong.
At the end of Questions, the hon. Member said: I desire to give notice that in consequence of the unsatisfactory answers of the President of the Board of Agriculture to the questions I put to him with regard to the condition of certain cottages on Crown property, I shall call attention to' the matter on the adjournment of the House.