HC Deb 29 July 1930 vol 242 cc440-50

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 6, leave out "October," and insert "April."

Miss LAWRENCE

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. SPEAKER

This and the next five Amendments raise a question of privilege.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER

An entry will be made in the Journals of the House.

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 9, leave out "and," and insert "or."

Mr. GREENWOOD

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. BUTLER

There is every reason why we should object to the attitude of the Minister on this vital point, which is most important for housing in the rural areas, for which the Minister has expressed such concern. We are grateful for the fact that the Government have accepted the previous Amendment to insert "April" instead of "October," because that makes the position easier for certain agricultural parishes. We are grateful for that, but there are still agricultural parishes which will not get the housing subsidy if the definition is left as it is. At present the definition is that the net annual value of the land must be 25 per cent. of the total value, and that the population must be of a certain amount. This Amendment would substitute the word "or" for "and," so that the subsidy would be payable either on a population basis or on a basis of percentage of net annual value. We are frankly surprised at the attitude taken by the right hon. Gentleman. In the Committee stage when we raised this point, the Minister agreed that there was an anomaly. He said that there was something to put right, and, although he has made us a slight concession on the point of date, that does not solve the difficulty. In another place, Lord Strachie declared that about 30 per cent. of the agricultural parishes in England would be cut out from having the subsidy if the Bill stands without this Amendment. If one-third of the agricultural parishes are to be cut out through faulty drafting it is right that we should consider whether we ought not to waive privilege on this occasion. The second reason why we regard this as important, and are surprised at the Minister's point of view, is that the Leader of the other House, Lord Parmoor, said: My Lords, there is no"—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member cannot quote from a speech made in the other House.

Mr. BUTLER

I am very sorry if, through lack of knowledge, I have erred, and I apologise. wished to refer to the fact that in another place a Noble Lord, speaking on behalf of the Government, acknowledged that there was substance in this Amendment, and was willing, I believe, to meet the points raised by other Noble Lords. All who are interested in rural housing know that it is a point of substance. If this is left on the basis of 25 per cent. of the net annual value it will be found that there are many parishes in which the net annual value tips over the scale against them, and prevents them from being regarded as agricultural parishes, merely because some railway line goes through a parish or it contains some industrial hereditament. I know that to be the case in Essex and in other parts of the country, and the Rural District Councils Association says that this Amendment will affect 30 per cent. of the agricultural parishes in the country.

Mr. HURD

May I express the hope that the Minister will view this proposal on its merits? He is anxious that the fullest possible use should be made of the Bill in order to obtain houses where they are badly needed, in the rural areas, and if we are left with the double qualification unquestionably many rural parishes will be struck out, and among agricultural labourers and colliers living in adjacent parishes some will be precluded from enjoying advantages which we wish them to have. If we retain the alternative method it will still be in the power of the Minister under Subsection (3) to decide whether both the definitions or one only must be fulfilled. If the Minister will look at the question without regard to the immediate question of privilege but solely from the point of view of making the Bill effective in the rural areas I am sure he will take the line that the Amendment may be accepted.

Mr. GREENWOOD

I am only too anxious to do what I can, but I want the House to understand the effect of the Amendment. It will not help the rural areas but it will bring in well-to-do suburban areas and industrial areas, which, after all, was not the precise object of the differentiation made in the Act of 1924. In the 1924 Act we instituted a double condition—that of the percentage of the net value of the agricultural land to the total net annual value of the population per hundred acres. The only reason why we are dealing with the matter at all in this Bill is not in order to alter the law, but as the Local Government Act abolished the rating of agricultural land the old definition no longer applies, and we have therefore, instead of using the term "the value of the land at the beginning of the financial year in which the housing proposals were approved," to bring in the last valuation that there was. We could not help ourselves. All we have done is to try to maintain the law as it was before. I contend the present definition is a very generous one indeed. Hon. Members who were here when the 1924 Act was under discussion will remember that as a result of pressure from all sides of the House—the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) was very active—we had to alter our original proposal, which was that the valuation of the agricultural land in the parish must exceed 33⅓ per cent. of the total rateable value and that the population should be less than 35 per 100 acres. We diminish the annual value from 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent., and we increase the population basis from 35 to 50 per 100 acres. To go any further would open the door still wider to the danger which we are trying to avoid. What hon. Members are now asking for at the very last gasp is to have either test in the Bill but not both, and that would not be convenient for rural areas. Every rural area comes inside this provision. The effect of this Amendment would not be to assist rural areas, but to assist rich counties like Surrey, for which purpose this Measure is not intended. The Amendment would bring in those who have no right to preferential treatment.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE

The Minister of Health does not seem to have fully appreciated the effect of this Amendment and the intention of my hon. Friends in raising this question. I am quite convinced that there is not a single wealthy suburban area that would be let into the Bill by the acceptance of this Amendment. You cannot find wealthy suburban areas where the agricultural land amounts to more than 25 per cent. of the annual value nor similar areas where the population is less than 50 per 100 acres. This Measure applies to areas where agriculture is the sole industry. There are a great many parishes where nothing but agriculture gives employment to the people, and those parishes are to be deprived of the privileges conferred by this Bill because one or two large houses, or a railway junction, happen to be in those areas. Those are the very cases where the rural housing problem is the hardest because the fact that there are a few large houses or a railway company employing a certain number of men makes an additional demand for houses, and a great many of the cottages intended as part of the equipment of the farmer have been taken for the occupation of railway servants, private gardeners, or chauffeurs, and they have greatly aggravated the housing I have referred.

I happen to live in a purely agricultural area. There is no parish in the rural district in which I live that will not be excluded from these privileges if the Bill stands as it is, because the existence of a certain number of residential houses occupied by people who go up to London to work five days a week has so increased the annual value of these parishes that they are ruled out under this Clause as it stands, though they would come in if the Amendment were accepted. I do ask the Minister, even at this late hour, to reconsider this problem, and to take it from some of us who live in and know the country and its problems that this problem does exist, and that we are making this appeal on behalf of the agricultural industry, and not on behalf of the wealthy suburbs.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

There is no doubt that the Government are distinctly letting down the agricultural industry by their action in this matter. If it be true, and there seems to be no reason to dispute it, that one-third of the agricultural land of the country will be denied the privilege that is mentioned in this Bill, what becomes of the promise of the Government to provide houses in order to do away with the tied cottage system? The Government are introducing this Measure in order to provide sufficient houses in cases where the farmers cannot put them up for their agricultural labourers. This Amendment suggests a means for providing more such houses. What answer are the Government going to give to the agricultural labourer when he asks where those houses are? We remember at the last Election how glib the Socialist orators were as to what they were going to do for housing in rural areas. As one who sees a great deal of the agricultural districts, I say that the Government are definitely letting down the agricultural labourer in this matter.

Mr. GOULD

If the homes that we desire, and the destruction of the houses that we desire to abolish, are going to aid the weakest and poorest classes of the community in this country, it is vital that this Bill should have the widest application that is possible. Even assuming that Surrey comes in, and that the agricultural workers living in Surrey under slum conditions will have the chance to enjoy the benefits of the higher subsidy immediately this Bill becomes an Act, that is the worst that can be said on the subject. I see no reason why a worker in Surrey should not have the advantage of the higher subsidy, even though he lives in a rich residential district of that county. You will not find people of the middle class living in the slums, and, therefore, this provision will not aid people who can afford to pay higher rents. The fact of a main line of railway running through a purely agricultural district will disqualify huge tracts of agricultural England, and we suggest that the accident of living in such an area ought not to penalise an agricultural worker or any other worker of like economic standing. I know adjoining parishes where on one side of the road, because of the accident of a coal mine, it is an industrial area and there is a lesser subsidy, and on the other side of the road there is an agricultural worker with a higher subsidy. They come to me and ask me to explain it and I find it very difficult. I can in law, but they do not want a legal argument. There's is an economic condition. We ought to effect a remedy that will abolish slumdom for the agricultural workers and give them a higher subsidy. I wish the Minister would in the last resort give them a or b, either population or rateable value or, if he feels there is hardship to the Treasury where such areas come in, let him have the option to use both a and b. If we could select a or b, at the discretion of the Minister it would be a good thing for the rural parts, where the worst slum conditions exist, and it would be a godsend to many a home.

Viscount LYMINGTON

I support the Amendment in order to supplement the point made by my learned Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope). Not only is it a question of suburban dwellers coming into the countryside and taking up available farm workers' cottages for their servants, but it is also a grievance where industrial hereditaments cause the same thing. I know several cases where industrial workers in small factories would absolutely preclude an agricultural parish from getting the advantage of the subsidy. It is there, where the industrial worker can pay a higher rent and dispossess the agricultural worker, that the need is far the greatest. Subsection (3) gives the Minister absolute discretion to see that he is not defrauded. With the dis- cretion allowed in Sub-section (3), the Minister's case falls to the ground completely.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

There is a further point that ought to be raised. The hon. Member opposite defined the position very clearly. We are asking that the agricultural worker should have a chance under both heads, a and b. The Minister's position is entirely guarded under Sub-section (3), and if he has any of these wealthy urban districts he is able to deal with them straight away.

Mr. GREENWOOD indicated dissent.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Then he has not made the Bill watertight. That is the answer to that shake of the head. Another point is that there are a large number of parishes that are on the border line, so that they do not get the subsidy on the basis of population, and the population is very often of a type which is for practical purposes on the same basis as agricultural workers. There are a vast number of parishes in the West country, particularly around the coast, which, because they have small groups of, say, fishermen, or for some other reason—this point has not been raised before—will not come in under the Bill. I ask anyone who lives in this particular type of countryside, and also some hon. Members opposite, to join with us on this particular occasion in trying to enforce our opinion on the Government, so that we can do everything possible to help these poorer and smaller people.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON

I only want to add just one word to what has been said on this side of the House. I think that the Minister's speech would have carried more support—perhaps it might even have carried conviction—if he had been good enough to give us some statistics showing what the effect of this Amendment will really be in the various parishes throughout the countryside. I would also like to emphasise a point already made on this side of the House, namely, the hardship which arises in the case of railways which have to pass through certain rural parishes. It is not only railways that affect rateable values, but roads, with the ribbon development which inevitably follows the making of a first-class road through a rural parish. Then, again, there is the question of the spread of electricity which makes it possible to erect factories in out-of-the-way parishes which affects the situation. A great many factors have to be taken into account before a decision is made. I think we are amply justified on this side of the

House in pressing for something to be done to aid the dwellers in the rural areas.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 127.

Division No. 478] AYES. [11.53 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Moses, J. J. H. Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Haycock, A. W. Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Hayday, Arthur Muff, G.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Henderson. Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Murnin, Hugh
Ammon, Charles George Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Nathan, Major H. L.
Arnott, John Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Naylor, T. E.
Attlee, Clement Richard Herriotts, J. Noel Baker, P. J.
Barnes, Alfred John Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Barr, James. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Oldfield, J. R.
Batey, Joseph Hoffman, P. C. Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Bellamy, Albert Hopkin, Daniel Palin, John Henry
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Paling, Wilfrid
Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Benson, G. John, William (Rhondda, West) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Bentham, Dr. Ethel Johnston, Thomas Phillips, Dr. Marion
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Birkett, W. Norman Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) Potts, John S.
Bowen, J. W. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Price, M. P.
Bromfield, William Jowitt Sir W. A. (Preston) Quibell, D. J. K.
Bromley, J. Kelly, W. T. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Brooke, W. Kennedy, Thomas Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Brothers, M. Kinley, J. Ritson, J.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) Lang, Gordon Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O. (W. Bromwich)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Romeril, H. G.
Buchanan, G. Lathan, G. Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Burgess, F. G. Law, Albert (Bolton) Rowson, Guy
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Law, A. (Rossendale) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Caine, Derwent Hall- Lawrence, Susan Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Cameron, A. G. Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Sanders, W. S.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Sawyer, G. F.
Charleton, H. C. Leach, W. Scott, James
Chater, Daniel Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Scurr, John
Clarke, J. S. Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Cluse, W. S. Lees, J. Sherwood, G. H.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lewis, T. (Southampton) Shield, George William
Compton, Joseph Lindley, Fred W. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Daggar, George Lloyd, C. Ellis Shillaker, J.
Dalton, Hugh Logan, David Gilbert Simmons, C. J.
Day, Harry Longbottom, A. W. Sinkinson, George
Denman. Hon. R. D. Longden, F. Sitch, Charles H.
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Dukes, C. Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Duncan, Charles MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Ede, James Chuter MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Edmunds, J. E. McElwee, A. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) McEntee, V. L. Sorensen, R.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston) Stephen, Campbell
Egan, W. H. McKinlay, A. Strauss, G. R.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) MacLaren, Andrew Sullivan, J.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Sutton, J. E.
Gill, T. H. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Gillett, George M. McShane, John James Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Glassey, A. E. Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Thurtle, Ernest
Gossling, A. G. Mansfield, W. Tillett, Ben
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Marcus, M. Tinker, John Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Markham, S. F. Toole, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Marley, J. Tout, W. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Marshall, Fred Turner, B.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Matters, George Vaughan, D. J.
Groves, Thomas E. Matters, L. W. Viant, S. P.
Grundy, Thomas W. Maxton, James Walker, J.
Hall, G. H.(Merthyr Tydvil) Middleton, G. Wallace, H. W.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Mills, J. E. Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Milner, Major J. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Hardie, George D. Morley, Ralph Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Harris, Percy A. Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Wellock, Wilfred
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Morrison, Robert C, (Tottenham, N) Welsh, James (Paisley)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Mort, D. L. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Westwood, Joseph Wilkinson, Ellen C. Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
White, H. G. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Whiteley, William (Blaydon) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Mr. Benjamin Smith and Mr.
Wise, E. F. Hayes.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Fielden, E. B. Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Aske, Sir Robert Foot, Isaac Muirhead, A. J.
Atholl, Duchess of Forgan, Dr. Robert Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton O'Neill, Sir H.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Bird, Ernest Roy Gould, F. Power, Sir John Cecil
Blindell, James Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Pybus, Percy John
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Granville, E. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Gray, Milner Ramsbotham, H.
Boyce, H. L. Greene, W. P. Crawford Rathbone, Eleanor
Bracken, B. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Remer, John R.
Brass, Captain Sir William Gunston, Captain D. W. Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Ross, Major Ronald D.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Butler, R. A. Haslam, Henry C. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Carver, Major W. H. Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Christie, J. A. Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Horrabin, J. F. Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Colfox, Major William Philip Hunter, Dr. Joseph Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Colman, N. C. D. Hurd, Percy A. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Iveagh, Countess of Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Train, J.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Llewellin, Major J. J. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Darkeith, Earl of Long, Major Hon. Eric Warrender, Sir Victor
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Lymington, Viscount Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. Wells, Sydney R.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Margesson, Captain H. D. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Marjoribanks, E. C. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Winterton, G. E (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Dawson, Sir Philip Messer, Fred Womersley, W. J.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Millar, J. D. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Duckworth. G. A. V. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Edmondson, Major A. J. Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Elliot, Major Waiter E. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Elmley, Viscount Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Sir George Penny and Captain
Everard, W. Lindsay Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Euan Wallace.
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Morden, Col. W. Grant

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 19, leave out from the first word "land" to the word "has" in line 21.

Mr. SPEAKER

This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Miss LAWRENCE

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I ask the House to consent to waive the question of Privilege.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER

A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 49, line 26, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 26, after the word "being" insert: in the case of agricultural land fifty per cent. of the net annual value of the hereditament and in any other case.

Mr. SPEAKER

This Amendment also raises a question of Privilege.

Miss LAWRENCE

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER

A special entry will be made in the Journals.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 49, line 43, agreed to.