§ (1) During a period of three years from the passing of this Act, and for the purpose of the development of a garden city, in accordance with a scheme approved by the Minister, the Public Works Loan Commissioners may, subject to such conditions as the Treasury may require, advance money on loan to an amount approved by the Treasury to any authorised association within the meaning of Section ten of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, and Section sixty-seven of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, as amended by Section twenty of the Housing, Town Planning. &c, Act, 1919, shall, subject to the 2190 provisions of this Section, apply to any such loan as it applies to a loan to a public utility society.
§ (2) In Section forty of the Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1919, and in Section ten of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, the words "the issue of any share or loan capital with interest or dividend exceeding the rate for the time being prescribed by the Treasury" shall be substituted for "the payment of any interest or dividend at a rate exceeding six per cent. per annum," and "payment of any interest or dividend at a higher rate than six per cent. per annum," respectively, and any public utility society or authorised association shall have and shall be deemed to have had power, notwithstanding anything in their rules or constitution prohibiting the payment of any interest on loan capital at a rate exceeding six per cent. per annum, to raise money on loan at a rate of interest not exceeding the rate for the time being prescribed by the Treasury as aforesaid. — [Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I wish to ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether this Clause does not cause an additional charge to be put upon the rates. The Clause says that during the period of three years from the passing of the Act, the Public Works Loan Commissioners may advance money on loan to any authorised association for the purpose of the development of a garden city. Then it says:In Section 40 of the Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1919, and in Section 10 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, the words ' the issue of any share or loan capital with interest or dividend exceeding the rate for the time being prescribed by the Treasury ' shall be substitutedfor other words, so that it appears that if under the first part of this Clause, namely, the borrowing of the money, no charge would be imposed for the moment on the ratepayers, I would point out that a charge is imposed in that the ratepayers have to find the money to redeem that loan, and therefore a charge is eventually imposed in that way; but a charge is imposed under the second part of the Clause, because the interest would have to be provided by the ratepayers, and a rate would have to be made to provide that interest. For those two reasons, I suggest that as this is the Report stage, and no additional charge can be imposed, this Clause falls through.
§ Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE
On that point of Order, may I point out that the interest will not have to be paid by the ratepayers, but those who raise the capital? It is a private enterprise.
I think that is so, and I think it is sound so far as that is concerned. It is a public utility society.
§ Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The chief point I feel I have to bring forward is that this does not impose any charge on the ratepayer or the taxpayer, but is directly supported by private enterprise. I do not wish to go at great length into the principle to-night, but I think I ought to show why it is proposed to add this Clause to the Bill at this late hour. The reason is that it is a necessary complement to the housing scheme now in full swing. Experience shows that it requires this amount of State aid. The State aid is on absolute security—the security of the land. It is only proposed to lend this money to bodies definitely approved under regulations to be drawn up to secure that they are bodies which will be able to pay, and are sufficiently constituted to be able to develop the scheme properly. It is probable that the regulations will be so exacting that it will not lead to any extensive enlargement as regards the garden city principle. But, inasmuch as it will help forward one, two, or three schemes, I should think it would meet, and I hope it will meet, with the support of the House whether they approve of housing at the expense of taxpayers and ratepayers, or whether they prefer to leave it entirely to private enterprise.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
On the point of Order. I admit I was under the impression, in looking at the Clause, that the money was to be advanced to the local authorities. I see now it is not to be advanced to local authorities, but to certain authorised associations which are described in certain old Acts of Parliament. This is the disadvantage of legislation by reference. But I venture to say very humbly this makes it worse, because the result of this is that the Treasury is liable, and the Treasury is only the taxpayer. Therefore, a direct charge is imposed upon the ratepayers in the event of these associations—who they are, I do not know—not being able to carry out their obligations. Therefore, there is a direct charge under those circumstances imposed on the ratepayer, 2192 and I venture humbly to submit the Clause is out of order.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMS
On the point of Order. May I venture to remind you that on a former occasion, on a Clause similar to this authorising a loan, Mr. Speaker considered very carefully whether that Clause was in order. I remember I had the privilege of discussing across the floor of the House the point of Order with him, and he ruled that a Clause authorising a loan was not a Clause authorising a charge, on the ground that the loan was to be repaid with interest.
§ Lord H. CECIL
On that point, it surely all depends whether the public utility society is so good as to amount to certainty. If it does not amount to certainty, it is quite clear that a charge may be imposed on the people without any further reference to this House, and the loan then might be a loss to the public. We have no means of knowing whether it does or does not impose a charge. It is surely contrary to all the practice of this House that a bargain should be entered into by the Treasury, involving even conceivably a charge upon the people which does not originate in Committee of the whole House or on the recommendation of the Crown.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMS
May I submit, as I submitted to Mr. Speaker on the previous occasion, that if we are to be ruled out on the ground that there may be, contingently, a charge, then practically nothing can be done by private Members, because there is scarcely any proposal of legislation that does not contingently impose a charge upon public funds.
I think both the last points are going further than is necessary. The Noble Lord speaks of absolute certainty. The Noble Lord may have it, but I cannot pretend to it myself. This is limited by the approval of the Treasury of approved schemes, and I think the judgment I have already given stands. I have this further in my support that I notice Mr. Speaker on this Paper, having no doubt considered the Clause earlier in the day, marked it as one that could be moved.
§ Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE
The security for the loan is 75 per cent. on the 2193 approved value of the land. That land cannot run away, and is therefore the best security you can possibly have. In the Kegulations that will be drawn up, it is presumed that the Minister will insist that that 75 per cent. should only be loaned to a substantial body, who already have sufficient capital to provide the other 25 per cent. of the value of the land, and to proceed with the scheme. It must only be for approved societies that can carry through a scheme. The principle of public utility societies has practically been passed already. It may be said, "Why should not the garden city associations be formed into public utility societies?" The reason is that the public utility societies are limited to housing alone, and the principle, as I think all know, of the garden city movement, is that, instead of housing people as if houses were the only requirement, the scheme is for the complete development of the community—houses, roads and general development as a whole. The principle of garden cities has been fully recognised and proved to be a practical proposition. It has been proved at Letchworth. Letchworth, the first garden city, now contains 10,000 persons, and something like 100 factories and workshops hard at work. It is a self-contained community, and that is what differentiates it from garden suburbs and ordinary suburbs. The principle is urged by the Departmental Committee on insanitary areas in its Interim Report. That Committee is now preparing its full Report, and if we are going to pour out money like water on the subject of housing, we have this scheme epitomised in the slum areas of London. How are you going to deal with them? Are you simply going to replace them by other houses a little bit more spread out on the same site? There is a limit to that, to meet ordinary requirements. Are you going, then, to extend your suburbs further and further, separating your people by so many hours travelling every day to and from their work? You are losing thereby two or three hours of man's working time, and causing an enormous diminution of efficiency.
Therefore you want to arrange this garden city scheme by which industry itself shall emigrate into the country, and the houses and people with it. That is where we want the State to come in. The factories do not want to emigrate 2194 until the people are there; the people will not emigrate until the factories are there. Someone has to step in. Hitherto it has been extremely difficult for private societies to come forward and do it. They are doing it at Welwyn, and it is because of the Welwyn experience that we ask for this approval. I do not believe ever again any body of men would be prepared to do what these have been able to do. It is an extremely difficult proposition to ask people to subscribe money at 6 or 7 per cent. under the circumstances. Therefore we ask for the State to fill in the blank on approved security, and only on approved security. The second part of the Clause is to correct an obvious anomaly. Public utility societies are limited, and rightly limited, to a certain dividend. The maximum dividend they can earn has been limited to 6½ per cent., but, unfortunately, the Loan Commissioners have had to put up their rates for borrowing to 6½ per cent., and, obviously, it is an absurd proposition to borrow at 65 per cent. and only earn 6 per cent. dividend. Therefore we ask that that may be put right, so that the limit of dividend may be raised to the charge of the Loan Commissioners.
Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON
I beg to second the Motion.
The hon. and gallant Member has fully explained the Clause, and there are only one or two points I would like to stress. The House will see that this Clause has the support of practically all sections of the House, of various political colours. I think it will even appeal to the economists in the House, and for this reason. We realise that we do require a large number of houses, and I submit to economists particularly that every house supplied under this Clause would mean so many fewer houses to be supplied under the original 1919 Act, whereby a penny rate was involved, and also the other houses supplied under the amending Act of 1919, whereby a subsidy is granted from the Treasury of £260. Under this scheme here, houses will be supplied and will not get the penny rate, nor the share of the subsidy of £260. All they get is the support of the Public Works Loan Commissioners in helping to raise the money. The question of security has been raised. I submit that in the protection afforded by the Treasury, which has to sanction all these loans, there is ample security for the public taxpayer.
2195 It must be remembered that the bulk of the money is found by private enterprise, and the State money, which comes from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, takes precedence in the claims on the estate. Here you are dealing with real property, and surely, from the narrow financial point of view, that security will be adequate. But, apart from these narrower considerations, surely from the point of view of true economy, it is in the interests of this House to explore every avenue, every means, whereby we can remedy the existing house shortage. If this can encourage private interests to spend more money on these schemes, without any risk of loss to the taxpayer, I am sure even the stern and unbending economists opposite will support this Clause.
§ Dr. ADDISON
I am sure the House will notice that on the paper which has been circulated a very large number of names are attached to this Clause, and they represent Members from practically all sections of the House. I propose to take what I am sure will be a distasteful course, but I think it is only consistent with what we have done before. I say, if I may be allowed to, that this Clause, in my view, is an excellent proposal, and one which, I think, would be well embodied in our Statutes. But so are some of the other suggestions in the other new Clauses, and it will be within the recollection of the House that I was subjected to a number of animadversions not long since because the Bill was too large. In Committee upstairs, in consonance with my pledge down here, that when certain Clauses were put before the Committee, if they were objected to they would be withdrawn, certain Clauses were dropped out of the Bill. I suggest it would be entirely out of accord, much as I should like to assent to this Clause, with what we have done already, and the promise given to the House, if we were to begin now to add a large number of new Clauses. Therefore I feel that the only logical and fair course to take, in view of the pledges to the House, and the almost unanimous indicated decision of the House, and I hope the House will not add them to the Bill.
§ Mr. A. SHAW
Will the right hon. Gentlemen refrain from putting on the Government Whips against this Clause and allow the House to decide?
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMS
I think all those who have spent years in promoting the housing cause in this country will hear with deep regret the words which the right hon. Gentleman has just addressed to the House. I am quite aware there must be some cause which has led him to make such a statement, because I do not believe for one moment his own inclinations would take him in that direction at all. This Clause might be added to the Bill without any loss of time or without hindering the Bill in any way, if the majority of the House were in favour of it—as I trust they would be. Therefore I would like to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to put on the Whips against this Clause, but to leave it to the free vote of the House. If the House does accept the Clause, then surely the thing can go forward, and it will contribute some little to the solution of the housing of our people, which is so great a problem. This solution, I suggest, would be on the very best principles, without any charge on the community, not crowding people into the existing towns, and not scattering them 10 and 20 miles from their work, so involving long railway journeys, but it would mean taking them to new centres, where they could have all the advantages of open-air living, and at the same time be quite close to their work.
I believe there is one objection felt by some hon. Gentlemen sitting near to me with regard to this Clause; that is, they do not desire to see public money lent to people who are working for profit, even on this housing question. That is a strained view. It is not a dishonourable thing to work for profit, and it is the only way in which some people can possibly serve the community in the circumstances of to-day. But that is not my answer to that objection. My answer is that this is not a question of lending money to people who are working for profit at all. This is a question of lending money to people who are providing houses at cost price without any profit to anybody, and with great benefit to-the community, and no profit, as I say, in the technical sense, to anybody.
These garden city associations simply have to pay the market price for everything. Of course, if they have to hire capital—which they must have—they have to pay the market price for it. But there is no more profit in one- 2197 of these garden city companies than there is in an ordinary co-operative society. It only happens that these companies are registered under a different Act of Parliament Therefore, I hope that no hon. Gentleman will object to this Clause on the ground that it is contributing public money to private enterprise. It may, however, be said that some of my hon. Friends would much prefer this work was done by elected authorities. That may be. I do not know that I myself object to that in the abstract; but here we are in the presence of an emergency. This Clause only deals with the next three years. During those three years we have got by every means in our power, without pedantically confining ourselves to any one means, to get a supply of houses, so far as we can do so, consistently with sound financial principles. Let me say another thing to those who desire to see this work done by local authorities. It is this: the garden city companies and co-partnership housing schemes have set a great example to the local authoritias. If the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is now engaged in great housing schemes for the development of the housing of this country on the open-order system, it is due to the preliminary work of the garden city companies and the co-partnership housing schemes that he is able to do it. Therefore, I say there is no conflict of interests between the local authorities and the garden cities, for these latter are paving the way for what the others will be able to do.
Letchworth furnishes an instance, a very remarkable example, of the way this matter has been carried forward. Letchworth is intended to be handed over to the local authority when the time comes that the local authority is in a position to take it over. The company is really a trustee for the local authority. In its memorandum of association it is laid down that the company cannot pay more than 5 per cent. to its shareholders, and that rate cannot be altered without going to the Court of Chancery, and getting power to alter it; and any surplus of profit is to be for the benefit of the town and its inhabitants. We know, of course, what capital is costing now, and it may be necessary to get the 5 per cent. altered to 6 or 6½ per cent., or possibly 7 per cent., but that can only be done by the approval 2198 of the Court of Chancery. No question of conflict, therefore, between action by the local authority and these garden-city companies arises on the broad consideration of this matter. There is one other consideration that I would put before the Minister. If you allow this Clause to go through, you make these loans to companies which are putting forward their own money and risking it in the public service, and you will enable these companies during the coming winter to give a good deal of employment which they will not otherwise be able to give; and unemployment during the winter is going to be a thing which we cannot afford to disregard. I earnestly hope the Government will not put on the whips against this Clause.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
May I say in answer to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in relation to his suggestion that these companies are not out for a profit, that I understand when the Letchworth garden-city people wanted the Great Northern Eailway Company to build a station, they asked—I have not the figures before me, but my impression is—they asked £500 per acre for what they had given £40 per acre. The Great Northern Eailway Company went to law and won their case.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I am quite aware of the circumstances, but in addition to giving £40 per acre for the land we had to spend enormous sums on roads, sewers, waterworks, and gasworks, all of which the Great Northern Eailway Company wished to get the benefit of for nothing.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I really think the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Health on this point is remarkably illogical and unsound. The sole objection he has to this Clause— which he says is a good Clause—is that if he takes this Clause into the Bill he will have no arguments to use against other new Clauses. That is unsound.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
That is unsound, and for this reason: This Clause deals specifically with a matter which is already dealt with in Part I of the Bill— the question of houses. To my mind, Part I is the only part of this Bill which 2199 should be proceeded with; the rest of the Bill ought to be dropped. Any Amendment that deals with housing, and that will help us to get houses, ought to be considered on its merits by this House. We ought to postpone dealing with great matters of public health until we can deal with them in a businesslike, and not a piecemeal, manner. This Clause is limited to dealing with houses. It is essential and ancillary to the purposes already contained in the Bill. That marks it off entirely from other new Clauses, such as that which proposes to deal with the protection of meat and cheese from flies. Such a Clause is bringing into the Bill an entirely new subject and set of circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman is quite justified, in the autumn Session, in adopting a line hostile to a new Clause like that. I shall support him in resisting the consideration of such a Clause.
This is primarily a Housing Bill, and garden city companies are setting the one example I want to see followed up and down the country, namely, they are providing houses at an economic rent. They are the only people who at this moment are building houses at really economic rents without a subsidy. That is the thing at which we ought to aim, and that is the one thing by which in the long run you are going to solve the housing problem, and the only way. Whether it is by subsidy to the private builder or to the local authority, it is evident that we have got into a quandary. The garden city people are the best ray of light to-day in the housing situation in this country. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman another question, an I that is, if he does not accept this Clause, where will the Treasury stand?
I understand the Treasury has advanced money to these companies, or is prepared to advance it. I really think that the Minister responsible for housing ought not to oppose something which the Treasury, the guardian of the nation's purse, are willing to concede. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Government, are satisfied with this Clause, I really think that not to proceed with this Clause simply because the Minister may not want to take some other Clause is reducing legislation to a farce. I hope that the right hon. Gentle 2200 man the Member for Mid-Herts will in any case press this Second Reading to a Division, if only for the reasons I have stated. I do urge upon the Minister of Health to give the House a free vote upon this question, and not to put on the Government Whips against this Clause, which he says is a good Clause, and which will help the one thing with which we ought to be dealing in this Bill. I urge him to reconsider his decision this evening and to produce rather better arguments if he wishes to reject the Clause.
§ Major NALL
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not waver upon this matter. We have already got the Government involved as a shareholder in dye-stuffs and sugar growing, and goodness knows what else, and I really do not know how far we shall go if this Clause is adopted. It is all very well for hon. Members to give the case of one particular association which, one rather gathers, has got into difficulties. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then why the need for this money?
§ Major NALL
If this principle is to be extended all over the country there will be absolutely no end to the sums the Treasury may be asked to find. It is an entirely bad principle that the State should be called in to subsidise in this way all sorts of vague enterprises that may or may not succeed. We have no guarantee in this case that it will succeed, and it seems to me that this particular association is amply covered by the provision in Clause 2, where a subsidy is paid for houses privately built. That is as far as we ought to go with the national finances in their present position. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not relax his opposition, and that he will keep the Whips on.
I want to appeal to the Minister of Health to reconsider his decision. The Government have already changed their minds in reference to a previous Clause, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision on this Clause, and not be afraid of the so-called economists in this House. There are two kinds of economists, the stunt economist and> the real economist. The stunt economist strains at a gnat and 2201 swallows a camel, but this Clause is real economy, and does not commit the Treasury any further. This proposal would be a real economy because it would provide for the social welfare of the people, and encourage one of the finest developments of housing in this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that every hon. Member of this House pledged himself to do all he could for housing, will agree to this Clause.
§ Sir RYLAND ADKINS
Whatever may be the merits of this Clause and the grounds for supporting garden city schemes, we must recognise, in view of the general financial position of the country, that it is not desirable to refuse assistance to local authorities who are responsible directly to the public and give it to any public utility society, however
§ admirable its objects. The only possible way of getting this Bill through is not to enlarge or expand it at this stage, and local authorities should have priority. Those who are acquiescing in the limitations of this Bill are bound to protest against it being extended in the direction proposed by this new Clause, however good its object may be, and however admirable its methods. I hope my right hon. Friend will stick to his position, and at this time of the Session it is better to have a comparatively small Bill than risk the passing of the measure by extending it in other directions.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 208.2203
|Division No. 390.]||AYES.||[6.50 p.m.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprlng)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Hallas, Eldred||Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)|
|Barton, Sir William (Oldham)||Hayday, Arthur||Rodger, A. K.|
|Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormsklrk)||Hayward, Major Evan||Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund|
|Birchall, Major J. Oearman||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)||Sexton, James|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hirst, G. H.||Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)|
|Bramsdon, Sir Thomas||Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.||Shaw, Thomas (Preston)|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Hodge, Rt. Hon. John||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Bromfield, William||Hogge, James Myles||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Johnstone, Joseph||Spencer, George A.|
|Cairns, John||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)||Kenyon, Barnet||Thome, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)|
|Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Tillett, Benjamin|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Morgan, Major D. Watts||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consent|
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)|
|Fildes, Henry||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Finney, Samuel||Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Parry, Lleut.-Colonel Thomas Henry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Pownall, Lleut.-Colonel Assheton||Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle and Mr. T.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Thomson.|
|Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.||Butcher, Sir John George||Entwistle, Major C. F.|
|Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent||Carew, Charles Robert S.||Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.|
|Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James||Carr, W. Theodora||Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.|
|Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin||Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withlngton)||Farquharson, Major A. C.|
|Armitage, Robert||Casey, T. W.||Flannery, Sir James Fortescue|
|Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.||Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin||Ford, Patrick Johnston|
|Atkey, A. R.||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Foreman, Henry|
|Baird, Sir John Lawrence||Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill||Forrest, Walter|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Clay, Lleut.-Colonel H. H. Spender||Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Coats, Sir Stuart||Gardiner, James|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham|
|Barnett, Major R. W.||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Gilbert, James Daniel|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Cohen, Major J. Brunei||Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)|
|Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)||Greenwood, William (Stockport)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Coote, William (Tyrone, South)||Greig, Colonel James William|
|Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland||Cope, Major Wm.||Gretton, Colonel John|
|Blair, Reginald||Davidson, J.C.C.(Hemes Hempstead)||Gritten, W. G. Howard|
|Blake, Sir Francis Douglas||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.|
|Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-||Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)||Gwynne, Rupert S.|
|Bowles, Colonel H. F.||Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)||Hallwood, Augustine|
|Brassey, Major H. L. C.||Doyle, N. Grattan||Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)|
|Breese, Major Charles E.||Du Pre, Colonel William Baring||Hamilton, Major C. G. C.|
|Briggs, Harold||Edge, Captain William||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)|
|Bruton, Sir James||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)||Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)|
|Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)||Elveden, Viscount||Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank||Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert||Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)|
|Hinds, John||Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)||Stanton, Charles B.|
|Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Murray, John (Leeds, West)||Starkey, Captain John R.|
|Holmes, J. Stanley||Nail, Major Joseph||Steel, Major S. Strang|
|Hood, Joseph||Neal, Arthur||Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.|
|Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn.W.)||Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)||Stevens, Marshall|
|Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)||Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)||Strauss, Edward Anthony|
|Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Sugden, W. H.|
|Hopkins, John W. W.||Nield, Sir Herbert||Sutherland, Sir William|
|Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)|
|Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)||O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)|
|Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere||Parker, James||Thorpe, Captain John Henry|
|Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Townley, Maximilian G.|
|Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.||Pearce, Sir William||Waddington, R.|
|Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.||Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Perkins, Walter Frank||Ward. Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)|
|Jesson, C.||Perring, William George||Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.|
|Jodrell, Neville Paul||Prescott, Major W. H.||Weston, Colonel John W.|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.||White, Lieut.-Col. G. D.(Southport)|
|Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George||Purchase, H. G.||Whitla, Sir William|
|Kidd, James||Randies, Sir John S.||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Ratcliffe, Henry Butler||Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud|
|Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)||Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.||Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)|
|Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)||Reid, D. D.||Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)|
|Lloyd, George Butler||Remer, J. R.||Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)|
|Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Remnant, Sir James||Wilson-Fox, Henry|
|Lorden, John William||Renwick, George||Winterton, Major Earl|
|Lynn, R. J.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)||wise, Frederick|
|M'Guffln, Samuel||Roundell, Colonel R. F.||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Malone, Ma|or P. B. (Tottenham, S.)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato|
|Manville, Edward||Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Martin, Captain A. E.||Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Yate, Colonel Charles Edward|
|Moles, Thomas||Seager, Sir William||Yeo, Sir Alfred William|
|Molson, Major John Elsdale||Seddon, J. A.||Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H (Norwich)|
|Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.||Shaw, William T. (Forfar)||Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)|
|Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)|
|Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||Smith, Harold (Warrington)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES —|
|Morrison, Hugh||Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander||Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.|
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out down to the word 'houses' ['persons constructing houses'] stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
With regard to the next Clause (Protection of Food Supplies), standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mitcham (Dr. Worsfold), I cannot say that it is out of Order, because the Bill deals with the question of food supplies, but I think it is so far remote from the general purposes of the Bill that I shall be justified in passing it over. The next Clause (Expenses), in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) imposes a charge upon the rates, and the same observation must be made in connection with the following Clause (Expenses and allowances for members of local authorities).
Mr. T. THOMSON
The new Clause standing in my name is part of the original Clause 17, Sub-section (c) as passed, and I would like to know if that fact would alter your decision, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am afraid that does not alter the rule on Report stage that we cannot impose a fresh charge. The same ruling applies to the Clause (Increase in remuneration of officers of local authorities) standing in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. T. Wilson).