§ Mr. WILLISONA remark which fell from an hon. Member above the Gangway causes me to rise to ask the Minister of Health whether he can do anything to assist in regard to important questions 546 arising in the Nuneaton Division of Warwickshire, which I have the honour to represent. The hon. Member said we were going to build a number of houses soon. We hope that we are going to build them soon, but I am afraid we are not going to build them unless we not only have talk here, but we shall require the Minister to do his best to assist not only local authorities but also private enterprise with regard to the building of those houses. I want to refer to three instances. The papers with respect to one of them have only reached me within the last two or three hours. If I can produce three distinct cases in my own division, and all within a small area, I cannot help feeling that this same state of affairs must exist in other constituencies throughout the country, and if that be so the sooner we have the question dealt with the better.
The question I want to raise is an important one, because it deals with the building of 500 houses in a mining district. The case I refer to is the Arley Housing Scheme. They propose to deal with the building of 500 houses. In accordance with their proposed scheme they appear to have approached the council, who, certainly, told them that, so far as they were concerned, they would do everything they possibly could to assist them in obtaining the subsidy. I think that is the position throughout the country. We find people are anxous to deal with the house shortage, and they believed that there would be a subsidy, and when they applied to their councils they were assured they would be assisted. The people responsible for this scheme appear to have started with 54 houses, and, as I understand it, so far as they are concerned, the position now is, that although the Minister says that in regard to certain houses in this scheme, which have to be completed by a certain date, he is quite prepared to agree that they are entitled to this subsidy, hut so far as the 54 houses are concerned it cannot be allowed. I am assured that the position is that unless they obtain the subsidy, with regard to the 54 houses in question it means interfering with the whole scheme for continuing to build the remainder of the 500 houses.
§ Mr. B. SMITHCan we have a representative of the Ministry of Health present during this discussion?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young)I have nothing to do with that.
§ Mr. T. JOHNSTONIs it not the custom for an hon. Member before raising a question of this kind to give notice to the Minister concerned of his intention?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat may be the custom, but it does not prevent the hon. Member from raising this question.
§ Mr. WILLISONI am not going to allow this opportunity to pass. I am the last man in the world to be discourteous to anybody, but I always thought that if the Minister was not able to be present there would be somebody here connected with the Department. The reason why this subject is pressing from my point of view, and the reason why I have raised it, is because I am assured it is a most serious question in this district, where I happen to know there is a crying need for houses. Do not let us stop a crying need for houses when there seems to be an opportunity for getting on with it, if only the Minister will endeavour not to ginger up his Department, but not to raise too many fine points with regard to the question of a subsidy. The second case I wish to mention shows the difficulty, and again it relates to the Ministry of Health. In that case the Nuneaton Council applied to the Ministry in connection with a housing scheme at Stockton. Their contract was approved by the Minister, and the order was accordingly placed and the work done. Now that the work is completed, and the question of payment arises, the Minister's Department—not the Minister—are seeking to mulct the local council in certain payments with regard to a road. In the original plan these roads were shown, and no point was raised at the time with regard to them, but the Ministry now—not the Minister—raise the point that, inasmuch as these roads go in one place past a school, and in another case past a recreation ground, the local authority shall be called upon to pay a certain proportion of the cost. Naturally, the local authority say that they did not bargain to be burdened in that way, but were endeavouring to deal with the housing shortage, and they resent it so far as that is concerned.
The third case is of a different nature altogether. It is that of a working man, who is also in my constituency, and who had nowhere to take his wife and children, 548 and, accordingly, entered upon a scheme, believing that he was going to get the subsidy. I know it is quite easy to say that he believed he was going to get the subsidy, but, like other working men, he did not wait for the promises of politicians or for Parliament to do this, that or the other; he thought he was dealing with his own housing scheme, and, accordingly, decided to build his house, thinking that he was going to get it in view of the promises that were made. My profession happens to be that of a lawyer, and I have—not as a professional man, but as the Member of Parliament for the Division—gone through the case very carefully with him, and have looked into the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, and the Acts of 1920 and 1923; and it does appear To me that, if the Ministry like to stick to the exact words of the Act, there is a question whether this man is within the Act, and whether he did not start to build too early. This is a very serious matter to him. It really spells ruin to this unfortunate man, and there is no doubt that there are hundreds of other men in the same position. I am not suggesting that the law should be broken, but I am suggesting that the Ministry should construe it kindly.
§ Mr. MAXTONI would be in favour of breaking the law, and not in favour of construing it.
§ Mr. WILLISONAll my life I have been concerned in appearing for gentlemen who have broken the law, and in trying to get them out of it when they have broken the law; and perhaps the next time my hon. Friend breaks the law I may be of assistance to him—or, perhaps, he can break it and get himself out of it. At present I am not proposing to break the law. I do not believe in law-breakers, but in law-abiders. But what I do want is not to break the law but—[An HON"MEMBER: "Bend it!"] Well, to bend it a bit. I do not mind being a law-bender, for I have bent it a good many times, and I hope to bend it again. I am asking whether the Minister will look at this case in a kindly spirit. In view of the point, of Order that was raised just now, and the suggestion that I should have given the Minister notice, I should like to say that I had no idea that I should have the opportunity of getting in. But, in fairness to the Minister and his Department, I should like to say that 549 I went to his Department with regard to all three of these cases, and I met with nothing but courtesy from those who were there concerned. In fact, no one could have been treated better than I was. I was referred to the Minister's own secretary this morning, and he took me to the different Departments that would deal with two out of these three cases, and they have promised to go through the papers and consider the matter, which no doubt they will do. What I want, however, is to get the houses built, and, therefore, I take this opportunity of asking whether the Minister will say to his Department that he desires, where a right thing can be done and houses can be built, that there should be a little kindly consideration so far as his Department is considered, and that the Department should look at this matter in that benevolent spirit. If he does so, and if his Department will do so, I am quite confident that I can convince them that in all three of these cases they will be advantaging and advancing the housing question and dealing with the housing difficulty.