§ Mr. BUCHANANI had arranged with the Secretary for Scotland to raise a question in connection with Glasgow housing, but before I go on to that I 126 would like to say a word in regard to mining. I do not profess to have any great knowledge of mining, but one thing I can never understand is why one sees the miner leaving work with a miserable wage after having performed the most useful function in society and on the same day one can see people who never contributed to our social necessities anything like the labour the miner has put in, leaving the theatres in the West End of London with fabulous wealth in their hands, wealth out of all comparison with their labour. It may be argued that the miner has to contend against foreign competition, but when One looks at the racecourses and sees wealth in abundance in the hands of people who are not as good as the miner, and have not contributed as much as he has to our social wellbeing, and then thinks of the miserably-paid and miserably-housed miner, one cannot but feel that there lies one of the worst condemnations of capitalism. I think with other Members that the Government ought to take steps to help the miners.
The question I wish to raise is of local interest to my native city of Glasgow. Every Member in this House, Labour, Liberal or Tory, will be to some extent tired, I suppose, of hearing of Scottish housing, and even more tired of hearing of Glasgow housing conditions. If one reads the newspapers, and particularly Sunday newspapers, it is seen that the housing and other conditions in Glasgow seem to be gaining a share of prominence they never before received. Whether that be due to the Members from Glasgow now in the House of Commons, or whether it be clue to other causes, it can certainly be said that Glasgow's housing conditions do need to have attention paid to them, and that Glasgow ought to receive as much help as possible in securing a humane standard in housing. I was more than surprised a week last Friday—I am not quite certain of the date—by a report of the proceedings of the Glasgow Town Council. One of the member of the Council, a colleague of mine who represents part of my division, raised the question of why the Glasgow Corporation were not proceeding more rapidly with housing schemes. The answer came from a man who is not a Labour man, but who represents what is termed the Moderate party. The Glasgow Corporation have 127 become more advanced than even we in this Parliament, and they have not even a semblance of the Liberal party there. All they have is the Moderate party, which is the Tory party, or the party representative of vested interests, and the Labour party, or the working class party. There is room for neither Liberal nor independent members. This moderato man is the convener of the Housing Committee, and whatever may be his faults or his failings he has at. least put a certain amount of energy into the question of housing in Glasgow. I want to pay him the tribute that he has at least been energetic in seeking to get something done towards solving Glasgow's fearful problem. It must have been a matter of great concern, not only to the Glasgow Town Council and the citizens of Glasgow, but to those who, like the Secretary for Scotland, are privileged to represent Glasgow here, to read the very deliberate statement made by the convener of the Housing Committee. When asked why certain schemes were being held up he said, according to the "Glasgow Herald" report, that he was glad the question had been raised, as it gave him a chance of stating publicly the facts as he knew them. As far as my recollection of the report is accurate, he said something like this, that the Scottish Board of Health were responsible for passing the plans of the various housing schemes which Glasgow proposed to proceed with, and that certain of them were being held up because the Glasgow Corporation were insisting on a certain standard of housing of which the Board of Health in Edinburgh refused to approve.
I want the House to remember that the Glasgow Corporation have by a majority, a Conservative majority—even the Glasgow Corporation have decided that certain standards in regard to housing are low enough and that they want houses built under certain conditions as regards stone, as regards space and as regards window frontage. Then the Board of Health come along and say, "We are not going to allow you to build those houses, because that type cost £500, and we know of another type which will cost slightly less than £400." They point out that in the slum clearance building schemes stone has not been used such as has been asked 128 for for the three-apartment dwellings, but that they have been built with bricks and with a frontage of some form of plaster and concrete. They ask, "Why do you not apply that system to these houses as well?" and the consequence is that the houses are held up, because even the Tories on the Glasgow Council insist on decent housing conditions for people. It may be argued that the slum clearances schemes have been completed, but my reply is that I do not accept the statement that these houses are good enough. it is not sufficient to lower the standard of the other houses to the slum clearance standard, and what you ought to do is to raise the latter up to the standard of the other houses. A most astounding statement has been made on this subject on behalf of the Board of Health, and if it is not correct, the sooner it is denied the better. It is said that a deputation was sent to Edinburgh to obtain powers to proceed with certain housing schemes in Glasgow at once. It is not merely the housing problem that is concerned, although in Glasgow that problem is tremendously- acute, but in this way you partly raise the problem of unemployment because the Secretary for Scotland knows perfectly well that one of the ways of employing men is the laying out of streets end the making of sewers and roads.
This is largely semi-skilled labour. I do not like to call it unskilled labour because I think all labour to a certain extent is skilled, and as I stated before the Rent Commission, I think the average workman has as much capacity as the average Member of Parliament. The point I want to make is that if this work on housing is held up it means that those who form the semi-skilled section of the community remain out of work. Here we have Glasgow, which is admittedly the most densely populated area in the country, and its population is housed worse than any other place in the nation. The Corporation of Glasgow. which has a majority of Moderate members, are refused facilities by the Secretary for Scotland to obtain the houses which they require. They send a deputation to Edinburgh, and they are told that because the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health is away on holiday in some part of Europe the Board cannot and will not sanction going on with this housing scheme, or even come to any understanding in regard to it. 129 According to the statement made, not by a wild Socialist or even by a timid Labour member, but by a responsible member of the Moderate party of the Glasgow Town Council, they cannot go on with their housing scheme because the Under-Secretary is abroad. Is it not terrible to think that, because the Under-Secretary is on his holidays, a housing scheme should be held up and work kept back simply because the hon. Gentleman cannot be present to sanction a particular scheme. Every 24 hours makes it more terrible for Glasgow, and I raise this matter in the hope that the Secretary for Scotland will at once see that this housing scheme is proceeded with, and that even on the point of cost he is not going to lower the standard. Glasgow has already enough of bad housing, and I do not want to see in the next 10 or 20 years any more monuments to the name of the present Secretary for Scotland in the shape of horrible houses like those which we have now in Glasgow. I think it is the duty of the Secretary for Scotland to see that there is no lowering of the standard, and that every facility is given to the Glasgow Town Council to proceed with their housing scheme. I make no apology for raising this question to-night, although it may be inconvenient, but I do so in the hope that something will he done.
I wish also to say something in reference to another subject of which I have not given notice, and if the Secretary for Scotland cannot answer to-night perhaps he will inquire into the matter. This is a question affecting certain prisoners at Peterhead. Recently a Sinn Fein society made representations to the Secretary for Scotland to grant them facilities for visiting Irish prisoners. The Sinn Fein body is a perfectly legal organisation, and the prisoners they wish to visit come from Ireland. The relatives of these prisoners cannot visit them in the same way as these other persons on account of the expense of travelling from Ireland. Generally speaking, a prisoner in Scotland has committed a crime in Scotland, and his relatives can get access to him and obtain all the prison privileges allowed to his relatives. If, however, you are going to take prisoners from Belfast and the North of Ireland across to Scotland, then you are practically making it impossible 130 for the relatives of those prisoners, owing to the expense, to have contact with those prisoners.
The organisation of which I have spoken is a perfectly legal body, and they have made an approach to the Secretary for Scotland for permission to visit these Irish prisoners, and I think they ought to be allowed to act as deputies for the Irish friends of these prisoners. The members of this organisation say that they will observe all the customs and laws laid down in regard to visiting prisons, and all they ask is that they should have the right to visit these prisoners subject to our laws. These men are prepared to submit 10 names from their organisation and the authorities can inquire into their character. Seeing that the friends of these prisoners live at long distances away it is only reasonable that some other persons should be allowed to deputise for them periodically in regard to visiting these prisoners. I think that that is a reasonable request. After all, it is the only safeguard that a prisoner has that friends should see him periodically to ensure that even a prisoner is being decently treated. I do not wish for an answer on this point now, because I have not given the right hon. Gentleman notice, but I would ask him to inquire into the matter, and see if he cannot give permission to this organisation for its members to visit and keep in touch with the prisoners. I have raised these points in the hope that the Secretary for Scotland will not merely give us sympathy —because we are almost tired of being given sympathy and nothing else—but will give an assurance that on both these matters he will act, and act promptly, and see that the rights of the people are decently safeguarded.
§ Mr. MAXTON:I rise to bring to the attention of the Secretary for Scotland one or two points of which I have not given him notice. I did not expect that this opportunity would have been presented to us this evening, and in any case, if the House had been crowded with Englishmen or Welshmen, I would have refrained from presenting the claims of Scottish people before the House but, since we have, I think, at the moment a working majority of Scotsmen among the 20 or so who are in the House, I think it will be agreed that it is quite legitimate that we should air a few of our national grievances. 131 'One matter that I want to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is. I believe, a British grievance, but, as it is really a financial one, it is felt more keenly in Scotland than it seems to be in England. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has a direct responsibility in the matter, except that we regard him as being responsible for everything that is wrong once we are across the Tweed. It is the regulation by the railway companies, which I think was a War regulation, by which a railway return ticket for a journey or less than 12 miles is only available so far as the return half of the ticket is concerned, for a period of two days. It is an extraordinary piece of sharp practice on the part of the railway companies that they should issue a ticket to a citizen who pays them a sum of money for a double journey, and that, after 48 hours have expired, the railway company refuses to carry out the contract. Within a 12-mile radius of a city like Glasgow, the occasions when people travel, say, from a country town into Glasgow by train, but return by tramcar, are very frequent, owing to the very inadequate train services that the companies provide; and in such a case the return half of the ticket is lost completely. For journeys beyond 12 miles there is a regulation which makes the return half only available for two months. I would like the Secretary for Scotland to find out for us, his humble servants, what is therationalebehind these dates—two days and 12 miles, and two months and beyond 12 miles. Where is the common sense; where is the logic; where is the reasoning? We can see nothing in it but a vexatious desire on the part of the railway companies to annoy the travelling public and to get into their pockets a certain amount of money in payment for services which they have not rendered and have no intention of rendering. This is a matter of very wide complaint amongst. working men in the vicinity of Glasgow, where I live. The regulations may apply in England, but, if the working people of England are prepared to put up with this, the working people of Scotland are going to be very annoyed about it, and are going to make their annoyance felt.
My other point, although a Scottish one, does not come immediately under.
132 the jurisdiction of the Scottish Office, but, if it is allowed to proceed as has been indicated just now, its effects will have to be dealt with by the Scottish Office. It is the suggestion which I understand is being made by the Ministry of Pensions to abolish the one instructional factory in Scotland for disabled ex-service men. It is in the Cathcart Division of Glasgow. Again, I think that this is a very great injustice, and it is going to cause considerable hardship if the disabled ex-service men who are presently receiving their training there are either to have their training interrupted before they reach proficiency or are ready to find employment, or are to be told that, if their training is to continue, they must transfer to some instructional factory across the border in England. In either case there is very great hardship if an ex-service man who has been seriously disabled, who is a married man with children, is asked to stop his training in a factory near his home—to which he can travel every day and from which he can return home every evening to his family—and to come down to some place in England, where it would be impossible for him to find house accommodation for his family, although he might possibly find lodgings for himself. That would be a very grave injustice; and a large proportion of these men would not agree to come away and leave their families, and would simply be thrown on to the street and would become a responsibility with which my right hon. Friend would have to deal through one or other of his public services.
I ask him to bring his greatest influence to bear upon his Cabinet colleague, who is more directly responsible in this matter, to prevent the closing down of this instructional factory, and to allow Scotland to have one of these institutions, s-; that Scotsmen may get their training within the borders of their own country and within reasonable reach of their own homes. I think that a. quiet word from him to his colleague, in that genial manner which he usually adopts with us when refusing to do anything for us, would have a very great deal of influence, and would save much public agitation, annoyance and injury to a body of deserving people. I do not ask or expect an answer from the Secretary for Scotland on either of the points I have raised. What I expect is 133 that he will immediately take action on the matter, as I have suggested. I apologise for detaining the House after the arduous hours they have had earlier in the day, but I hope some other Scottish Member will be able to raise something which will continue the sitting until its normal conclusion.
§ Mr. KIDDI am very glad the hon. Member has raised this matter of the disturbances of the arrangements in Scotland with regard to the instructional training of ex-service men. I need not make any apology to the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench for not having given him notice. Luckily, I have anticipated the remarks of the hon. Member opposite by writing to my right hon. Friend to-day calling his attention to the very great inconvenience and the very natural grievance that is felt in Scotland at the closing down of this instructional institution. We are entitled to look to my right hon. Friend to make the strongest possible representations in the proper quarter, which I presume will be the War Office, to retain this centre in Scotland. It is inconceivable that Scottish feeling in such a matter should be ignored. The inconvenience to Scottish ex-service men will be appreciated even in London. It forces the ex-service man into this ugly alternative, either to break his training, perhaps at a point at which it will be a serious matter to break it, or to abandon his home, change his whole surroundings, and divorce himself from his family, and cause all the heart burning and inconvenience which would be occasioned thereby. I wish to reinforce as strongly as I can all that the hon. Member has most excellently and moderately said, and in saying it I am sure he has reflected the feeling of the Scottish people.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. NEIL MACLEANI want to add my word to the appeal to the Secretary for Scotland regarding the instructional centre. Some two months ago I addressed a question to the Minister of Labour with regard to the sending of almost 20 men from the Cathcart Instructional Factory to a. factory which I understood then to have been in the Midlands. The Minister was good enough, on representations I made to him privately after the question had been answered, to stop the transfer of these men pending some further arrangements being gone into. I am not 134 blaming him, because with so many things in his mind a matter of this kind might easily slip his memory, but I understood that before anything further was likely to be done in regard to the closing of this factory he was going to let me know:and to see if anything further could be den in providing training in or around Glasgow. I am of opinion, and I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, that there are quite a number of very large workshops in Glasgow which are vacant and which would provide a very suitable place for instructional factories, and these exservice men at present under going training at this factory at Cathcart would be able to continue their instruction within easy reach of their homes. To close this factory at Cathcart without opening a similar factory in or near Glasgow would necessarily mean that these men would be away from their wives and families, living in hostels and very seldom having the opportunity of returning to their homes. I am certain the Secretary for Scotland and the Minister of Labour will agree that these men, in the unfortunate position in which some of them are, of being badly broken in the War, are much more comfortable in their own homes in the evening after they have finished their day's instruction than they would he living in a hostel or in lodgings in some other part of the country. I therefore hope the Secretary for Scotland will do his best to induce the Minister of Labour to look about in Glasgow for premises which would be suitable for transferring the present instructional factory at Cathcart.
I should also like to reinforce the request my hon. Friend has made re travelling facilities in Glasgow and the ticket question. The Secretary for Scotland is perfectly well acquainted with the details of the Scottish railways, because at one time, prior to taking office in the Coalition Government, he was a director of the old Caledonian Railway Company. I take it therefore that he is fairly familiar with the conditions of travelling in Scotland and with many of the regulations that apply to it. We are now approaching the holiday period, during which invitations will be put into advertisements in all parts of the country to visit London and see the exhibition at Wembley. It is rather 135 curious that while we in London can book a tourist ticket from London to Glasgow at a cheaper rate than the ordinary ticket, with greater privileges than are possessed with the ordinary ticket, you cannot from any of the three terminal stations in Glasgow book a tourist ticket to London. Evidently the railway authorities are of the opinion that while Glasgow is a holiday centre for the people of London, London is in no way a holiday centre for the people of Glasgow. Surely there is something absurd there. By paying an extra 4d. at any of the three stations in Glasgow you can book on to Brighton. A man comes to London, spends a day there, goes on to Brighton, has a holiday there, comes back to London, finishes his holiday, and returns to Glasgow, only having paid 4d. more than the ordinary return fare to London. These are the absurd arrangements of the railway companies of this country. They will not give facilities from far-distant stations, but for an additional 4d. one can go 50 miles from London to Brighton and 50 miles on the return journey, making 100 miles for 4c1. I do not think- one could get it as cheap as that on the German or French State railways. The same thing applies to stations even nearer than Glasgow.
The Secretary for Scotland knows that two-thirds of Scotland is closed for train travelling from Saturday night until Monday morning. You can get to Callender and Aberdeen, but I think those are the furthest points north that you can get in the train on Sunday. Therefore, two-thirds of Scotland is a closed book to the travellers unless they are fortunate enough to possess motor cars. The railway companies block any further travelling at the week-ends to the north of Scotland and the centre of Scotland.
Nor is that all: the Secretary for Scotland knows that when the 25 per cent. was taken off the fares in England it was not taken off the fares in Scotland. In the first place, 50 per cent. was added to the pre-War fares, and then a further 5 per cent., making an addition of 75 per cent. over the pre-War rates. When the railways were grouped, the 25 per cent. increase was taken away in this country, leaving only 50 per cent. over pre-War rates, but the 25 per cent. was 136 not taken off the fares in Scotland. We still pay the same fare from Glasgow to Aberdeen as when the full 75 per cent. was on. The same thing applies to the fares between Glasgow and Elgin, Glasgow and Inverness, Glasgow and Wick, and Glasgow and Thurso. In pre-War times, one could get from London to Inverness for 3 guineas, and a person could come from Inverness to London for practically the same figure, with six days allowed for completing the out ward journey and six months allowed to complete the return journey. To-day on ordinary fares only three days are allowed for completing the outward journey and two months for completing the return journey. I suggest to the Secretary for Scotland that he should get something done, in conjunction with the Minister of Transport, to deal with these matters. The railway companies are now trying to manage the railway system of Scotland from offices in London. They will find it impossible.
We are told a great deal about restoring trade. What happens in Scotland Travelling from Glasgow to Gleneagles you may have a man sitting beside you, dressed in plus-fours and with golf clubs on the rack. That man will be going to Gleneagles on a cheap golfer's ticket, and he pays less for travelling about 20 miles more than the commercial traveller who goes to Stirling to book orders which will find work for the people of Glasgow. The commercial traveller pays several shillings more than the man who is travelling 20 miles further to play at golf, and yet we are told about developing industry. I would ask the Secretary for Scotland to get something done to stop this absurd arrangement of the railway companies.
People in Scotland are leaving the railways and travelling long distances by motor chars-a-bane. The railway companies say that they cannot do this or that because the revenue is not there. They have only themselves to blame. They are not catering for the travelling public. One would imagine that they do not want the public to travel. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to go into these matters. He will find that the complaints which we have raised this evening with regard to the railways are sound complaints which require consideration and demand to be redressed in the interest of the travelling public of Scotland.
§ Mr. STEPHENI wish to raise several matters, of which I have not given notice to the Secretary for Scotland. With regard to one of them, however, I raised it before the recess, and I have not been able to get a definite answer. In Scotland we have had a Rent Commission sitting and its proceedings have aroused a great deal of interest. I asked the Secretary for Scotland whether in view of the general interest in the proceedings of the Committee, he would make it possible for every Member of this House to have a copy of the evidence submitted to the Commission. When I was in Glasgow during the recess I found in conversation with various people that it is regarded as of the greatest importance that we should be able to have the evidence in a handy form, because of the questions involved. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when we shall get the Report of the Commission, and what action the Government is going to take on the Report. I hope he will be able to take us into his confidence in regard to this matter.
With respect to the railways, I do not in the least object to Scottish people being allowed to travel an extra distance from London to Brighton for 4d. As a Scotsman I am willing to take that extra fourpennyworth; but I do think that the Secretary for Scotland has been a little remiss in regard to the injustice that is being inflicted upon us by the railway companies. I will give an illustration. The right hon. Gentleman will have had the experience when he has been coming to London for a period of exile from his own country, of some of his friends going to the station to see him off. Those friends would have to pay 3d. for a platform ticket in order to see the Secretary for Scotland off the premises. At Euston or any other English station one can get a platform ticket for a penny. I do not see why the Scottish people should have to contribute three times more to the revenue of the railway companies than the English people are required to pay for a platform ticket. I am sure that a joint representation by the Secretary for Scotland and the Minister of Transport to the railway company would have this matter remedied, and that we should get the penny ticket just the same as the Sassenach gets it. With regard to the instructional factory in Cathcart, my own constituents view with the greatest 138 apprehension the action of the Government in this matter. I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will use his influence in the Government to see that the desires of Members of all parties in _this House, representing Scottish constituencies, in reference to this matter shall receive sympathetic consideration, and that this instructional factory shall be retained. I am sure that when the Secretary for Scotland explains to the Cabinet that the Tories and the Socialists in Scotland are united on this point, the Cabinet will be agreeable to granting the request. I hope that we shall get the penny tickets and keep the factories and obtain soon the evidence in connection with the rent.
§ The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND(Sir John Gilmour)Scotland sometimes complains that it has no opportunity of putting its case in this House, and I make no complaint that this occasion should be used for that purpose. It is perhaps right that I should say at. the outset that most of the questions which hon. Members have raised fall outside my province. The duties of the Secretary for Scotland are various, but I am sure that I should have the sympathy of my hon. Friends opposite if I were to resist the imposition of further duties upon myself. Possibly, however, the opportunity which has been taken of raising these questions will draw the attention of those principally concerned. I can only say that I am willing, at the request of hon. Members, to discuss these matters with those who are primarily concerned. I cannot say any more than that.
Various Members have raised the question of the training institution for ex service men. I have to-day received cam, munications on this matter from various quarters, Members of this House, and other quarters. I will make it my business to inquire into this matter at -once. I cannot, of course, commit myself in any way on the question, but I think that I can say, at any rate, that my sympathies are with those who desire to keep at least one of these institutions for the training of ex-service men in Scotland, and I shall do what I can in that regard. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) referred to the question of visiting prisoners in Peterhead. I have not had that matter brought to my notice, and I cannot say anything at the moment 139 on it except this, that I am afraid that it is not an easy thing to make any concession to any society, because if one society is permitted then that would open the door to other societies, but, of course, as I have not seen the details of the subject, I will look into it.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWill the right hon. Gentleman inquire into it and give me a reply?
§ Sir J. GILMOURCertainly. Then we come to the other question, which is the main one. That is the question of housing in Glasgow. There is no difference of opinion between any of us as to the serious condition of housing in Glasgow. Nor, indeed, would there be any difference between any of us as to any efforts which either we individually, as Members of this House, or I, as the Secretary for Scotland, or head of the Board for the time being, ought to make to try to improve those existing conditions. But when we come to deal with the particular complaint as to holding up a scheme of houses in Glasgow by the Board of Health, I have to say that I am the first to admit the energy and enterprise of the Glasgow Corporation, and I am anxious to support them and to give them the fullest opportunity to fulfil their work, but, on the other hand, it is the duty of the Board of Health, as it is my duty as the head of that Board for the time being, to resist the efforts of any local authority which proposes to enter upon the building of houses which, in our opinion, are unduly extravagant.
After all, the only reason we do that is in the interests of the people for whom we believe these houses are being built, for if the Government or the Department concerned were to say, "We would much rather have stone houses and much rather see bow windows and all the additions that are possible," and if they chose to say that they would give a free hand in this matter, then the prices of house building throughout the whole country would soar to the same extent as they did in the unfortunate scheme which we had under the Addison administration, which brought the whole housing problem into a very deplorable condition. I am as anxious as anybody to see a high standard of housing in this 4Rountry, but it is the duty of the Board 140 of Health and it is my duty to resist any great extravagance. I was, like the hon. Member, absent for a short period. 1 was in. Scotland the other day, and my attention was drawn to the statement made by some members of the Glasgow Corporation that, because the Under-Secretary for Health was absent from Scotland no decision could be come to on a question of this kind. That is not the case. These matters were brought to the Board of Health in the ordinary course of administration, and representatives of the Glasgow Corporation attended to convince the Board that they were right. The Board, in my judgment, very properly refused to give way to the extent that the Corporation demanded.
These matters were brought to my notice. I have myself seen representatives of the municipality in question and I have told them that so far as I am concerned this is a. matter of detail which no doubt would form a topic of conference between the Board of Health and representatives of the municipality with myself or the Under-Secretary present, or, possibly, both. In those circumstances, perhaps, it would be a mistake for me to say more, but I want to make it clear that the Board's refusal to sanction this extravagant scheme, which is really just a small part of the main scheme of house building, has my full approval unless and until I am convinced by the corporation that there is a just reason for altering it. But there is evidently a mistaken idea on the part of some people in Glasgow that the corporation should he left free to go into any scheme, however extravagant it may be, without check, and that on the other hand they have not been fairly treated. I am quite certain that that is not the case. The fullest consideration has been given by the Department to my knowledge, and while I have not full details of the figures with me, because I had no notice of the raising of this question until this evening, I will say that the best and most suitable arrangement for settling this question is that a conference should take place.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN:It is not sufficient to say there should be a conference held. In the meantime the houses are being held up, employment is being refused to men, and the work is not going on My point is as to whether he can say whether 141 the conference is to be held and if he will take steps for it to be held within the next few days. I think it is a most urgent matter; if he can assure me that that conference will be held in the immediate future it would do something to modify my opinion in this matter.
§ Sir J. GILMOURThe matter was brought to my attention on Saturday, and my instructions were given to the. Board on Saturday that arrangements should be made to hold a conference as soon as possible, and I said it was immaterial whether my hon. and gallant Friend Captain Elliot was there or not. I would meet the deputation myself.
§ Mr. STEPHENWill the right hon Gentleman tell us about the publication of the Report?
§ Sir J. GILMOURI beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I have not yet received the Report of this Commission, and, until I do, it is impossible for me to give' any undertaking. I have reason to believe that I may receive the report of this inquiry comparatively soon.
§ Mr. STEPHENLet us have the evidence apart from the Report. It would be of very great service to us in making up our minds with regard to the consideration of the Report afterwards, 142 if we could get that evidence collected and published.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI have already said that I will give consideration to that, but I must point out that the evidence taken at this inquiry has been published, and has been, in the main, published in the Press, and, of course, if it is to be a question of publishing the whole of the evidence, that adds very materially to the cost, and that is a question on which I must reserve my opinion until I see the whole circumstances.
§ Mr. STEPHENThe right hon. Gentleman will excuse me with regard to this. What is under dispute is that some of the evidence that told strongly in favour of the tenants' case was not published in the newspapers, whereas the evidence that tended the other way did get published and had a bigger space in the Press. Will he take that point into consideration, that these newspapers, dependent to a very big extent for advertisement purposes upon the factors and property owners in Glasgow, published a side of it that seemed to show the property owners' ease more effectively?
§ Sir J. GILMOURCertainly.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty nine Minutes after Nine o'Clock