§ Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
§ [Mr. JAMES Hoer; in the Chair.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to promote the provision of housing accommodation for agricultural workers and for persons whose economic condition is substantially the same as that of such workers and the improvement of such accommodation, by authorising the giving of financial assistance towards the reconstruction and improvement of houses and other buildings, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Health under the said Act, including any contributions made by him towards any expenses incurred by a local authority in making grants under the said Act in respect of dwellings, subject always to the following conditions:
Provided that where a grant is made by the provision of periodical sums the amount of the grant shall be taken to be an amount equal to the capital value of the sums to be so provided, calculated as on the date of the completion of the works;
(c) any such contributions shall be made by way of annual payments for a period of twenty years from the completion of the works in respect of which the grant was made and shall be an amount equal to one-half of the estimated average annual payments falling to he made by the local authority in respect of the charges on account of loans raised by the authority for the purposes of grants, or which would have fallen to be so made if the sums expended by the local authority on account of the grant has been raised by means of loans."—[King's Recommendation signified.]
§ The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain)It is my duty this afternoon to ask the Committee to give its sanction to the payment out of the 1864 Exchequer of certain contributions in aid of the provision and improvement of housing accommodation for agricultural workers and for persons who are substantially in the same position. The Committee will remember that in the Bill—the Second Reading of which was passed by this House on 3rd August last—provision is made for assistance for this purpose, either by way of loan or by way of grant, but as Exchequer contributions are only contemplated in a case where assistance is given by way of grant, I propose, in the very few observations with which, I think, it is necessary to trouble the Committee, to confine myself to that side of the proposal.
It will be seen, by reference to the Resolution, that the giving of contributions by the local authority, aided by grants from the Exchequer, is accompanied by certain conditions, and to those conditions I will call the attention of the Committee. First of all, there is the limiting condition with regard to time. It is proposed that the operation of the provision enabling these grants to be made, shall last only for a limited period of time—namely, five years, and application for assistance under the Bill must, therefore, be in the hands of the local authority before the 1st October, 1931. I think the reason for that limitation is fairly obvious, because the number of houses and other buildings which can be affected by these proposals is strictly limited, and it is very desirable, in the opinion of the Government, that if they are to be improved, they should be improved at the earliest possible moment. We have, therefore, provided a limit for the time during which the special terms shall he available, and we think we have given all reasonable opportunities for people to take advantage of them.
The second limiting condition is a limitation of amount. It is provided under the Resolution that the contributions of the local authority and the Exchequer put together shall not exceed two-thirds of the total cost of the alterations which are to be carried out, and, moreover, that they shall be subject to a maximum sum of £100. It is also provided that the Exchequer grant is to be half of the total contribution made by the local authorities, and it thus follows that the expense of the proposed alterations 1865 will be borne in three equal shares by the owner, by the local authority and by the Exchequer. Each of them will contribute one-third of the cost, and the maximum amount which will be demanded of the Exchequer in the case of any single house will be £50. There is also in the Resolution a condition as to the method in which the contribution is to be made. It takes the form, which is familiar in housing legislation, of an annuity for 20 years. The contribution in that form will be made in respect of the loan charges contracted by the local authority which borrows money for the purpose of making these contributions.
The conditions which are embodied in the Resolution do not include all the conditions which are found in the Bill. In Clause 2 of the Bill there are other conditions limiting the amount of the improved value of the dwelling, and also specifying that a certain minimum sum must be expended to enable contributions to be made. I have deliberately left those particular conditions out of the Resolution, for the reason that none of them, it seemed to me, was vital to the principle of the Bill, but more a matter for discussion in Committee; and it would hardly have been fair to the Committee to tie their hands in discussions on those points by drawing the Resolution in such a rigid form as to exclude any such discussion. I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more about the Resolution itself, nor do I think it necessary to go over all ground which I covered when describing the Bill on Second Reading, but there are just a few points on which I might add a word in connection with the Bill. These concern, first of all, the nature of the work which we contemplate will be done; secondly, the persons to whom the contribution will be made; and, thirdly, the character of the local authority which we propose shall be the responsible body.
§ The CHAIRMANWith regard to the last point, I can hardly see how that can arise on this Resolution; otherwise we should have a repetition of the Second Reading Debate.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI had thought that as the Exchequer contribution had to be paid to a local authority and administered by them, that possibly the nature of that authority would be 1866 relevant to the Resolution; but if that is not, so I do not wish to press that point.
§ The CHAIRMANIf the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the successful operation of this Resolution depends on the character of the local authority and their powers of repayment, I could not object to his observations on that point, but, obviously, it would open the way for a much wider Debate than I thought was contemplated.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINIn that case I think I will omit all reference to the authority, and leave that to be discussed, as no doubt it will be fully discussed, in Committee. As to the nature of the work, that will be found described in the Second Clause of the Bill, where certain particular kinds of alterations are specified. I notice that there is on the Paper an Amendment to leave out the words
and other buildings.I am at a loss to understand why objection should be taken to those words.
§ The CHAIRMANThose words are merely a repetition of the words in the long Title of the Bill, and their inclusion or rejection will make no practical difference, and therefore I do not propose to accept that Amendment.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI will have one more try, and say that the only other point to which I had proposed to make any allusion was the person to whom the contribution was to be paid. I am not at all sure whether I shall be in order in doing so, after what has fallen from the Chair, and I think I will confine myself to this observation, that in putting conditions into the Bill we have endeavoured to secure that the Exchequer contribution shall inure to the benefit of agricultural workers and of other persons in substantially the same condition as they are, and that it shall not be diverted to the personal profit of the landlord, or to other tenants who are not of the character described in the Resolution.
§ Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEWill this Measure apply to crofters' houses in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINThere is no reason why it should not.
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will elucidate further—
§ The CHAIRMANA habit has grown up of putting questions immediately after a Ministerial statement, and sometimes developing those questions into speeches. I would remind hon. Members that on the present occasion we are in Committee, and that the Minister and others can speak more than once. If the hon. Member will defer his observations, I will keep an eye on the quarter of the House in which he sits.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI feel somewhat nervous in rising as a result of the attitude of mind towards the discussion that the Chairman revealed when pulling up the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Resolution; because I do not know that I can hope to succeed, where he has failed, in keeping within the very narrow limits which have been laid down for the discussion. We on this side object to the Resolution as we objected to the Bill of which the Resolution is the soul. There is one interesting thing about the Resolution to which, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me to refer. It reveals to the Committee more clearly than anything which has yet been said or introduced the real mind of the Government with regard to working-class housing. We are invited to-day to increase expenditure on the patching of old houses. Later in the Session, according to information submitted by the Prime Minister, we are to be called on to reduce the public expenditure on the provision of new houses. That is a reversion of the traditional Tory policy. Anything which the party opposite has done in the way of contributing to a solution of the housing problem during recent years is something into which they have been forced and for which they deserve no credit. The traditional policy is that while houses are legally healthy and commercially profitable, they ought to be privately owned. It is only when they become unhealthy and unprofitable that the State is expected to come in as a relieving officer to the owners. The party opposite are traditionally hostile to Socialism in new houses, but they are traditionally favourable to Socialism in regard to slums. They have a happy knack of 1868 serving this policy in phraseology calculated to appeal to the highest human sentiments. When we are dealing with the city it is described as a slum clearance. Pictures are drawn of the conditions in which the people in the slums dwell, and a slum dweller is painted almost as a person who brought his slum with him into the world. In fact, it is considered part of his original sin, and a Conservative statesman poses as his redeemer. If people on this side of the House for any reason raise an objection to the expenditure of public money on a policy such as this, then they are painted as defenders of the slums and oppressors of the poor.
§ Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEOn a point of Order. I would like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman is in order in going so very far from the subject?
§ The CHAIRMANI think the right hon. Gentleman is only stating certain premises. I am awaiting the conclusions; but I cannot wait indefinitely.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI wish to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience, and I will not trespass upon your ruling, or on the feeling—I hope the shameful feeling—of the hon. Member opposite, or upon your impartiality in the Chair. In this Resolution the policy is referred to as the improvement of houses. Of course, this is a very respectable garment, but I think we are entitled to examine what is underneath. According to the Resolution, financial assistance is to be given for the reconstruction and improvement of houses and other buildings for agricultural labourers, and persons whose economic conditions are similar to those of such labourers. I want to draw the attention of the Committee, first of all, to the fact that this financial assistance is asked for a particular section of the population. This is what Conservative speakers are accustomed to call class legislation. The stockbroker and the company promoters are not to share in the beautiful buildings which are to accrue from the expenditure of this public money. On the other hand, their ill-gotten gains are to be levied for the benefit of the agricultural labourers, and persons who may hope one day to be as poor as the agricultural labourers are now. 1869 I think Conservative speakers are accustomed to call this legislation for the favoured few and to regard the policy as in some way a violation of one or other of the Ten Commandments. I think this is important, and I submit it because I am afraid of trespassing on your ruling. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the money we are asked to vote here is not to be spent solely on the repair of dwelling-houses, but it is to be spent partly on the reconstruction or alteration of new buildings. I think that is a very important part of the Resolution, and one which the Committee is entitled to have made clear.
§ The CHAIRMANThe operative words are in respect of dwellings.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI may have misread the Resolution. I submit this point for your ruling because it is very important at this stage, and at this point we should have a ruling. If the sum asked for here is voted by the Committee to-day, will it be within the power of the Minister, or the party to whom he delegates his authority, to spend a part of that money on the alteration or reconstruction of any building that is not now a dwelling-house?
§ The CHAIRMANThe words are limited to dwellings.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINMay I call your attention to line 6 of the Resolution, which says, "and other buildings"?
§ The CHAIRMANI have already pointed out that those words are quite inoperative, and have only been put in to identify this particular Bill.
§ Mr. TAYLORIn the first Clause of the Bill as printed the word "buildings" is used, and it says "houses or buildings" and not other buildings. As we have had no explanation from the Minister on this point in his Second Reading speech, perhaps you, Mr. Chairman, could now give us a ruling as to what that means?
§ The CHAIRMANThe money must be spent only on dwellings. I think that is quite clear.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYIt is not my usual custom to come to the assistance of the Government, but I hope I am not mis- 1870 interpreting their view when I say their intention was to use the financial resources of this Bill for the purpose of reconstructing or altering other buildings that are not in the nature of dwelling-houses for the purpose of being used in the future as dwelling-houses. If your ruling is to stand and it is to be quite clear that through the passing of this Measure the House is not putting any power into the hands of the Government or of its delegates to reconstruct such buildings and convert them into dwelling-houses, then, I think, a considerable portion of our opposition to the Bill falls to the ground.
§ The CHAIRMANThe contribution must be for a dwelling, but, whether a dwelling may include an out-house or not, it cannot be a contribution to general agricultural improvement. I do not say that it cannot be used for conversion into a dwelling of something which is not now a dwelling.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI think that to some extent clears the air. At any rate, it confirms my view of the Bill, and it harmonises with the acquiescence expressed by the Minister of Health in the view when I submitted it to him. The money that we are asked to vote here, as you have ruled, may be used for the purpose of so altering a building that heretofore has not been used as a dwelling-house that in future it may be used as a dwelling, and the Committee is entitled to consider the class of building to which this provision may be applied. You, Sir, have referred to out-houses. I do not know what is the legal distinction between an out-house and a stable, but I have no doubt that a shrewd lawyer would include a stable within the description of an out-house. At any rate, it is well known that part of this money, in pursuance of this policy, may be used for the conversion of stables into dwelling-houses.
Scattered all over the country, and particularly in the country districts, we have a large number of stables that are no longer required for their primary purpose by the owners. No real gentleman now drives out in his carriage and pair; indeed, no real gentleman would house his favourite motor car in one of these obsolete stables. Yet it is a pity, in the view 1871 of these English gentlemen, that this property should be allowed to decay. There is a shortage of housing accommodation in the country. A gentleman may feel that for one purpose or another he requires another labourer. There is no housing accommodation available for that additional labourer, and, even if there be, the wages which the gentleman is prepared to pay to the additional labourer would not, if it were all spent in rent, meet the present economic rent of a healthy, desirable house. So, what should me more natural than that there should emanate from the political party of that gentleman a proposal to put the labourer where he would not put his car? We have now reached the stage where "Stables for the workers" is a plank in the Conservative programme.
After all, if you consider the history of that party, this is not a long step in degeneracy from where they have already arrived. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says—sotto voce, I suppose, is the term—that this is a speech for the platform. This is not a Resolution for the platform, unless it be for the platform in which we are to see the temporary seclusion of the Conservative party. As I was about to say before being interrupted from a quarter from which we do not expect interruption, this is not a long step in the degeneracy of the Conservative party with regard to the housing of the working classes. We have all been accustomed to the policy of large dilapidated houses, once occupied by the rich, being made do for the poor. Those who have some experience of local authority work, and I am sure those who are acquainted with the work of the Ministry of Health, know quite well that these houses are usually the slummest of the slum. They were not originally constructed for a large number of families and to make them hygienically suitable for their new purpose would very frequently cost more than the erection of new houses. No one expects local authorities or anyone else to spend unnecessarily on the provision of shelters for the poor. Any old thing is supposed to do. So, no matter how far these fell short of human requirements, the poor were packed into them in a manner which resulted in an accumulation of disease and in unnecessary human distress. As I have said, this is only one 1872 step further. Instead of asking the workers to be content with the leavings of the rich, they are now inviting them to be satisfied with the leavings of the animals. I do not know how long the Conservative party, on the slippery slope, may be content to rest even here. One day they may find fresh uses for their kennels, but for the moment, and perhaps only for the moment, a Conservative statesman, if I may paraphrase words well-known in English poetry, treats the agricultural labourer as
A little higher than his dog,And a little lower than his horse.Naturally, we cannot subscribe to such a policy. We rate the agricultural labourer a little higher than the horse, indeed, although hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may regard it as extravagance and, perhaps, blasphemy, we rate the agricultural labourer as higher than the stockbroker and higher than the company promoter. In our opinion, he is more essential to the life of the nation, and being more essential to the life of the nation than either of the professional gentlemen to whom I have referred, he ought, in our opinion, to be at least equally well housed.
§ Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELDWhy does he always vote against you?
§ Sir WILLIAM DAVISONHe knows who are his friends. That is why he votes against them.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYHon. Members opposite are naturally irritated at a public exposure of their real views regarding the treatment of the man from whom they obtain their daily bread. Some of them may be inclined to say that they agree with us that the agricultural labourer is worthy of a better dwelling than the one contemplated in this Resolution. They will, I hope, tell us that they agree with me that he is worthy of a better dwelling than the rejected stable of a horse—
§ Mr. WHEATLEY—or the out-house towards the conversion of which this money will probably be used. But they say that we must face the economic facts. Stockbrokers and company promoters have very good houses—
§ Major COLFOXAnd trade union leaders!
§ Mr. WHEATLEY— — because the economic facts of the present system entitle them to that type of house. They say, in regard to the agricultural labourer, that he must be prepared, like all other sections of the community, to face the economic facts in his desire for a higher standard of living. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, Hear!"] I am very glad that an hon. Member on the other side, speaking, I suppose, for his party, agrees to that being the view that is behind the Government. But this Resolution does not ask the agricultural labourer to face the economic facts. This is a Resolution which asks for a subsidy. The economic facts, as submitted by the party opposite, are that the farmers of this country cannot, out of the price which they obtain in a competitive system for their produce, pay a standard of wages that will enable their labourers to pay the economic rent of a healthy and a desirable house. That is the view of the party opposite, and I have no doubt that there is a considerable amount of substantial foundation for that view. I do not think that the farmers of this country have any monopoly of hard-heartedness. I believe that there must be among them many humane gentlemen who would prefer to pay £4 a week than 30s. a week to their labourers. But the party opposite would say that the economic facts are against them, and not only are they unable to pay anything like a decent living wage, but they are unable to pay the labourers the wages that would allow those labourers to pay the economic rent of even the very small houses that are provided for the working classes to-day; and so, instead of facing the economic facts, and saying to those labourers, "The economic conditions do not allow you to have any kind of house," they come and ask this Committee to vote national money to subsidise the agricultural industry to an extent that will enable it to house its workers according to the standard contemplated in this Resolution.
Had the Government or the party opposite stuck to the economic facts, could understand it, but this is not a Resolution based on recognition and acceptance of the economic facts; it is a Resolution that recognises but ignores the 1874 economic facts, or, in so far as it does not ignore them, says, "The agricultural industry is essential to the life of the nation; the agricultural labourer is essential to the life of that industry; the industry itself, in a competitive system, cannot provide the requirements, even the very minimum requirements, of the agricultural labourer, and, therefore, we come to the whole nation, of which the agricultural industry is an essential part, and we ask the whole nation, out of its surplus, to provide the subsidy that will enable the agricultural labourer and the agricultural industry to live." That is the attitude of the Government; that is the policy adopted by the Government; and, as I have said, if they had stuck to an economic basis, one could have sympathised with their difficulties, but could have understood their policy.
I do not say that I am opposed to the general principle behind this Resolution. I am prepared to go very much further and to say I am prepared to accept it whole-heartedly. But what I do object to here is the particular form of this application. The Government ask us to provide money, and thereby to accept responsibility for the housing of the agricultural workers. They say, "The farmers can no longer accept the responsibility; we come here and we ask the State to provide money, and thereby to accept the responsibility, for the housing of these people." What I object to most strongly is that, while asking the State, or asking this Committee, to accept responsibility for the housing of these workers, they ask us to spend our money on houses such as these. If the State is to accept responsibility for housing agricultural workers, should not the State house those workers in a manner creditable to the State? And is anyone in any quarter of the Committee going seriously to argue that it will be to the credit of the State that these workers will be housed in the conditions in which they will domiciliarily exist when the provisions of this Resolution have been put into operation? It is not as if the State could not afford to house its agricultural workers properly. The State spends £300,000,000 in paying interest on the War debt to people who have surplus wealth. In my opinion, the agricultural labourer has a prior claim on the generosity of the State. We have millions 1875 of people in this country, giving much less useful service to the country than the agricultural labourer, who revel in luxury and in surplus wealth. We on this side would use part of that surplus for the provision of a decent standard of living for that section of our workers who are probably the most useful in the maintenance of Britain's prosperity.
I want to say, in conclusion, that this policy is based on a. belief that there is no future for British agriculture. It is based on the idea that it is folly to provide new houses in those districts, and that, as the end of British agriculture is in view, you should devote a certain amount of public money to patching up the old houses, because they will serve the purpose for the short time for which houses will be required. That is a most pessimistic and, I submit, a most unpatriotic view to come from the party opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "It comes from you!"] If I am wrong in my interpretation of the views of the party opposite—[An HON. MEMBER: "You are!"]—why should they not pursue a policy of erecting houses—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are!"] —healthy dwelling-houses in which we may have a healthy agricultural community half a century from now? Why should they be supporting a Government whose policy it is to withdraw the necessary financial support from the erection of new houses, and to divert only a part of it to the patching and maintenance of the old? It is because, in their soul, they know that the system for which they stand offers no permanency to Britain and no permanency to any of its particular industries. We on this side of the House take a more optimistic view of our country. We believe that the agricultural labourer will outlive the company promoter; we believe that, long after the company promoter has been forgotten, the agricultural labourer and this country will survive; and so, wishing to provide for the future of the agricultural industry, our policy is that public money, when it is to be spent, should be spent in the provision of new, healthy beautiful houses, to which the agricultural labourer, on account of his valuable service to the country, is entitled, and we wish to offer the most strenuous oppose- 1876 tion to the standard of housing provided for in this Resolution.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESI am not interested in the imaginary stables which, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), are to be found in our villages, but am much more concerned about the derelict houses and empty cottages which, unfortunately, are to be found in our rural districts. To give one instance, which may interest hon. Members above the Gangway, there are no fewer than 120 cottages which have become empty and derelict in a very small agricultural district within the short space of living memory, the whole population being, I believe, roughly speaking, under 3,000. I am concerned about those cases, and I think they need the first attention of the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman, however, made one remark which I think ought not to go unchallenged, because it would be apt to mislead the public. In talking about buildings, he rather suggested that, even when these are remodelled, they would still be unfit for habitation. It is, however, a direct provision of the Bill that the local authority must be satisfied—[Interruption.]—is it the case that hon. Members above the Gangway have no faith in democratic control?—that
the dwelling will after the completion of the works be in all respects fit for habitation as a dwelling by persons of the working classes.The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the economic condition of the farmer will not allow him to pay a wage to the labourer which will enable him to pay an economic rent. I rather hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have gone a little further, and would have told us what is his remedy for that position. We know the economic facts. They are exactly as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. The labourer's wage at the present moment is not such as will enable him to pay an economic rent on the present cost price of any building which is put up by way of a house. I am afraid I should be out of order in suggesting that the remedy proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would have been a duty which would have fallen on the urban dweller, and I will not pursue that. There are one or two practical points to which I should like to refer in con- 1877 nection with the Bill itself. I understood from the Minister of Health that the Bill would provide for the building of houses, but, if I understand the Bill aright, it is a Bill forthe reconstruction and improvement of dwellings and other buildings.There is another point that I should like cleared up, with regard to the repayment of loans. A grant, I understand, is not to be repaid, but, if a loan is made, then it is to be repaid. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the responsibility for the repayment is a personal one, or whether it is merely the value of the dwelling itself. A man obtains, say, a house which is covered by a mortgage. That mortgage contains two things. It contains, in the first place, an undertaking and covenant by the man to repay the money personally; and, in the second place, it contains a charge on the property itself as security for the repayment. I suggest, for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, that no house can at the present moment be put up in a rural district which will not be, in three or four years' time, of less value than the actual cost of its construction, and it is, therefore, rather important for the building owner to ascertain whether he will be personally responsible for the repayment of that loan regardless of the fact that, owing to economic causes, in all probability the value of the house itself will be a good deal less than the money which he has borrowed. My suggestion would have been that, instead of asking people to build houses themselves and take the whole risk, as I think they must under the provisions of this Bill, serious attempts should be made, at any rate in the rural districts and country villages, by the housing authority, to provide these houses itself at the cost of the State, and that the risk, which is a serious one, as to the value of the building in the next three or four years, should be undertaken by the State, and not by the individual.
§ Major G. F. DAVIESI hope it is not unseemly for two Members who bear the same name to speak together on this matter. I cannot help thinking that those of us on this side who have had the pleasure of listening to the very humorous speech of the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health, 1878 will regret that his interventions in Debate of late have not been more frequent. We can only presume he meant to be taken as humorously as his speech sounded to those who listened to it. We could not help being reminded of two adages in the course of the stream of eloquent electioneering with which he favoured us, that no stream can rise higher than its source, and that "unstable as water thou shalt not excel." In his remarks, in which he went out of his way to twist everything in the Resolution and to try to bring in all manner of irrelevant material which could not possibly be affected by it, he spoke of owners, farmers and capitalists, but failed to give any consideration to that person in whose interest alone this Measure has been brought forward, that is, the tenant of cottages in agricultural areas. We have had various Housing Bills, which have, achieved unexpected success in the way of numbers and the short time in which they have been produced and in the fact that they have been largely produced by that section of the population who were most in need of assistance and improvement in their housing conditions.
But with all those Measures on the Statute Book, and all of them assisted, as in my opinion they needed to be in order to produce the results, by Government subsidies, we have found there has been one important part of the community which has been untouched, and that is the cottager employed largely in agricultural pursuits or others germane thereto and therefore in a similar economic position, and that after all is the outstanding consideration in regard to this Measure. Here is a large and essential portion of the population who have been untouched by the advantages which have been provided for every other branch of the country. That is not the fault of those who framed the Measures. We come back once again to the economic facts of the situation. Therefore what we need, it seems to me, to concentrate upon is not whether this is going to give some assistance to the wicked landowner, not whether it is going to bolster up the inefficient farmer, not whether this is going to convert stables into palaces, but whether it is going to any extent to improve the outlook for getting better cottages and 1879 living conditions for those agricultural workers in the community, concerning who we do not talk such claptrap as we have already had to listen to, but whose interests we are much more familiar with and have much more seriously at heart than hon. Members opposite.
After all, the outstanding fact is that not only are new cottages not being built under these conditions, for very obvious reasons, but the available housing gets steadily worse for two or three reasons. One is that cottages are taken by such people as village policemen, employés of railway companies, industrial workers earning the better wages that industry, when it is not interfered with by senseless industrial disputes, is able to earn, and therefore the available supply of cottages for those for whom they were intended is constantly diminishing. We have also the week-ender, who comes in and buys one or perhaps two cottages, making them into one, and does his share in reducing the available housing for that section of the population towards which our efforts are directed to-day. Finally, we have this situation, that the unfortunate and much-criticised landlord, whose business, privilege and responsibility it has been in the past to provide houses for the agricultural worker, has been put in a position, on account of the depredations of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, that he can no longer carry out those responsibilities, much as he wishes to do so. Even the Leader of His Majesty's Opposition, not very long ago in a public speech, said precisely what I have been saying just now and said that was a reason, among others, why his conclusion was that there should be nationalisation of the land and the State should come in and do it all for them. We on this side of the House do not believe in that form of legislation, but we are faced with conditions that need to be dealt with.
How can we apply to the agricultural worker in the rural districts those housing benefits which have been secured for others by existing measures. It seems to me that this is an extraordinary hopeful line of advance though I do not think anyone suggests it is going to solve the question. There are large numbers of people, large and small, perhaps just the 1880 owners of one or two cottages, who see them deteriorating but cannot afford to make the proper repairs and they are rapidly becoming untenantable. Compared with them a good sanitary cow stall would be an infinitely better habitation. If that kind of thing can be checked, if sufficient assistance can be given to the owner to enable him to contribute a certain portion towards building, assisted by local authorities and the State for the other two-thirds, I look to see in a reasonably short time a material improvement, by means of the financial measures in this Bill, in the condition and the improvement of the houses of our agricultural workers. I am satisfied that if we, who are closely interested in and connected with the land, are given opportunities, not only such as this, but others which may perhaps be discovered by experience to be wise and applicable, if they come within the limits of economic laws, can improve the housing conditions of workers in the rural areas and prevent their cottages being taken by others who are more fortunate and can pay higher rentals for them, we shall have gone a long way towards securing an improvement of the general conditions of the countryside which will stem the drift from the country to the town and keep those who were born in the country and know it and love it in those surroundings where they are best able to develop their manhood and their life.
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSONI am glad the Government have had finally to do what we said it was necessary to do. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken referred to senseless industrial disputes. If he referred to the present dispute, I would remind him that it was not the miners who locked out the coal-owners but the coalowners who locked out the miners. But it was not for that purpose that I rose. My mind is exercised as to the scope of this Measure. The Resolution refers to
persons whose economic condition is substantially the same as that of such workers.In the mining world the owners are, or ought to be, responsible for the housing of their workers. I have to admit that for the last 10 or 15 years they have forgotten their responsibilities, and have not found houses for the workers but have given them some financial assistance in place of free houses. There are thousands 1881 of houses in our mining villages that are wholly unfit for human habitation, and have been condemned by the local authorities, but because there was no other place to house the people, they have had to exist there all these years. If agricultural labourers can earn, as I have been told, 35s. to £2 a week, at least two-thirds of the married workers in the coalfields in Durham are in a worse position, so that if it is based on the economic conditions of the people who inhabit the houses the Bill must of necessity take in all these houses owned by colliery owners in the villages. I want the right hon. Gentleman to think what he is doing. They talk of the conversion of stables into houses, but no sensible man would put a dog in some of the houses the miners have to live in in Durham. People live there because their economic condition will not allow them to pay for a house elsewhere. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is taking on something larger than the Bill intended. I do not want these miserable dens patched up. That would be adding insult to injury. The position he ought to take up as a sensible Minister would be to get rid of these houses and build new ones in their place. Patching them up will not mend matters and will mean that this state of things will be perpeutated. The proposals of the Bill will give no relief to the tenants and the whole of the money that is spent will be entirely in the interest of those who own the houses.
§ Sir HARRY HOPEAs the representative of a county constituency I give this Resolution my whole-hearted support, because I know that in our country districts there are two things needed. We need more houses for our rural population and better houses than we have already got. This Financial Resolution deals with that matter. It proposes to enable our existing houses to be improved. Can anyone with a practical knowledge of our country districts and our rural life deny the fact that there are many houses, I know there are in Scotland, in regard to which if they were reconditioned, and improved, the people living in them would not only have far more inducement to remain on in our country districts, but they would be able to spend happier and healthier lives. This Financial Resolution deserves the whole-hearted support of everyone who 1882 has a desire to help the rural life of our country.
The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in bringing forward his criticism of the Resolution, made a great deal of the point that in the wording of the Resolution it might be permissible for stables to be converted into dwelling-houses. I am sure that the intention of the Government is not in that direction. The intention of the Government is to enable funds to be made available whereby our existing houses can be reconstructed and improved for the benefit of the people. In basing criticism of this Resolution merely upon the fact that it may be permissible to turn an outhouse or a stable into a dwelling-house, is going very far beyond what was really meant. The right hon. Gentleman surely, when he condemns public money being used as a subsidy for improving the houses in our country districts, forgets what we have been doing in the matter of housing reform during the last four or five years. He himself has been responsible for bringing in and passing an Act whereby public money was given as a subsidy for houses in our towns and cities. Is it not right that our country districts should get a share of these public favours? It is because by this Resolution I see a prospect of our country districts getting some of the benefits which our towns and cities have, rightly, had in the past, that, as a county Member, I support it in a wholehearted manner.
The position of agriculture is a very large question, and to discuss it would go beyond this Resolution; but we all know that the condition of agriculture hitherto has been such that the workers engaged in it cannot pay an economic rent for the houses in which they live. Surely, when we desire to improve the housing conditions of these people, we need to face the facts as they are and, recognising that an economic rent is not possible in agriculture under our present system, is it not right that we should take the next best step and try, by a moderate and safe means, to bring practical benefits to these most worthy people in regard to their houses. As the representative of a county constituency in Scotland, I am sure that this Financial Resolution and the Bill which will be based upon it will be wholeheartedly approved, and if hon. Members opposite desire to oppose the Bill I can 1883 assure them that if they go to the country districts in Scotland they will meet with very little support. We can do a useful little piece of business by approving of this Resolution and passing the Bill, and thereby bringing health, happiness and comfort to many deserving people in our country districts.
§ Mr. A. GREENWOODI beg to move, in line 7, after the word "expenses," to insert the words "not exceeding one hundred thousand pounds."
As you, Sir, have ruled out of order the Amendment standing in the name of two of my hon. Friends, I move the Amendment which stands in my name. It will be observed by those who have read the Resolution that there is no limit of expenditure which may be incurred under it. In moving this Amendment to put some prescribed maximum upon the amount which shall be contributed by Parliament, I feel sure that I shall have with me hon. Members sitting on other side of the House. This Resolution: is one of which in principle we do not approve, but there is another reason why some definite limit should be put upon the amount to be expended. Hon. Members opposite for a considerable time have been anxiously pursuing economy. Numerous efforts have been made by the Government this year to reduce national expenditure. The financial straits of the Government have been so serious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was impelled to put his hand into the pockets of several funds and extract money to enable him to carry out his responsibilities.
The financial straits of the Government were so serious that they decided to reduce the State contribution to health and unemployment insurance. In view of so serious a situation, it seems inconsistent and illogical on the part of the Government to come to the House with a new form of expenditure such as has been unknown in this country previously. Moreover, the Minister of Health is now engaged in manipulating a decrease in the contributions to be made by the State under the existing housing schemes. If it be necessary to reduce the subsidies under the Acts of 1923 and 1924 at this stage, it seems to be highly objectionable that whilst he is, so to 1884 speak, with one hand negotiating a decrease in respect of new houses for the country as a whole, he should, on the other hand, be negotiating expenditure on old houses in the country side. When we have such a position, it cannot be defended. If the financial position of the Government is so serious that it feels called upon to reduce the subsidy for new houses that are being built in towns and country districts alike, it surely is most inexpedient at the same time to provide a subsidy for rural landlords.
Another reason why we would reduce the subsidy is that it appears to us to be a form of unconditional gift to people who can well afford to do without it. It has always been assumed in our previous housing subsidies that such subsidies were given in respect of houses that would not or could not otherwise be built. Many cases, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, have arisen where some enthusiastic person has begun to build a house, and the subsidy has been denied on the ground that as he begun to build the house it would have been built in any case, and, therefore the subsidy could not be paid. That sort of principle, if the Government persist in this policy, ought to be applied to the rural landlord. No one will deny that a large number of rural landlords can well afford to put their cottages into a proper state of repair. Some of them have done so, and more could do so if they were driven to do it, and the law was enforced. Is it right that these people should be subsidised by the State? I think it cannot be defended. Certainly, it cannot he defended as an act by an economy Government.
There are clearly two sets of cases. There are those landlords who can well afford to improve their cottages and those who cannot. Our submission is that no money should be spent on the former; that the law should be enforced against them, just as it is enforced in some degree against the town landlord. As regards those who cannot afford to put their houses into a state of repair, again we see no reason why public money should be spent upon them if those houses remain in the present hands. If these landlords over a long series of years have permitted their cottages to get into a state of disrepair so serious that they may be permitted to spend under the 1885 Bill large sums of money upon them, what guarantee have we that once the cottages have been put into a state of repair, these people are going to be in a position to keep them in a proper state of repair. There is no reason to suppose that whatever. All that this money will do will be to pass over to a number of landlords who cannot fulfil their responsibilities money which will enable them to tinker up their houses prior to another period of general decay.
If it be true that the rural landlord is in dire necessity and must receive financial assistance, surely a case equally strong can be made out for many landlords of urban dwellings. I would go so far as to say that the neediest landlords to-day are among the small landlords in the towns. No one in any part of the House would dream of coming here with a Money Resolution to permit these town landlords to dip their hands into the public purse in order to put their cottages into order. This money will go as a sort of generous gift to a particular kind of bad landlord, those who fail to keep their cottages in repair in the countryside. I hope that the Committee will see the wisdom of putting some limit upon the right hon. Gentleman's expenditure in this matter. He has established a certain condition. He has put a maximum in the case of each house; but no one knows the number of houses that are to be repaired or how many outhouses are to be converted into cottages. It may well be that the landlords will succeed in restoring their cottages at an enormous public expense, if this proposal were carried out on a large scale. We think that some definite figure should be put into the Bill in order that a limit should be placed upon this public expenditure.
I put this test of economy to hon. Members opposite as a very real one. They have an opportunity under this Amendment of proving whether they believe in economy or whether they do not believe in economy. They have an opportunity of showing whether they believe in economy of a real kind or whether they are only prepared to sanction economy at the expense of the workers. At a time when our national situation in regard to finance is so serious as to warrant the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the steps he has taken 1886 this year at the expense of the masses of the people of this country, the expenditure proposed under this Resolution is entirely unwarranted, and a severe limit should be placed upon the expenditure permitted to the Minister.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINIf I thought that the Amendment meant what it said, I should characterise the hon. Member's speech as being quite phenomenal in its irrelevance, but it is perfectly obvious that the object of the Amendment is to try to wreck the Bill. Taking the actual wording of the Amendment, it proposes that the whole cost to the Exchequer shall not exceed £100,000, although the hon. Member must have read—I presume he has read—the White Paper, in which it is stated it is estimated that, giving an average cost per house of £75 and the number of houses totalling 20,000, the cost would be £60,000 a year for 20 years.
§ Mr. GREENWOODThat is only an assumption.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINMay I ask the hon. Member, for the sake of information, whether his £100,000 is meant to be a total sum or £100,000 per annum?
§ Mr. GREENWOODIt is intended to be a total sum.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINThat confirms what I have said, that the Amendment is intended to wreck the Bill. The zeal for economy on the part of the hon. Member comes very strangely from him. What would have been the alternative to this Bill in the proposals of his own Government? There would have been a subsidy of £12 10s. for each house in an agricultural parish for 40 years, so that there would have been a total sum expended, if 20,000 houses were built, of £2,500,000 for 40 years. Did the hon. Gentleman's zeal for economy induce him to put any limit into the Financial Resolution on which his own Bill was founded? That is really a trivial and empty excuse. He says that the subsidy is to be given to the wrong people; but the limitation of the sum that can be expended does not alter the foundation of the subsidy, and, if that is really a serious argument on his part, then it is irrelevant. When he says it is to be given to the wrong people, what authority has he for making a statement of that kind? He says there is a great 1887 number of landlords who could perfectly well afford to put their houses in order. If that be so, they will be known to the local authorities. I would remind the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that, in the Bill there is a provision which says that the local authorities may, in certain cases, refuse to give assistance under the Bill, and a proper ground for refusal would be that the assistance is not required, and that the owner is capable of putting the house in order. As a matter of fact, to anyone who goes about the country and looks with a careful and attentive eye at the houses in the country districts, it will be obvious that it is always the large landlords who keep their houses in good condition, and that the houses which are in bad condition are not the houses belonging to the great squires and the landlords against whom the hon. Member has such a prejudice; these belong to the small people who are without resources. It is unfortunate that the party opposite are so obsessed with their prejudice against landlords in general that they never have room or time to spare for the consideration of the circumstances of the poor landlords.
We are told that people will not be able to keep their repaired houses in proper order. There, again, that is a pure assumption, and anyone who knows the probabilities of the case will agree that it is a very improbable one. The difficulty now is that, having passed through extremely hard times, landlords have not been able to repair the houses at the moment when repairs would have been comparatively cheap and simple; they have got past that stage, and the houses are in such a condition that only a considerable amount of expenditure—more than can lie found by people of small means—will really do any good. Once you put them into proper order, the amount required to keep the houses in order is really quite small, and I think it will not be outside the resources of the people concerned to afford that amount. In any case, even if there should be some particular instances where, in spite of this assistance, the houses do gradually decay, surely, that is no reason why we should deny to thousands of agricultural labourers the opportunity offered by this Bill of at last coming into occupation of really decent 1888 and comfortable habitations. In regard to the question of a limit upon the amount of money which can be demanded from the Exchequer, there is really, for all practical purposes in the Bill now, such a limitation in the fact which I mentioned when I was introducing the Resolution, namely, that the operation of the Bill is limited to five years. In five years, and especially in country places where matters do not proceed with what may be called giddy rapidity, one may be quite certain that the expenditure that may be asked from the Exchequer will not be excessive. But what one can say is that, whatever the expenditure is, the houses that will be repaired and reconditioned and made suitable for habitation by agricultural labourers under this Bill will cost infinitely less than new houses provided by the assistance of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. FENBYI can understand anyone not being particularly enthusiastic about the Resolution, but I am at a loss to understand anyone being violently opposed to its object. I am all in favour of economy, but I am not in favour of cutting down expenditure on housing. In my opinion, money expended on improving the housing of the working classes is money very well spent indeed. As far as the Amendment is concerned, in my opinion, there is not the slightest need to put in any limit to the amount that should be spent. I have had considerable experience of local authorities at the present time, and there is no authority suffering more from "hard-uppishness" than the rural local authorities, and when these authorities have to provide an amount equal to that provided by the Exchequer they will not be lavish in their expenditure. This is described as a "landlords' relief Bill." The landlord is sometimes like a red rag to a good many people, but I am not concerned about that; I am concerned about the agricultural labourer, and I cannot understand anyone who knows anything about the conditions of rural housing being violently opposed to the proposals in this Bill. It may be that it is too limited and, in my opinion, its operation will be very slow. But anything that will improve the housing accommodation of the agricultural labourers will have my enthusiastic and full support. 1889 There is a proposal in regard to other buildings, and I do not know if I am in order in discussing it.
§ The CHAIRMANNo, I am afraid not.
§ Mr. FENBYWhat I want to say, in conclusion, is that the difficulty in rural areas to-day has arisen because there was a lack of building of rural cottages prior to the War. When we are confronted, as members of local authorities are, with very serious financial proposals with regard to education and health and so many other things, I am certain that the local authorities themselves will be afraid of the operation of this Bill. What I would have liked would have been, instead of a limitation on the amount that is to be spent, to have seen the contribution of the local authority made a little less and the contribution of the State a little more. If that had been done the operation would have been much more speedy. So far as the principle of the Bill and of the financial Resolution is concerned, I am certainly against limiting the operation of it, and I hope that the local authorities will work it enthusiastically so far as their financial resources will allow.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYOn the Second Reading of the Bill I expressed my view that it would bring more happiness and comfort to our rural areas than any proposals which have been made for some yearn I am not going to repeat that, but I am very glad the Minister has refused to accept any limitation of the money that is to be spent under this Bill. I am very anxious to see the homes of the agricultural workers improved and brought up-to-date. I am so anxious that the money shall not be curtailed and that the good that may be done by this Bill shall not be limited, that I would like to see the limitation of £400 on the value of the house after improvements are made, enlarged to £500. Therefore, I want to ask you, Mr. Chairman, as a point of Order, whether the wording of the Financial Resolution is such as to prevent me raising this question on the Committee stage with a view to enlarging the £400 to £500.
§ The CHAIRMANCertainly not. No private Member can in any circumstances propose the increase of an Exchequer grant beyond the amount authorised.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYI was rather afraid that would be your view, but I was not sure whether I could not propose on this Financial Resolution an Amendment which would have laid the foundations for my being able to increase this figure.
§ The CHAIRMANNo. All that a private Member can do is to speak on the Resolution at large, but he can urge the Government to bring in another one.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINPerhaps the hon. Baronet will allow me to repeat what I said when possibly he was not in the House, when I was proposing the Resolution. I then explained that I have deliberately left out of the Resolution the conditions which are to be found in the Bill limiting the value of the house to £400. I then said that I desired to leave a freer hand to the Committee, if possible, to discuss the matter.
§ The CHAIRMANI must now qualify what I have said. I assumed from what the hon. Baronet said that there was this limitation in the Resolution, but as there is not, it is not for me to guide the Chairman of the Committee upstairs as to whether it will be right for him to accept such an Amendment or not.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYI had some idea that this difficulty might occur when I raised the matter in the Committee upstairs, and I wished to consult you with a view to enlarging the Resolution so that there should be no doubt about the position in the Committee stage. I shall, however, be quite content if I can convince the Minister of Health of the advantage and necessity of increasing this limit of £400 and £500 so that he himself may be able to move the Amendment which I thought I might possibly have moved myself.
§ The CHAIRMANI have no jurisdiction over the Committee upstairs to which this Bill will go, and, therefore, I cannot say what view the Chairman of the Committee may take. When I gave my former ruling, I had omitted to notice for the moment that this particular restriction was not contained in the Resolution, but anything that I say cannot prejudge what the Chairman of the Committee upstairs may say.
§ Mr. HARNEYThe right hon. Gentleman said just now that the figure £400 was not in the Resolution but in the Bill, and I desire to ask whether that £400 is merely there as a definition and has nothing to do with the amount of money that may or may not be granted?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is again asking me to rule something which must be decided by the Chairman of the Committee upstairs. We are not in Committee on the Bill, but on the Resolution, and no ruling of mine is binding on the Chairman of the Committee which will consider the Bill.
§ Mr. HARNEYI rather understood from the Minister that it was hoped to move in Committee an enlargement of the figure. The figure £400 is not in the Resolution, and I was merely pointing out that the £400 in the Bill is merely intended as a definition and has nothing to do with the amount of money that may or may not be granted.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is not a matter on which I can give a ruling.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYI do not want to be too persistent but if the Bill goes to the Committee in its present form and I attempt to move an increase from £400 to £500, it seems that I shall be met by the Chairman with the view that I, as a private Member, cannot move that increase because I shall be putting a charge on the taxpayer. I could see no answer to that except this, that as the Financial Resolution is now before the Committee, it might be possible for me to move an Amendment that would put in express words limiting the amount to at least £500, and then it would bring my proposed Amendment within the purview of the Chairman of the Committee upstairs. That is what I really wanted to consult you upon.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot move anything outside the King's recommendation. The King's recommendation limits the Resolution, and that limit cannot be extended.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYI want, therefore, to urge on the Minister that he should Consider carefully before this Bill goes to the Committee whether he will not take steps to increase this limit to £500. I can assure him that in very many parts of the country, more particularly those 1892 parts which are not quite so rural as the purely agricultural districts, like parts of Lincolnshire and the Eastern Counties, the amount of £400 will limit this Bill to a very small number of houses. I hope he will consider this and if necessary either bring in a fresh Resolution or propose an Amendment to the present one.
§ Mr. RILEYI rise to support the Amendment to limit the Financial Resolution to £100,000, not because I am opposed to doing anything that can be done to improve rural housing or increase the supply of suitable housing, but because the method which is proposed in this Resolution is, in my view, entirely contrary to justifiable public policy. The Resolution, as it stands, in spite of what the Minister has said, gives a blank cheque to local authorities, subject to some control by the Exchequer, to draw indefinitely upon the taxpayer and the ratepayer for money to expend on private property; not to create any public property at all. Some hon. Members opposite have challenged the Opposition as to their sincerity in the matter of houses for the agricultural classes. If any test of that sincerity is required, it is found in the fact that the Opposition, when it was the Government, through its Minister of Health, brought forward a Bill, which became law, giving rural authorities £1 10s. per annum on each house, on the sound and justifiable principle of public policy, that these houses when built would be public and not private property. The justification for the Amendment is that the Resolution seeks to give power to levy a tax on the taxpayer and ratepayer in order to create property which, when created, will be private and not public property. On that ground it is very essential that the Committee should move warily, and if the move is made at all that the country should know the extent of its liability.
What are the facts of the case as far as the Resolution is concerned? They are these. The Minister of Health has said that as far as the Resolution is concerned, and also the Bill when it is passed, it will provide that the three partners to the transaction will contribute a maximum of £50 each to any one single dwelling. The local authority may make a grant to a maximum of £100. To that amount the Exchequer will contribute half, and the owner must contribute not less than £50 on that basis. 1893 It sounds very nice to say that the three partners are all bearing their share. But what really occurs is this, that the private owner gets two shares from the public, £50 from the State and £50 from the local ratepayer, in order to build up is own private property. That is what is behind this Resolution. Let me call the attention of the Committee to what is really going to occur. You have a rural area occupied largely by the ordinary rural population, agricultural labourers and other workmen. They form 80 or 90 per cent. of the population, and they are people who own no property at all. They are simply tenants and labourers on farms. But they are also ratepayers. Then you have, say, 10 per cent. who are property owners. Some may be large landowners, some large farmers, and others people who are comparatively well-to-do who have retired o the village and reside there. They form a very small number of the population. But under this Bill and Resolution you are going to ask the 80 per cent. of the population who own no property it all to pay rates in order to find the money to create property for the 10 per cent. of the population. It is a perfectly unjustifiable proposal.
Again, take the question of buildings which do not actually exist now as dwellings. There is no doubt whatever, he Minister has said so, that the Bill does enable buildings which are not louses now to be transformed into dwelling-houses and so obtain the benefits of bile provisions of this Resolution.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood)I think we can discusss that better on the next Amendment.
§ Mr. RILEYYes, but I want to deal with the financial aspect. In many villages you have rents which vary from 1s. to 5s. and possibly 6s. per week. It is perfectly true that the Resolution provides that in the case of houses of that nature receiving the benefits of this grant the owner cannot put on more than a certain fixed amount to the rent. But you have also those buildings which are not used now as dwellings, and which are not worth Is. or Is. 6d. per week for the purpose for which they are used at present. Under this Bill they may be transformed into dwellings and may be 1894 let at rents of 4s., 5s. and 6s. per week. They will be made capable of earning that rent because of the subsidy given to them from the rates and taxes. Thus the owners of this kind of property will enjoy a 10 per cent. return on their money. That is perfectly obvious, and it is because of this danger that we want to tie the Resolution down to a maximum of £100,000.
Colonel CROOKSHANKIt will be interesting to study the speeches of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood) and of the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, as the first, in moving the Amendment, to limit the sum available, agreed with the scheme, while the second criticised the Tory party for economy (in not spending a sum greatly in excess on other schemes), but objected to the scheme. I trust that they will be, able to reconcile those conflicting views in the Lobby. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston displayed an entire lack of technical knowledge, and at the same time he showed very small appreciation of the economic facts. Not to make use of a very large number of distinctly satisfactory buildings which exist, particularly in Scotland—of which he has some knowledge presumably—would be a crime, for, as the Minister has said, very rightly, this sort of work can be done very cheaply in such cases. As to the use of stables, I should have thought it would be desirable to use any structures which were satisfactory. As a technical man myself, formerly a military engineer, I might mention that I once converted cavalry barracks to infantry barracks, and then reconverted them to cavalry barracks. No one with technical knowledge or any idea of finance would suggest pulling such buildings down and building new ones. The Committee may recognise that the conversion of stables has been used by hon. Members opposite merely as a, term of reproach, without any regard for their value as structures.
All will agree that this Bill is a great boon. I would ask that any member of a local authority should be immune if he receives the subsidy; he should not have to surrender his seat on the county council as a result of a desire to improve his workers' conditions. It is not quite 1895 clear whether a district council—if it is the housing authority—or only the county council can raise funds for the purpose, which is important in this connection.
§ The CHAIRMANReferences to county councils and district councils are not in order on this Amendment, which deals only with the question of contributions from the Exchequer.
Colonel CROOKSHANKI am sorry if I have gone beyond the bounds of order. I trust that the Government may be encouraged to produce other Resolutions, and, if the amount is to be limited, as has been suggested by hon. Members opposite, I trust that the Government will produce a Resolution to grant funds for improving water supply and drainage in rural districts. These things cannot be carried out in all cases under this scheme, particularly if all the money has been entirely expended on improving the accommodation. This applies particularly to new houses, on which so much stress has been laid by the right hon. Member for Shettleston and other hon. Members opposite. New houses may have been erected in country districts, but there are no funds available for providing proper water supply and drainage unless the rating is increased so that, if it be a question of limiting expenditure, I trust that the Minister will see his way to allot funds for those purposes. Incidentally, a great deal of stress has been laid by hon. Members opposite on the subject of increasing the rates. I trust that this expenditure will not have the effect of increasing the rating on those buildings to which it has been applied.
§ Mr. HARNEYThis is a Resolution to enable the Exchequer to make certain grants for the purpose of carrying out the scheme of the Bill. The scheme of the Bill is that the local authority shall be empowered, first by means of grants, and, secondly, by means of loans, to help the rehabilitation of the structure of a certain class of house. I am entirely in favour of the principle of the Bill and against the Amendment. It seems to me that it is purely a wrecking Amendment. At the same time, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to a couple of defects in the Bill to which this money 1896 Resolution relates. As regards the grant that the local authorities can make, it is provided that—
§ The CHAIRMANThat would not be in order on this particular Amendment. The only question is whether the Exchequer contribution shall or shall not be limited to £100,000.
§ Mr. HARNEYIn whatever else I have to say I hope that I shall keep within the rules of order. I think there should be no limitation placed upon the grant, and for this reason: The Bill provides that a certain kind of house is to fall within its operation, and it is quite obvious that in the limited period of five years the amount cannot be very great. I think no limitation should be placed upon it. Since the power given to local authorities is to make not only grants but loans, it is desirable that the grant should be, if anything, made greater than that which the Bill provides. As to the assistance given by way of loans, there will be a difficulty. If a local authority is empowered to make a loan on the terms of the Bill by way of mortgage, to be repaid by instalments, the person who obtains a loan is under a personal liability, and I am certain that, under those circumstances, with the possibility of a house deteriorating in value at the time the loan may be called in until it is infinitely less than the amount of the loan, the loan will prove a dead letter. The loan provisions will be unworkable if they are to be by way of mortgage. But the grant provisions will be workable, and there is no reason why the whole thing should not be done by way of grant. If the tenant does not comply with the conditions prescribed the money ran he called in, even though it is a grant.
§ Lieut.-Colonel GADIEIt appears to me that there has been a want of sincerity on the other side in discussing this question. The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) has said that stables might be converted into dwelling-houses, and he stressed that point materially.
§ The CHAIRMANThat question is not in order on this Amendment. The only question here is whether the expenditure by the Exchequer should or should not be limited to £100,000.
§ Lieut.-Colonel GADIEIn asking that the amount should be limited to £100,000, I think even the Mover of the Amendment must agree that that sum would get us nowhere at all. Either the money is worth spending as proposed in the Bill, or the Government had better drop the proposal. The great difficulty is to get houses in the agricultural districts. One right hon. Gentleman said that the money will go to the landlords. Another hon. Gentleman opposite said we are giving a blank check to local authorities. I have never heard such suspicion of local authorities expressed before in this House. I have always understood that if we gave local authorities the power to do anything, we could trust them with the work. There is no local authority which would attempt to pass dwellings such as we have had sketched this afternoon. If it is intended that local authorities should either buy or make new structures, there may be something in the argument. Whatever the Opposition may say, this is the one want that has not been met up to the present. Other Bills with money have been passed, making grants for alterations for existing houses. I take it that this Bill simply means to say that. May I ask hon. Members opposite for once to drop this criticism and let us get back to the real want. This Bill is the only one, so far, that will meet the agricultural labourers' needs. The question as to whether the money will be well spent I think is well answered by the protection provided on page 5 of the Bill, where it says that no more than 3 per cent. can be asked for the money and that the normal rent of an agricultural dwelling is the standard rent under the Bill. Therefore, there can be no robbery by the private owner.
§ Mr. VIANTStatements have been made by hon. Members opposite as to want of sincerity on the part of those who have spoken from this side in support of the Amendment. I support the Amendment, and I want it to be understood that I am quite sincere about it. The Committee is entitled to know from the Minister what the financial commitments are likely to be. The Minister is asking for a blank cheque. Personally, I have never interpreted the desire of the electorate to send me here to be such that they would be prepared for me to vote for a blank cheque for any Department.
§ Sir K. WOODThere was an exactly similar Resolution in the 1924 Bill.
§ Mr. VIANTWe had then some idea as to the number of houses that were needed by the community. We have an idea of the need of the community now. When we were voting on that occasion we were voting, not to hand money over to private persons, but in favour of the creation of assets for the community. I support the Amendment because I am firmly convinced that we ought to know exactly to what we are being committed. We are asked to hand over a blank cheque, not only to the Departments, but to those who are interested in putting their property into repair in the agricultural areas. What have we in return? [HON. MEMBERS: "A good house."] We have not a good house. We have no guarantee even that the agricultural labourer is to have a good house. It has been said that we doubt the local authorities. We have reason to doubt many of the bounty authorities which will administer this Act. We know the composition of the county authorities. Labour representation is exceedingly scarce there. Many of those who have this dilapidated property will be members of the county authority. They will be handing money over to themselves, and the ratepayers and the national Exchequer are to foot the bill. That is grossly unfair. We are asking for nothing unfair in demanding that the Department shall give us at least some idea as to the liability of the local ratepayers and the Exchequer in this matter. I am opposed to spending money in this way. If we are to put this property into repair, we should he entitled to draw the rent of this property until we have reimbursed our expenditure. That is a fair proposition. We on this side cannot be accused of want of consideration for the interests of the agricultural labourer. The Minister of Health this afternoon said that this Bill, in all probability, would mean an expenditure of £600,000. Our commitments in respect of rural housing, under the 1924 Act, would, he said, amount to £2,500,000.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYA year.
§ Mr. VIANTWe have at least something to show for that expenditure, even if it is £2,500,000. We have an economic asset for the community. We have no economic asset for the community as a 1899 result of this expenditure. I am opposed to handing over public funds to private persons. The agricultural labourer could have been housed under the 1924 Act far better than he is going to be housed under the provisions of this Measure. In all probability, the property on which this money is going to be expended is property which will not be worth the expenditure. On those grounds I think we are entitled to ask for more information than has yet been given by the Department concerned.
§ Major GLYNThe hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said the Committee was entitled to have some idea as to what are the limits of public expenditure for this particular type of housing and he also referred to the benefits that would result by spending £2,500,000 a year for 42 years, as was proposed by the Government when his own party was in power. I think he forgets that the difficulty lies not only in the matter of £ s. d. but in the matter of getting the houses built. If we could have the houses put up more quickly in the rural areas it would be a good deal easier to deal with this matter, but owing to the difficulties of communication building cannot be carried on as quickly in the rural as in urban areas. The Amendment before the Committee asks that the expenditure should be limited to £100,000. The White Paper estimates that £60,000 a year for 20 years will be expended on this scheme.
§ Mr. RILEYMay I suggest that the White Paper distinctly conveys the impression that the figure mentioned is
§ only an example of how the scheme will work on both sides. It does not meat that this sum is to be the total commitment.
§ Major GLYNI quite agree that the statement is an indication, and I think the Committee ought to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is quite satisfied that the system on which this public expenditure is going to be made, is satisfactory as regards the way in which the property is balanced. Everything turns on the way the property is balanced. In this Financial Resolution the matter is left very wide and, as you, Sir, have said, it cannot be discussed at this juncture. What is not left very wide is the defining of the method of valuation. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether with regard to Clause 2 (a)—although it is not referred to directly in the Financial Resolution—he will not consider suggesting that the valuation should be made by district valuers and not left as it is under the present wording.
§ The CHAIRMANThat point does not arise on this particular Amendment.
§ Major GLYNI think that would be one way of limiting the expenditure. Nothing would be more fatal than to limit the expenditure to £100,000. On the other hand, if you have a proper uniform system of valuation you will be sure that the public money is being spent in a proper and uniform manner.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 256.
1903| Division No. 461.] | AYES. | [5.52 p.m. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Duncan, C. | Lunn, William |
| Ammon, Charles George | Gardner, J. P. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Gosling, Harry | March, S. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Maxton, James |
| Baker, Walter | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Montague, Frederick |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Groves, T. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Batey, Joseph | Grundy, T. W. | Naylor, T. E. |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Palin, John Henry |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Paling, W. |
| Bromfield, William | Hayday, Arthur | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Bromley, J. | Hirst, G. H. | Potts, John S. |
| Buchanan, G. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Richardson, K. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Riley, Ben |
| Close, W. S. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Ritson, J. |
| Compton, Joseph | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) |
| Cove, W. G. | Kelly, W. T. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Dalton, Hugh | Kennedy, T. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lawrence, Susan | Scurr, John |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lawson, John James | Sexton, James |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lee, F. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Dennison, R. | Lowth, T. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) | Thurtle, Ernest | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Townend, A. E. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Viant, S. P. | Windsor, Walter |
| Stamford, T. W. | Wellhead, Richard C. | |
| Taylor, R. A. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. |
| Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Whiteley, W. | Hayes. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-colonel | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera |
| Albery, Irving James | Ellis, R. G. | Lynn, Sir R. J. |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Elveden, Viscount | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Atholl, Duchess of | England, Colonel A. | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Macintyre, Ian |
| Balniel, Lord | Everard, W. Lindsay | McLean, Major A. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Falls, Sir Bertram G. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John |
| Beamish, Captain T. P. H. | Fenby, T. D. | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Fielden, E. B. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Bellairs, Commander Canyon W. | Finburgh, S. | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Bennett, A. J. | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Margesson, Capt. D. |
| Bethel, A. | Fraser, Captain Ian | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Frece, Sir Walter de | Meyer, Sir Frank. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Ganzoni, Sir John | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. | Gates, Percy | Monsell, Eyres, Com, Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Braithwaite, A. N. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) |
| Brass, Captain W. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Murchison, C. K. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon William Clive | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Neville, R. J. |
| Briggs. J. Harold | Goff, Sir Park | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Grace, John | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Brown-Lindsay, Major H. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Owen, Major G. |
| Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'tb'l'd., Hexham) | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Grotrian, H. Brent | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Perring, Sir William George |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Peto, G. (Somerset. Frame) |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Pielou, D. P. |
| Burman, J. B. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Harney, E. A. | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Harris, Percy A. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hartington, Marquess of | Preston, William |
| Campbell, E. T. | Haslam, Henry C. | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Radford, E. A. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Raine, W. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Heneage, Lieut.-Cot. Arthur P. | Ramsden, E. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Herbert, S. (York, N. R., scar. Wh'by) | Rees, Sir Beddoe |
| Christie, J. A. | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Remnant, Sir James |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Holland, Sir Arthur | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Rye, F. G. |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hurd, Percy A. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hurst, Gerald B. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) | Sandon, Lord |
| Cope, Major William | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Savery, S. S. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Shaw, Lt -Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Jackson. Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Jacob, A. E. | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Jephcott, A. R. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Kenyon, Barnet | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Lister, Cunliffe., Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Livingstone, A. M. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Drewe, C. | Loder, J. de V. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Duckworth. John | Lord. Walter Greases | Stuart, Crichton., Lord C. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Lougher, L. | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Warrender, Sir Victor | Withers, John James |
| Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Thomson, Trevelyan (Middiesbro, W.) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Watts, Dr. T. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Tinne, J. A. | Wiggins, William Martin | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) | |
| Waddington, R. | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Wallace, Captain D. E. | Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd) | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain |
| Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) | Windsor-Clive Lieut.-Colonel George | Bowyer. |
| Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
§ Mr. TAYLORI beg to move, in line 10, after the word "dwellings," to insert the words
which have been or are normally used for human habitation.We have never yet heard from the Minister any statement in precise terms as to exactly what the Government have in mind when they propose to take powers to use the funds to be provided by this Resolution for the conversion of buildings other than houses, and, therefore, I think we are entitled to, have from them a definite statement as to whether or not it will be possible, for instance, to convert buildings which are in use, say, as barns at the present time, and whether it will be possible to use money under the terms of this Resolution for housing agricultural workers and others of similar economic condition in converted barns. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us precisely what is intended, because the object of the Amendment is to prevent the use of public money on buildings which have not been used as dwelling houses, but which are now possibly to be converted into dwelling houses under the terms of this Resolution. This Bill may be truly described as a Bill to provide doles for distressed dukes and impecunious squires, and to perpetuate in the villages the shockingly low standards of housing under which agricultural workers now live. Whatever justification there may be for reconditioning some of the property in our villages which has fallen into a state of disrepair, it seems to me that there can be no possible reason for adding on to the burdens already imposed burdens for the purpose of enabling farmers or landowners to convert buildings which have not formerly been used as dwelling houses.I would like to know, from the Parliamentary Secretary, for instance, whether or not it is intended to enable people to convert buildings into dwelling-houses and then to insist, after they have 1904 received public funds, that the tenancies shall be subject to the same kind of limitations that exist with regard to tied cottages generally. The hon. Member will be well aware of the petty tyrannies that are still practised in our villages, and I should be very sorry indeed to give any vote or assent to any principle which would perpetuate a system which interferes with a man's personal liberty, and if it is proposed to allow more houses with those conditions of tenure to come into being on the countryside, I sincerely hope this Bill will not go through. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, when this Bill was before the House on a previous occasion, referred to the use of the public money which the Bill proposed to provide for the purpose of preserving, reconditioning, and possibly altering some of the older and more picturesque buildings, which, he said, helped to preserve the genius of our villages. We want, to know exactly what is meant by the word "buildings" in connection with this Resolution. We are not prepared to agree to the use of public money for the conversion of buildings into dwelling-houses, because the spokesmen of the Government seem to have taken up an attitude, both on the occasion of the Second Reading and in this Debate, of deliberately refusing to define exactly what they mean by the term "other than dwelling-houses."
§ Sir K. WOODHon. Members opposite began by moving an Amendment with the object of limiting the operations of this Bill, and it is, of course, in line with the opposition to the Measure as a whole which has been put forward by the Labour party, so that I take it that it is in that spirit that we must view all the Amendments put forward from those benches. I must first explain, particularly as the late Minister of Health is present, exactly what we generally propose as far as reconditioning is concerned, and then deal more particularly with the 1905 specific points raised. The object of this particular Resolution and of the Bill is to make certain improvements and additions to dwellings up and down the country, which are capable, after completion, of becoming fit for habitation as dwellings by all sorts and conditions of people, and it is proposed, by the addition of an extra room, the raising of the roof, the enlargement of windows, the provision of a wash-house, the insertion of a damp course, or, which is perhaps more important still, the provision of an adequate water supply or sanitary convenience, to make what are now unsatisfactory dwellings into decent and proper habitations, particularly for the agricultural labourers of the country. That is the main intention of the Bill.
It is also contemplated, though not by any means to such a large extent, that there may be other buildings up and down the country, which, after the completion of the works I have indicated, may become in all respects fit for habitation as dwellings for the agricultural labourers and others who may desire to inhabit them. It will be entirely for the local authority itself to determine. The procedure under this Measure will be that anyone who has any such proposal to put forward will submit their proposition, and no doubt their plans, to the local authority, and the authority will then decide whether or not it is a fit and proper case to go forward. In addition to that, and as an extra precaution, both on the financial side and on the other side of this matter, the local authority, before it can proceed by way of the procedure under grant, has to submit its proposals to the Ministry of Health. Therefore, so far as any doubt, if there be any genuine doubt, that any buildings will be adapted which are not fit for the purpose and will not become fit and habitable for the people who so badly need housing accommodation at the present time is concerned, my answer is that it will be for the local authority, in the first instance, to determine, and after the local authority have come to the conclusion that a satisfactory dwelling fit for proper habitation can so be made, there is the extra check of the Scheme being required to be submitted to the Ministry of Health. That is really the answer to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor), who moved the Amendment.
1906 I may say, in conclusion, that I should have thought that anyone who had any regard to the conditions of the countryside in relation to housing at the present time would have welcomed a proposal by which any sort of building, so long as it was made fit for proper habitation, would be made available as under the proposals of this Bill, The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and, I think, another hon. Member opposite said we should rest on the 1924 Act. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman himself knows what the result of his Act has been, so far as agricultural parishes are concerned. He spoke this afternoon as an authority on what should be done for the working classes, but he had an opportunity in his 1924 Act, and I may tell him that at the present moment there are only erected, under the provisions of that Measure, which—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy)I must remind the hon. Member that he would not be in order on this occasion in making a Second Reading speech.
§ Sir K. WOODI will content myself by saying that only 2,694 houses have been erected under that Act.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYDoes the hon. Gentleman mean the Committee to understand that that is the total number of houses erected under that Act, and will he tell us of any other Act that has provided anything like the same number of houses for agricultural workers?
§ Sir K. WOODYes. The figure I gave is quite correct. Only 2,694 houses have been built under the 1924 Act in agricultural parishes, and if the right hon. Gentleman will put a question to me, I will let him know the exact figures so far as houses under any other Act are concerned. My point is that obviously, after a very fair trial of that Act and a very large expenditure of money, we should do nothing to curtail the operations of this Bill, which is now being sought to be done by the Amendment before the Committee.
§ Mr. PALINGOne would think from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary that this was a Housing Bill. Can the hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of how many people who are not in houses 1907 now are going to be put in houses as a result of the passing of this Financial Resolution? He knows himself that the major part of the money will be spent on houses that are already occupied and that the number of houses not occupied that will be put into repair and reconditioned will be very small indeed. I would like to know, because the hon. Member has not answered the question put to him.
§ Sir K. WOODWhy should we stop a single house being repaired?
§ Mr. PALINGWhy should you offer this as an alternative to the Housing Act, which was intended to build houses? That was the whole trend of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and he has not answered the question that was asked him. Will he give us an estimate of how many houses they think can be built out of the stables, for instance, suggested by the late Minister of Health, a suggestion which the Tory party opposite seemed to resent? How many houses are going to be adapted from buildings of this description? One hon. Member opposite was very indignant at the suggestion that stables were going to be turned into houses, so evidently he did not agree with it, but another hon. Member below the Gangway said that the structures of a good many stables were good enough out of which to build houses. That is the intention of the Government that houses shall be built out of stables, and the stables of the dukes and the impecunious squires, which my hon. Friend talked about, are to be turned into houses for the working classes. With all the faults that have been suggested in regard to the Housing Act of 1924, it did make an attempt to build houses for the rural population, who had never been able to get houses of any description at all. The number of houses that will be reconditioned, or the number of people who will get houses as a result of this Bill is so small, that no questions from this side can drag an answer from the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary. As a matter of fact, the bulk of the money is going into the pockets of people who already have houses, who have refused their obligation in the past to put them in proper repair, and because of that, a Tory Government is going to do it for them, and make a present of the 1908 money to them. I was rather interested to read the speech of the Minister of Health about this subject from the æsthetic point of view. He said:
There is another aspect of the case which I should not like to omit, although it is not perhaps quite of the some order of importance. Our country villages contain a great deal that is characteristic of old England in style and material and in the architecture of their cottages. To look at cottages, such as you may see in the Cotswold district in Gloucestershire, or in East Kent, where I was the other day, is a constant pleasure, not only to country dwellers, but to town dwellers, too, and I must say that it seems to me it would be something like an act of vandalism if we were to destroy these reminders of an older and more picturesque world in order to replace them with buildings which, though they may be sensible, are of a different style and cannot be said to harmonise with their surroundings. It is not only an æsthetic questions. I cannot help feeling that the existence of an environment of this kind must do a great deal to preserve what I may call the genius of the place in the minds of the inhabitants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1926; col. 2853, Vol. 198.]So that, presumably, in order to preserve the æsthetic value and the genius of the place in the minds of the inhabitants, old stables and barns which can be converted into houses, are going to be converted under this particular Resolution. I do not think much will be done in that direction from the point of view of this Resolution, and while the paragraph I have read speaks highly for the imagination of the Minister, I do not think it will work out well in practice. As a matter of fact, the money of this country would be better spent on new houses, while allowing some of these old houses to go out of repair and out of existence as soon as possible, rather than recondition them and repair some which are almost too bad for anything.To argue that this is an alternative to the Housing Act of my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Health is sheer absurdity. What is going to be done by the people who are in control of these rural councils? An hon. Member on the Liberal Benches objected to an Amendment for the limitation of the money. He seemed to be of opinion that because of the natural conservatism and the undesirability of spending rates in any circumstances whatever, the rural council would put the limitation on it, and do nothing of the kind. And so, from all points of view, there does not 1909 seem that good can come out of the Bill. In so far as this money has to be spent—for I dare say the majority of the Government will carry this Resolution—it should be spent on houses already inhabited or to be inhabited, and not used for converting these old barns and stables into houses which are thought good enough for the agricultural population.
§ Sir PHILIP PILDITCHI am very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to agree to this Amendment, and for the reasons for which he expressed disapproval of it. He thinks —and I agree with him—that it means a restriction of the Bill, which, I think, is restricted enough already. I would like to see it carried further into other districts than, apparently, will be touched; but that is another matter into which I must not enter at this moment. I would like to say, however, that I am not quite sure, if hon. Members could see some of the things I have seen in my experience, whether they would not agree with me. If they at all agreed that it is desirable that the inhabitants of rural districts should have better housing facilities than they have at this moment, I think they would not support this Amendment. There has been a great deal of contempt this afternoon thrown upon the conversion of stables into houses. I am going actually to do what may be interpreted as the unpopular thing, and that is to suggest that there are plenty of places where, in the present condition of housing, stables can be properly, usefully and desirably turned into houses.
§ Mr. PALINGWould the hon. Gentleman tell us the cost of conversion?
§ Sir P. PILDITCHI can take the hon. Member to a road in which stables have gone through various metamorphoses. They were designed originally as stables with horses on the ground floor, and the people who looked after the horses on the upper floor. They remained in that use for ten years. Then they became garages, and now they have become workmen's dwellings, and not only workmen's dwellings, but dwellings of people who can afford to pay more than the average working man, although I quite agree that a working man is as entitled to everything in the shape of sanitary conditions as 1910 any other person. The passage of this Amendment would absolutely prevent a great many buildings of this kind being made into dwellings. The hon. Member asked me what the cost of transforming them would be. In these particular instances, the structure being quite sound, it did not cost a large proportion of the original cost of the buildings to transform them, but it cost a good deal, because the fittings used when the places were stables had to be taken out and replaced by fittings necessary to make them into proper houses. It was a sum, however, which I think would come well within what is prescribed in the Bill.
The Mover of the Amendment proposes to insert the words "which have been or are normally used for human habitation." If he had gone as far as to say, "which are, or can be, made suitable for human habitation" as a matter of principle, I should agree with him. But that is already covered by the Bill, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said. Who can imagine, having regard to all the stages through which the consents will have to be obtained, that any undesirable building is likely to be made use of for human habitation? It has, first of all, to receive the sanction of the local authority, and then it has to come to the Ministry of Health. Really and truly, if my hon. Friends opposite, who profess to speak with a direct sense of responsibility for the working classes of this country, have no better suggestion to offer than one which would limit, to my knowledge in a great many cases, the provision of absolutely suitable dwellings for the working classes, then I think they must have mistaken their vocation in regard to this question. Rather than limit the operation of this Bill, I would wish it extended. At present it is limited to rural districts, I take it, and to the districts which are governed by county councils and county boroughs. I do not know how many county boroughs will benefit by the operation of the Bill; I should hope that some would, at any rate. As I say, I would like to see the operation of the Bill not limited, and, like all Amendments which seek to restrict the operations of the Bill, I oppose this one.
§ Mr. MARCHThe hon. Member who has just sat down has dilated upon the alteration of stables into dwellings. I 1911 would like to ask him to point to a rural area where these lovely stables have been altered into dwellings. I rather think he is referring to urban areas when he talks about the alteration of stables. I happen to be one of the unfortunates born over a stable. I have been closely connected with stables ever since, and I have been trying to get as far away from them as I possibly can, and to encourage everyone else to get as far away as possible. I happen to know something about the rural areas of Essex. I was in Essex during the last holiday, looking round. I did not see very many stables which could be made into good human habitations. I have seen a number of old dilapidated houses, the owners of which are waiting for the Government to pass this Bill so that the houses may be put into habitable order. The people have left them, the windows are out and the houses are going to have roofs put on. Then it will not make them decent, because they are not in a decent quarter.
What we want to do is to get on with the provision of decent houses for the people, and not try to improve some of the old buildings which have been referred to as picturesque. It is very picturesque to go down some of the swamps and holes where they put up
§ houses for agricultural workers! Many of them have not got any sanitary accommodation, and it is necessary that they should have water laid on and drains put in. But they cannot get it done by the present landlords, unless they are backed by the Tory Government with a subsidy. I think such houses ought to be demolished entirely, and new houses built. If hon. Members opposite had any decent respect for agricultural labourers, as they profess, they would build houses for them, or get them built, and then they would be the property of the local authorities, instead of subsidising private enterprise, which has failed miserably.
§ Mr. PALINGCan the hon. Gentleman give us an estimate as to how many houses will be converted as a result of this proposal?
§ Sir K. WOODNo, Sir.
§ Mr. TAYLORCan the hon. Gentleman give us any estimate of the expense of the conversion?
§ Sir K. WOODNo, Sir.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 81; Noes, 250.
1913| Division No. 462.] | AYES. | [6.30 p.m. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Riley, Ben |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Ritson, J. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hardie, George D. | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hayday, Arthur | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Baker, Walter | Hirst, G. H. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Scurr, John |
| Batey, Joseph | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Sexton, James |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Bromfield, William | Kelly, W. T. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bromley, J. | Kennedy, T. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Buchanan, G. | Lansbury, George | Stamford, T. W. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lawrence, Susan | Taylor, R. A. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lawson, John James | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lee, F. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Cove, W. G. | Lowth, T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lunn, William | Viant, S. P. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | March, S. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Dennison, R. | Maxton, James | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Duncan, C. | Montague, Frederick | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Whiteley, W. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Naylor T. E. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Gosling, Harry | Palin, John Henry | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Greenwood, A (Nelson and Colne) | Paling, W. | Windsor, Walter |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Ponsonby, Arthur | |
| Groves, T. | Potts, John S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Grundy, T. W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Balfour, George (Hampstead) |
| Albery, Irving James | Atholl, Duchess of | Balniel, Lord |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Banks, Reginald Mitchell |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Perring, Sir William George |
| Beamish, Captain T. P. H. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Goff, Sir Park | Pielou, D. P. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Grace, John | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Bennett, A. J. | Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.) | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Bethel, A. | Grant, Sir J. A. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Preston, William |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Grotrian, H. Brent | Radford, E. A. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) | Raine, W. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Ramsden, E. |
| Braithwaite, A. N. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Rees, Sir Beddoe |
| Brass, Captain W. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Reid, D. D. (County Down) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Remnant, Sir James |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Harney, E. A. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Harris, Percy A. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Harrison, G. J. C. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hartington, Marquess of | Ropner, Major L. |
| Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Haslam, Henry C. | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Rye, F. G. |
| Burman, J. B. | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Sandon, Lord |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. A.(Birm., W.) | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Savery, S. S. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Holland, Sir Arthur | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'1, Exchange) |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.) |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Christie, J. A. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Skeiton, A. N. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hume, Sir G. H. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hurd, Percy A. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hurst, Gerald B. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. | Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's) | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Cope, Major William | Jacob, A. E. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Jephcott, A. R. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Waddington, R. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Loder, J. de V. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Laugher, L. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Dixey, A. C. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Drewe, C. | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Duckworth, John | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Macintyre, Ian | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | McLean, Major A. | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Macmillan, Captain H. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Ellis, R. G. | McNeal, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Elveden, Viscount | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| England, Colonel A. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds, Central) |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Malone, Major P. B. | Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd) |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Margesson, Captain D. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Withers, John James |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Fenby, T. D. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Fielden, E. B. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Finburgh, S. | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T | Neville, R. J. | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Major Hennessy and Captain |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Owen, Major G. | Lord Stanley. |
| Gates, Percy | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
§ Mr. RILEYI beg to move, in line 12, to leave out the word "thirty-one", and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-seven."
The effect of this Amendment would be to lay it down that applications for assistance must have been received by a local authority before the 1st October, 1927, instead of 1931 as provided by the Resolution. I move this Amendment for two reasons. The first is in order to bring these proposals into line with the Government's financial policy on housing under the Housing Acts. I understand that the Minister of Health has already let it be known that the present basis of assistance to local authorities in their housing schemes is to terminate by October of next year, when some revision will be made. At any rate, public authorities feel they cannot count on receiving assistance for new schemes which are not approved by October of next year, and I suggest that it would be useful and convenient that the same arrangements should be made under this Resolution. My second reason for moving this Amendment is that the policy under this Resolution is a new departure in housing methods. It is obviously in the nature of an experiment, and by October of next year we should be in a position to know how far these proposals are effective, and to what extent advantage has been taken of the assistance offered, and we should know, therefore, how far Parliament was committed.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI think the hon. Member has forgotten the conditions with regard to subsidies under existing Housing Acts which are to be reviewed as from the 1st October, 1927. That limitation applies to the completion of new houses by that date, and not to improvement schemes. It is a totally different thing from the proposal in this Bill, which is to limit the time within which applications for assistance can be made. The hon. Member would not achieve the purpose he has in view if his Amendment were carried, because we should not in the least know how far Parliament was committed. If we limit the time to the date he proposes, all that would then have happened would be that in order to make certain that no opportunity was missed, everybody would have sent in applications in respect of all their houses, without having had proper time to go into the cases and consider whether they did or did not need assistance. Local authorities would be swamped with applications for assistance, a large proportion of which would be found, on investigation at a later date, to be not worth proceeding with. From his own point of view it is better to allow a longer period in order that we may get only applications which are serious applications and have been submitted to proper investigation.
§ Question put, "That the word 'thirty-one' stand part of the Question."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 82.
1917| Division No. 63.] | AYES. | [6.45 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Albery, Irving James | Burman, J. B. | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F W. | Burton, Colonel H. W. | Dean, Arthur Wellesley |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Dixey, A. C. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Drewe, C. |
| Balniel, Lord | Campbell, E. T. | Duckworth, John |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Chapman, Sir S. | Elliot, Major Walter E. |
| Beamish, Captain T. P. H. | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Ellis, R. G. |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Christie, J. A. | Elveden, Viscount |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | England, Colonel A. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Clarry, Reginald George | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) |
| Bethel, A. | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. | Fairfax, Captain J. G. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Colfox, Major William Phillips | Falle, Sir Bertram G. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Fenby, T. D. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Cope, Major William | Fielden, E. B. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | Finburgh, S. |
| Braithwaite, A. N. | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Ford, Sir P. J. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Fraser, Captain Ian |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Dalkeith, Earl of | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Gates, Percy |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham |
| Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.) |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Goff, Sir Park | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Grace, John | MacIntyre, Ian | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.) | McLean Major A. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Grant, Sir J. A. | Macmillan, Captain H. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E |
| Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) | Malone, Major P. B. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Margesson, Captain D. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Meyer, Sir Frank | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Harney, E. A. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Neville, R. J. | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Owen, Major G. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.) |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Perring, Sir William George | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Holland, Sir Arthur | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Pielou, D. P. | Waddington, R. |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Power, Sir John Cecil | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Hudson, R.S.(Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Preston, William | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Price, Major C. W. M. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Radford, E. A. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Hurst, Gerald B. | Raine, W. | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl'n) | Ramsden, E. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Remnant, Sir James | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) |
| Jacob, A. E. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd) |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Ropner, Major L. | Withers, John James |
| Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Rye, F. G. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. | |
| Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Sandon, Lord | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Loder, J. de V. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Major Hennessy and Captain |
| Lougher, L. | Savery, S. S. | Viscount Curzon. |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Riley, Ben |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvi1) | Ritson, J. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hardie, George D. | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Baker, Walter | Hayday, Arthur | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hirst, G. H. | Scurr, John |
| Batey, Joseph | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Bromley, J. | Kelly, W. T. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Buchanan, G. | Kennedy, T. | Taylor, R. A. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lansbury, George | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lawrence, Susan | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Compton, Joseph | Lawson, John James | Townend, A. E. |
| Cove, W. G. | Lee, F. | Viant, S. P. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lowth, T. | Wellhead, Richard C. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lunn, William | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Dennison, R. | March, S. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Duncan, C. | Maxton, James | Whiteley, W. |
| Dunnico, H. | Montague, Frederick | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Gardner, J. P. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Naylor, T. E. | Windsor, Walter |
| Gosling, Harry | Palin, John Henry | |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Paling, W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. |
| Groves, T. | Potts, John S. | Hayes. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
§ Mr. PALINGI beg to move, in line 15, to leave out the word "two-thirds," and to insert instead thereof the word "one-third."
The principle of this Bill is thoroughly bad, and we on this side of the Committee do not believe in voting public money to private owners of houses. Consequently, we are trying to cut down the plundering contained in this Bill to the least possible amount. We want to prevent these people putting their hands in the public purse if we can. If we cannot do that, we want to reduce the amount that they are able to take from the public purse. It seems curious to me that, in order to get decent houses for the agricultural labourer, the State should have to resort to measures of this kind. There are ways and means under the present law by which owners can be made to keep their premises in a proper state of repair without resorting to proposals of this kind. Under these proposals there will be quite a number of private owners who will not let their premises to the people for whom the houses are intended, and who do not employ workmen at all.
§ These people will let the houses in the ordinary course and get the best rent they can. That being so, and in view of the fact that we failed to get rid of the principle of this Bill, we are now trying to cut down the principle of the Measure as much as we can.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe effect of this Amendment would be of a double nature. In the first place, it would make it incumbent upon the owner of the house to find two-thirds of the money instead of one-third; and, in the second place, it would enable the owner to get 3 per cent. on that, or twice as much as under the provisions of this Bill. Both of those are things that we on this side do not desire to encourage. The adoption of the Amendment would kill the operation of the Bill. That, I understand, is the object of the Amendment and therefore the Government are opposed to it.
§ Question put, "That the word 'two-thirds' stand part of the Question.'
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 85.
1921| Division No. 464.] | AYES. | [6.57 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Clarry, Reginald George | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. |
| Albery, Irving James | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. | Gates, Percy |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon, George Abraham |
| Balniel, Lord | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Cope, Major William | Glyn, Major R. G. C. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | Goff, Sir Park |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Beamish, Captain T. P. H. | Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Grace, John |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.) |
| Bellairs, Commander Canyon W. | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Grant, Sir J. A. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Bethel, A. | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Grotrian, H. Brent |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N) |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) |
| Braithwaite, A. N. | Dixey, A. C. | Harney, E. A. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Drewe, C. | Harris, Percy A. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Duckworth, John | Harrison, G. J. C. |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Eden, Captain Anthony | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Ellis, R G. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Elveden, Viscount | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | England, Colonel A. | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Burman, J. B. | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Everard, W. Lindsay | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Holland, Sir Arthur |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Fenby, T. D. | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Fielden, E. B. | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Finburgh, S. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Christie, J. A. | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Hurst, Gerald B. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Fraser, Captain Ian | Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) |
| Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Owen, Major G. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Jacob, A. E. | Perring, Sir William George | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Pielou, D. P. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Power, Sir John Cecil | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Preston, William | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Price, Major C. W. M. | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Radford, E. A. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Raine, W. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.) |
| Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Ramsden, E. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Loder, J. de V. | Remnant, Sir James | Waddington, R. |
| Lougher, L. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Luce, Maj.-Gen, Sir Richard Harman | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Ropner, Major L. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Watts, Dr. T. |
| MacIntyre, Ian | Rye, F. G. | Wiggins, William Martin |
| McLean, Major A. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Macmillan, Captain H. | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| MacRobert, Alexander M. | Sandon, Lord | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) |
| Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd) |
| Malone, Major P. B. | Savery, S. S. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Margesson, Captain D. | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) | Withers, John James |
| Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Meyer, Sir Frank | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Skelton, A. N. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Smithers, Waldron | |
| Neville, R. J. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Sprot, Sir Alexander | Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C. |
| Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.) | Thomson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Ritson, J. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hardie, George D. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Baker, Walter | Hayday, Arthur | Scurr, John |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hirst, G. H. | Sexton, James |
| Batey, Joseph | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Bromley, J. | Kelly, W. T. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Buchanan, G. | Kennedy, T. | Taylor, R. A. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lansbury, George | Thomas, Rt. Hon, James H. (Derby) |
| Clowes, S. | Lawrence, Susan | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lawson, John James | Townend, A. E. |
| Compton, Joseph | Lee, F. | Viant, S. P. |
| Cove, W. G. | Lowth, T. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lunn, William | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Day, Colonel Harry | March, S. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Dennison, R. | Maxton, James | Whiteley, W. |
| Duncan, C. | Montague, Frederick | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Dunnico, H. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Gardner, J. P. | Naylor, T. E. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Palin, John Henry | Windsor, Walter |
| Gosling, Harry | Paling, W. | |
| Greenwood, A (Nelson and Colne) | Ponsonby, Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Potts, John S. | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. |
| Groves, T. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Hayes. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Riley, Ben |
§ Main Question put.
1922§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 82.
1925| Division No. 465.] | AYES. | [7.7 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Balniel, Lord | Beamish, Captain T. P. H. |
| Albery, Irving James | Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Bennett, A. J. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Bethel, A. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Gower, Sir Robert | Perring, Sir William George |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Grace, John | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.) | Pielou D. P. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Grant, Sir J. A. | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Preston, William |
| Braithwaite, A. N. | Grotrian, H. Brent | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) | Radford, E. A. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Raine, W. |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Rees, Sir Beddoe |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Reid, D. D. (County Down) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Harney, E. A. | Remnant, Sir James |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Harris, Percy A. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Harrison, G. J. C. | Rice, Sir Frederick |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Hartington, Marquess of | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Haslam, Henry C. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Burman, J. B. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Rye, F. G. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Holland, Sir Arthur | Savery, S. S. |
| Christie, J. A. | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.) |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Skeiton, A. N. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Colfox, Major William Phillips | Hurd, Percy A. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hurst, Gerald B. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Stanley, Hon, O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Jacob, A. E. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Jephcott, A. R. | Stott, Lieut.-colonel W. H. |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Lister, Cunliffe., Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Dixey, A. C. | Livingstone, A. M. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Drewe, C. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Duckworth John | Loner J. de V. | Waddington, R. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Lougher, L. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Ward, Lt.-Cot. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Ellis, R. G. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Elveden, Viscount | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| England, Colonel A. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | MacIntyre, Ian | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | McLean, Major A. | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Macmillan, Captain H. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Fenby, T. D. | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Fermoy, Lord | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) |
| Fielden, E. B. | Malone, Major P. B. | Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd) |
| Finburgh, S. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Margesson, Captain D. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R | Withers, John James |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Meyer, Sir Frank | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Gates, Percy | Neville, R. J. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) | |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Goff, Sir Park | Owen, Major G. | Major Cope and Captain Lord |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Stanley. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Baker, Walter | Bromley, J. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Buchanan, G. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Charleton, H. C. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Bromfield, William | Clowes, S. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Scurr, John |
| Compton, Joseph | Kelly, W. T. | Sexton, James |
| Cove, W. G. | Kennedy, T. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lansbury, George | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lawrence, Susan | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lawson, John James | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Dennison, R. | Lee, F. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Duncan, C. | Lowth, T. | Taylor, R. A. |
| Dunnico, H. | Lunn, William | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Gardner, J. P. | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Townend, A. E. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | March, S. | Viant, S. P. |
| Gosling, Harry | Maxton, James | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Montague, Frederick | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Groves, T. | Naylor, T. E. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Grundy, T. W | Palin, John Henry | Whiteley, W. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Paling, W. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Hardie, George D. | Potts, John S. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Windsor, Walter |
| Hayday, Arthur | Riley, Ben | |
| Hirst, G. H. | Ritson, J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. |
| Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Hayes. |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Scrymgeour, E. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolution to be reported To-morrow.