CLAUSE 1.—(10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 71.) (Hansard, 22 June 1921)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE
I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words "under Section nine of the Small Landowners (Scotland) Act, 1911."
This Bill provides for the extension of the period, during which, subsidies for housing may be given, to three and a half years in the case of smallholders. This is a most desirable provision, because in the North of Scotland, where land settlement has been taking place, delay in building and other difficulties have prevented these smallholders from getting on with their houses. But as this Bill is drafted it leaves out a most deserving class. Those are the ex-service men who were settled under the Scottish Land Settlement Act of 1919. This extension of time is to be given only in the case of smallholders settled under the Small Land Holders (Scotland) Act, 1911. That is a most excellent Act, but the advantages now-being given should be extended to the ex-service men for whom the Land Settlement Act of 1919 was passed. Why are these ex-soldiers to be excluded from the benefits of this Bill?
The matter was raised in Committee upstairs, and the Secretary for Scotland said that the ex-service men had already got better terms by way of repayment of loans under the 1919 Act than were given under the 1911 Act. That is so, but this Bill does not deal with loans at all. It is a question of extending the period during which subsidies, not loans, can be granted for housing purposes in Scotland. I cannot see why these ex-service men should be excluded from the benefits of this Bill. The Secretary for Scotland mixed up the question of loans and the question of subsidies. Loans were given under the 1911 Act for the purpose of stocking, building, and so on. Admittedly better terms were given under the 1919 Act, but that is no reason why those who come under that Act should not get the advantages which 1480 are being given to their next-door neighbours under the 1911 Act. It will cause enormous dissatisfaction in Scotland, especially in the highlands, if a man who has not served in the War can have his subsidy to build a house extended to 1923, while the man who has served in the War and got his holding under the 1919 Act has got to build his house before July, 1922.

§ Rear-Admiral ADAIR
I beg to second the Amendment. What the hon. Member (Sir J. Hope) has said appeals to me very strongly.

§ Captain W. BENN
I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
We had a definite undertaking from the Leader of the House on Thursday last as to the business to be taken to night. I am a Scottish Member, and hon. Friends of mine are Scottish Members, and we were not informed that this Bill was to be taken. So far from objecting to the Bill I support it cordially, but I would direct attention to the fact that the Leader of the House gave us a definite pledge that the business to be taken would be the first three orders on the Paper, with which we have already dealt, and the Estimates Committee. The Motion as to the Estimates Committee is one of the most important that have been brought before the House for many years, and I protest against an understanding, honourably arrived at in this House, being broken in this way. I protest against it first because hon. Members on this side have had no opportunity of preparing to discuss this Bll. Secondly, I protest because if the Estimates Committee Motion is not discussed to-night it is probable that we shall hear no more about it, and the serious effort which some of us are making to tighten up Parliamentary control of finance will be thwarted. The matters I am putting forward are matters of substance and of good faith, and I invite the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Colonel L. Wilson) to accept the Motion I have made.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I beg to second the Motion. I am very reluctant to accuse the hon. and gallant Gentleman of a breach of faith, but I think the case made out is a very strong case. I daresay what has happened was not intentional, and I hope the hon. and gallant Member will meet us by acceding 1481 to our request. We were told quite plainly that if the three Orders mentioned were taken we would reach the Estimates Committee Motion and no other business would be taken. On that understanding, speaking for myself, I did not intervene in the Church of Scotland Bill Debate. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members laugh. I am very interested in all church questions. I heard part of the Debate, but I carefully absented myself most of the time so as to keep away from temptation. I am certain that if I had spoken on the Church of Scotland Bill I would have brought answering speeches from several of my hon. Friends opposite, and we might have had matters delayed I do not want to waste Parliamentary time. I never do so, but on this occasion I was particularly anxious to help the Government in order that we might discuss the Estimates Committee Motion. Have hon. Members studied the question of this Estimates Committee? It is one of the most important Motions we could possibly discuss.

Sir J. HOPE
On a point of Order. Are we discussing the Estimates Committee or a Motion that the Debate be adjourned?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)
The question is whether we should proceed with the Housing (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill or adjourn the Debate.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I am the last one to thwart this Housing (Scotland) Bill, with which I cordially agree, but we cannot allow Parliamentary bargains to be broken. I am a very young Member of this House, but I have been given to understand that undertakings given behind Mr. Speaker's Chair are sacred and that an undertaking across the Floor of the House is ultra-sacred. I am certain the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is the last person to wish to lay himself open to a charge of breach of faith. I do not think he will lose anything if he grants our request.

§ Mr. HODGE
I think my two hon. and gallant Friends have given the whole case away by saying that they are in favour of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Why do they obstruct it?

§ Captain W. BENN
We are not obstructing it.

§ Mr. HODGE
I always thought that one of the needs of a Parliamentary critic was always to be good-tempered. I have not said what I have said in any offensive way, but when my hon. and gallant Friend says he is in favour of the Bill and he has not put down any amendment to it, I do not see why we should not go on with it and pass it. We are all anxious to avoid an Autumn Session. By getting this Bill through we shall save some Parliamentary time. I appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend to let the Bill go through.

§ Colonel LESLIE WILSON (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)
I hope my hon. and gallant Friend opposite will believe me when I say that I should be the last person to wish that a Parliamentary bargain be broken. It is usual when there are certain small Bills on the Paper, for the Government to get them in order to clear the Paper as far as possible. Although these particular Bills were not put on the Whip, the general understanding is that any small matters which are not contentious shall be taken, if possible. At the same time, I am quite prepared to accept this Motion for Adjournment of the Debate if my hon. Friends press it, because I do not wish ever to be accused of any breach of faith. None the less, I appeal to them to remember that this Bill is very urgently required in Scotland, and that the next Bill, Greenwich Hospital Bill, is entirely non-contentions. It is also essential that we should take the Unemployment Insurance [Payments] Report. It is necessary for the Unemployment Insurance Bill to become law by 1st July, and it cannot be proceeded with in Standing Committee until after the Report stage of the Financial Resolution. The Committee stage of the Financial Resolution was put down as the first Order yesterday, in order that there should be adequate discussion upon it. The House debated the Resolution in Committee for two and a half hours, and I have reason to hope, therefore, that the Report stage will pass without any further comment.

§ Major M. WOOD
We are much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the way he has met us, but I think he is making a mistake in suggesting that the Housing (Scotland) Bill is not contentious. I first raised the question which the hon. and gallant Baronet 1483 (Sir J. Hope) raised in his Amendment to-night, and I was told that I would get an opportunity of discussing it further in Committee. When the Committee stage was reached I was unable to be present and it was with great difficulty that the Committee got a quorum. If my information is right, it was only the forbearance of the Members who were at the Committee that enabled the Government to get the Bill through Committee at all, and it was on the distinct understanding that we would get an adequate opportunity of going into the whole question again on Report on the Floor of the House. We were given to understand that the Bill would not be called to-day, and we are therefore not prepared for it. At any rate, I am not prepared for it, and I wish to be prepared because I was the first to raise the point which has been discussed. Now, the fact that the Government have sprung this on the House without notice, we have not been given that opportunity, and I think this particular Bill ought not to be proceeded with.

§ Sir J. HOPE
I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) to withdraw his opposition. He is an Englishman who represents a Scottish seat. This is a Scottish Bill, and this small Amendment for the benefit of the ex-service men would have gone through if he had not interfered. He has delayed a Bill for Scotland which is urgently required, and has interfered with an Amendment for ex-service men.

§ Mr. A. WILLIAMS
We have heard a most unfair attack upon my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn). This is a perfectly simple question, whether we are to take business which is not down on the Paper and therefore curtail the time for the Estimates Committee, which is a most important matter and for which an hour and a half is certainly not excessive and hardly adequate to deal with it in a proper manner. I hope the business will be taken in the way in which we were given to understand it would be conducted.

§ Rear-Admiral ADAIR
I must protest against this Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate. I greatly regret that it has been moved by a Scottish Member, 1484 as nothing is more important to Scotland at the present moment than housing. Here is a Bill brought forward to deal with this question, and then the Adjournment is moved by a Scottish Member. I regret, too, that a Service Member should second the Adjournment, as the Amendment brought forward is for the benefit of ex-service men. I hope and trust that the Adjournment will not take place.

§ Mr. ACLAND
I rather back up what my hon. Friend opposite said, that, although there has been nothing in the nature of an absolute bargain over the day's business, it would probably mean more speed for the Government in the long run if they would do what it is understood would be done. Let me restate what happened. My hon. Friend came and spoke to two of us on this bench, I think at the beginning of Question Time. He had in his mind that the first three Orders would be taken, and then the Report stage of the Financial Resolution of the Unemployment Insurance Bill if there was time to get that, and if it would still leave reasonable time for the discussion of the Estimates Committee afterwards. If that is so, and it is getting rather late, I suppose there will not be time for the Unemployment Insurance Financial Resolution Debate and the Estimates Committee Motion.

§ Colonel WILSON
As I have said, I am quite prepared to accept the Motion for the Adjournment if it be pressed from the other side. I think I shall be bound to that under the circumstances, but I must ask the House to take the Unemployment Insurance Financial Resolution, in view of the obligation to which I have referred. There will be ample time, after the discussion we had yesterday, to deal with that with the Estimates Committee Motion. On that understanding I am prepared to accept the Adjournment.

§ Captain W. BENN
I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, on the understanding that is given. I take the opportunity of resenting the suggestion by the hon. and gallant Members for North Midlothian (Sir J. Hope) and for Shettleston (Rear-Admiral Adair), which I think they should never have made in this House. They know perfectly well that it is quite untrue to say that I am opposed to the Scottish Housing Bill, and they ought to be ashamed to make such a suggestion.

§ Sir J. HOPE
Arising out of that, I did not say the hon. and gallant Gentleman was opposed to the Scottish Housing Bill, but that he was only acting for his own party purposes. I know he is not opposed to the Bill, but I regret that an ex-service Member should have moved the Adjournment, thereby doing ex-service men a very bad turn.

§ Captain BENN
I am much obliged for the courteous interruption of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is prepared to undertake, say by a quarter to ten, to move the Adjournment of any Debate then taking place in order to carry out the promise of the Government that the Estimates Committee Motion shall be discussed, I will gladly, and I do ask leave to, withdraw the Motion for the Adjournment. If he will give some such undertaking I will withdraw.

§ Colonel WILSON
I am prepared, of course, to accept the Motion for the Adjournment if it be pressed. I must state again that it is essential that we should get the Financial Resolution on the Unemployment Insurance Bill tonight, and I sincerely hope that there will be no long discussion, in view of the time purposely given in the House yesterday. If my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Major Wood) desire to press his opposition to this particular Bill, I must accept the Motion for the Adjournment.

§ Captain BENN
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY for HEALTH for SCOTLAND (Mr. Pratt)
With regard to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Sir J. Hope), the Secretary for Scotland gave an undertaking while upstairs that he would look into a request to include the particular body of smallholders to which the hon. and gallant Baronet's Amendment refers. My right hon. Friend has gone very carefully into the proposal in the Amendment, and is of the opinion that if it were carried it would deprive them of the greater advantages which they now enjoy.

§ Major WOOD
Why?

§ Mr. PRATT
At the present time, as everybody knows, these smallholders receive their grants at a very low rate of interest, 1⅛ per cent. In that way they are at present receiving a subsidy, a form of assistance which is not given to any other smallholder, and of which they would be deprived if they were put in the same position as the other smallholders in regard to the subsidy. They cannot receive both, namely, the low rate of interest on their loans, and, in addition, the subsidy which is dealt with in this Bill.

§ Major WOOD
Why not?

§ Mr. PRATT
Therefore I would suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend should withdraw his Amendment, and let us have this Bill.

§ Sir J. HOPE
Would the Secretary for Scotland quote the words in the Bill before the House which take away the privileges already given to ex-service men under another Act?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. and gallant Baronet may ask a question, but he must not make a speech.

§ Sir J. HOPE
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to quote the exact words?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
No, we are now on the Report stage.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
On a point of Order. I understand the hon. and gallant Baronet has moved an Amendment. That being the case he can speak as many times as he likes, as this is an amended Bill which has come from one of the Standing Committees. There is no question that that is the Standing Order. The Standing Order was made by Sir Henry Camp-bell-Bannerman, in 1907, when the Standing Committees were set up. It provides that any Member who moves an Amendment on the Report stage of any Bill considered in Standing Committee can speak as many times as he likes.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I am afraid in this particular instance the right hon. Baronet has exposed the inexperience of the Chair.

§ Sir J. HOPE
May I ask the Under-Secretary if his argument is that this 1487 Amendment will take away from ex-service men something which they have already got—that is to say, the loans which they now get under a previous Act? Will it prevent them getting those loans on the same terms as at present? Is there anything in the Bill now before the House which in any way interferes with the privileges previously granted to them? What the ex-service men have got they will hold unless the Under-Secretary can show me any words in this Bill which will take their present privileges away from them. All I am asking is that these men shall have terms equal to those given to non-ex-service men.

§ Mr. PRATT
The Bill does not include these men, and they have been left out to protect their present advantages. It is of a temporary character, and when it ceases to operate they will still be receiving greater financial help than they would receive under this Bill.

§ Sir J. HOPE
The Under-Secretary now takes up a different line. He objects to my Amendment because ex-service men have got sufficient already, and therefore are not to have the privileges given to non-ex-service men under this Bill. He has acknowledged he is refusing the Amendment on the ground that the ex-service men have enough now.

§ Major M. WOOD
I feel we have much to complain of in regard to this Bill being taken up at this particular time. I, for my part, only withdrew my opposition to the Bill being taken now, because I understood that this Amendment was going to be accepted. Apparently that is not the case. We have had a speech from the Under-Secretary which seems to me not to have touched the question at issue at all. The arguments which he put forward never attempted to meet those put forward by the hon. and gallant Baronet who moved the Amendment. It is suggested that because ex-service men have got loans on particularly favourable terms therefore they are not to get the benefit of this Bill with regard to the subsidy. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. These loans were previously given to these men on specially favourable terms because they were ex-service men, and that concession did not take into account at all the question of housing difficulties. That 1488 was a question that arose later. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that because they then got loans on favourable terms, they cannot be given the benefit of this Bill as regards a subsidy is entirely wrong. The hon. Gentleman was asked to explain why ex-service men should not get the benefit of this Bill. For some reason known only to himself he refused to answer. What is there to prevent ex-service men getting the benefit of this housing subsidy on exactly the same terms as smallholders are getting it? If we do not get some information on that subject, I think we are entitled to divide on this Amendment. During the Committee stage of the Bill I understood the Secretary for Scotland to say that in the near future ex-service men were going to be raised to the dignity of smallholders, which they are not at the present time. If that is so, some of them will get the benefit of the housing subsidy, and presumably they will still stick to the loans which they have already got and retain them on the same advantageous terms. If it is right that some should enjoy this double benefit, why should not all enjoy it? It seems to me there is a complete case for the Amendment, and that the hon. Gentleman has utterly failed to meet it.

§ Mr. SPENCER
There are two things at issue which should be very clearly understood. Were ex-service men included in the principal Act, and, if they were not, were they definitely excluded because some terms had been given to them of a special character depriving them of the advantage of the two years mentioned in the principal Bill? If there was no special provision made for ex-service men which deprived them of the right to a subsidy for two years, why in the name of Heaven should they now be deprived of a right which was given them under the 1920 Act? If you are going to make special provision now for the extension of the subsidy to one section of the community and there has been no differentiation in the past, why should we now make that differentiation against the ex-service men? If there is to be any differentiation, it should rather be in favour of the ex-service men. These questions have not been answered satisfactorily, and before we pass this we ought to have some definite answer from the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill. Otherwise, if it is taken to a Division, I 1489 shall support the claims of the ex-service men.

Dr. MURRAY
It appears to me the effect of the Bill, as it stands at present, will be to place a great number of ex-service men at a disadvantage as compared with other members of the community. The granting of a loan is in a different category altogether from the advantages conferred by this Bill. Any man, whether he has a loan from the Government for some other purpose or not, may build houses, and if he does so to the satisfaction of the Board of Health will he not received this subsidy? It is quite conceivable that many men who will enjoy this subsidy have shared in the benefits of loans for some other purpose. These men will have to pay back every penny of the loan that has been granted by the Government, but the man who gets a subsidy for building houses will not have to pay that back. Therefore, the man who has the subsidy in addition to a loan, whether he is an ex-service man or not, is placed at a great advantage as compared with the man who is excluded from the subsidy simply because he already enjoys a loan. The position of the Government is not only illogical—we cannot build all our reputations on logic—but it is decidedly unjust to the ex-service men who come under this other scheme and get the loan. I was told on very good authority that this Bill was not to come forward this evening, or else I should have gone further into the question, but I hope the Government will not press it now.

§ Colonel L. WILSON
I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
This Bill is not so non-contentious as I had been led to suppose, and as I do not wish to break any bargain, I make this Motion.