HC Deb 16 July 1931 vol 255 cc933-66
Mr. HURD

I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert the words: (2) If any member of the committee becomes, in the opinion of the Minister, unfit for any reason to continue to be a member of the committee tie Minister may terminate his appointment. I will be quite frank with the Parliamentary Secretary. We are bitterly disappointed with the attitude which she has taken towards some of our Amendments. The last Clause was one which she might very well have accepted and it would have eased the passage of the Bill. We now come to an Amendment which is in a sense her own idea. It is a proposal which the Government themselves have inserted for obvious reasons of necessity in the Anomalies Bill. That is the first ground on which we commend it to her attention. These committees will have very responsible duties. They will have to interpret and carry through the directions laid down by the Minister, and it is manifest that, if any member of the committee cares to do so, he may very seriously obstruct the very purpose which Parliament has in view in this legislation. If we turn back to the experience of the Act of 1926, we see how personal prejudices are able to obstruct the intentions of Parliament. If we have in existence committees to carry out the directions laid down by Acts of Parliament, it is not desirable that any member shall wilfully and continuously disregard what Parliament has in mind. The very existence of such a provision as this in the hands of the Minister would tend to check any obstructive tendency of the sort. Otherwise, you may get a member of the committee who may impede and drag the whole thing along and so really defeat the whole purpose in view.

We on this side are not too proud to learn and we have learned from the Anomalies Bill that this is the kind of provision that should be made and which is really necessary to ensure the effective administration of the law. I know that, for reasons which we all understand and appreciate, the Minister is absent from the House, but the Parliamentary Secretary is in charge, and I ask her to remember that she is a host in herself, and, if she will only take courage in this matter and do what she must know to be right, she will accept the Amendment.

Major LLEWELLIN

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope that the hon. Lady will accept it. We notice on reading through the Bill that there is very little about the appointment of this Committee in it. I also notice—and I am glad to see it—that the members are not going to be paid. That is all the more reason for getting rid of them quite summarily at the dictation of the Minister if they prove themselves unfit for the purpose for which they are appointed. It seems to me a power that the Minister should certainly have. The only reason I can see why it could be opposed by the Minister of Health is that any new members will have to be appointed with the approval of the Treasury. I can well see that the Minister may refuse to accept this Amendment, because he may find himself having to go again to the Treasury to ask for their approval for the appointment of other members. There are very wide powers—far wider than those which we are attempting to incorporate in this Amendment—which the Minister has under the Unemployment Insurance Bill, for she has tremendous powers to dismiss any member of the committee. I hope the Amendment will be accepted by the hon. Lady, and I can really see no reason why she should not do so.

Miss LAWRENCE

I do not think much importance can be attached to this Amendment, as the committee is of a purely temporary character, although it is not usual to put in such a condition even when the committee is of a permanent character. If hon. Members opposite wish to confer additional powers upon my right hon. Friend I see no reason for opposing it, and I shall be pleased to accept the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD

I think the hon. Lady might have accepted the Amendment in more gracious terms. A great deal can be said for the proposal. There can be no doubt about that after the ungracious speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. Suppose that we have an unsatisfactory chairman or a member who turned out to be utterly unreliable, who said one thing one day and the opposite the next? Obviously you must have power to remove such a member and I commend the Amendment most warmly to the House.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert the words: (2) The committee shall consist of eight members of whom one shall be representative of rural district councils, one shall be representative of county councils, one shall be representative of building employers, one shall be representative of building trade workers, one shall be representative of farm workers, one shall be a woman, and two shall be persons having experience of commerce and industry. 12 m.

We had a long discussion in Committee on the constitution of the committee, and at this late hour I do not propose to enter upon another long debate, although I must remind hon. Members that we on these benches were not responsible for the prolonged sitting last night, and it is our duty to see that the Bill is amended in a proper way. The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has just accepted an Amendment is proof positive that we are trying our best to strengthen this particularly weak Measure. We feel that it is necessary that Parliament should have some control as to what interests are to be represented on this committee. The Bill does not provide for this at all, although the Minister himself has told us what, in his opinion, is an ideal committee. It is not often that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on a housing question, be- cause I know how unsuccessful he has been so far with his schemes. In framing this Amendment, we said, "We will take the Minister's own word for it. We will let him have his own way for once and give him the committee that he himself suggested." Here you have a committee of eight Members, the exact number that the right hon. Gentleman suggested as ideal. The various bodies that he thought ought to be represented we have included. It cannot be denied that the rural district councils ought to have at least one representative. One is to be a representative of the county councils. In a great many districts now the county councils are the over-riding authority in housing matters, and the County Councils Association ought to nominate one member. One is to be a representative of the building employers. That was the Minister's own suggestion. One is to a representative of the building trade workers. Again that was the Minister's suggestion. Both sides in the industry ought to be represented. One is to be a representative of the farm workers. That, too, is the Minister's suggestion. He made a promise to a deputation from the Agricultural Workers' Union that they should have some representative on any committee set up. One shall be a woman. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will not object to that suggestion. Arguments could be brought forward in favour of this proposal which would convince even the bachelor Members of this House. Two are to be experienced in commerce and industry. I recall that for one of the most important committees that the Government appointed the first gentleman whom they invited to become a member was a late member of this House who was also well versed in commerce and industry. The Government always go back to the business man when they want something really valuable done.

We have, therefore, framed for the Minister an ideal committee based on his own ideas in the matter. I know there may be a little difficulty, in connection with this Amendment, because the hon. Lady has told us that she is going to appoint a representative for Wales on the committee. At the same time, I am sure it would be possible to find a person from Wales, having experience for instance of commerce and industry. Indeed, we might also find among the Members of this House an hon. Lady from Wales who could act as the representative of the women of the country, so that the difficulty I have indicated need not be regarded as a very serious one.

Captain GUNSTON

I beg to second the Amendment.

May I recall to the Parliamentary Secretary the definite promise made by the Minister when we were discussing the Financial Resolution? My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) asked the Minister what kind of a committee was to be set up and the Minister replied: If the hon. Member will be patient I can assure him that before the Bill reaches its final stage I shall be pretty definite about the kind of committee this will be. But I prefer not to say anything about it now. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee on this occasion, thereupon asked: Will the constitution of the committee be in the Bill? and the Minister replied: It will be in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1931; cols. 2000 and 2001, Vol. 254.] It is now midnight and at eleven o'clock to-morrow morning we shall be discussing the Third Reading. If the constitution of the committee is to be mentioned in the Bill, as promised by the Minister, it will have to be inserted now. If not, then the Minister is breaking the pledge which he gave to you, Sir, as the Chairman of the Committee on the Financial Resolution. I hope the Minister will realise the seriousness of the situation. The Opposition have been promised a definite statement on the formation of the committee and no attempt has been made to implement the promise. We have been doing our best to help the Minister and have put down, in this Amendment, suggestions based on his own speeches. It may be necessary to make a change in the proposal, if the hon. Lady is going to include a representative of Wales, but it is vital that she should say, now, how this committee is to be constituted.

Miss LAWRENCE

I must ask the House to reject the Amendment. The Minister, it is perfectly true, gave the House some general information as to the functions of the committee, but I would remind hon. Members that at a later stage, the question of putting the constitution of the committee into the Bill was discussed. A detailed Amendment was moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) during the Committee stage of the Bill setting out a list of twelve representatives of different interests to constitute the committee and the discussion on the Amendment occupies 8 or 10 pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Minister then said that he deprecated putting into the Bill, precisely the sort of persons who were to be on the committee. His view has been justified by the fact that since that time, hon. Members have proposed various enlargements and improvements of the original suggestion. I have myself given an undertaking in regard to one matter. I could not certainly accept the Amendment which is contrary to the undertaking given by the Minister and the Minister's desire not to narrow the representation on the committee by having it restricted to people who are tied to this or that particular interest. It is desired to have the committee representative in the wider sense and to have upon it persons who thoroughly understand the problems with which they will be called upon to deal. The Minister hopes to give the names at some early date next week. I hope hon. Members will not press this matter.

Mr. ALBERY

Do I understand the hon. Lady to say that she had given an undertaking that some specific person would be on the committee?

Miss LAWRENCE

I said I had given an undertaking that the views and the special interests of Wales shall be represented on the committee.

Sir T. INSKIP

The hon. Lady has omitted to deal with the most serious part of the speech which was made by the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Amendment. The hon. Lady has advanced scarcely any reason against the Amendment on its merits. We are almost at the last stage of the Bill, and the Minister said that he would give a pretty definite idea of the constitution of the committee before the final stage. The first argument for the Amendment is its reasonableness. But, when it is realised that the Minister himself suggested this very form of the committee, it seems that opinion on this side of the House agrees with the opinion of the Minister himself. We are proposing the Minister's own idea. We had a long discussion on this subject the other night, and the Minister then said that we were suggesting 12 members whereas his idea was eight, and he criticised the inclusion of certain representatives. We have now agreed to leave those persons out. We are in literal correspondence with his own proposal in moving this Amendment.

But even that does not touch the heart of the question. This is a matter which touches your responsibility, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in another capacity. Not only did the Minister, in explicit and unqualified language, undertake to put the constitution of the committee in the Bill, but you, Sir, as Chairman of the Committee of the House, stopped the discussion on the ground that the Minister had given a definite promise. I have seldom known any promise more exactly made or more definitely binding upon the people who made it, and I ask any hon. Member opposite, in his heart, to apply the same consideration to this question as he would apply to any of the ordinary affairs of his own life. Does any hon. Member think that a promise given under those conditions, with the results to which I have pointed, is one which he could honestly, even under the dictation of a party whip, refuse to honour? [Laughter.] It is no good the hon. Member opposite, who is comparatively new to the traditions of this House, laughing at this, because if there is one thing that this House will find it right to do, it is to respect its undertakings given across the Table, and whatever may be said about undertakings given perhaps in the heat of debate, without any consequences of following them, when, as you ruled, Sir, as Chairman of the Committee, that the discussion must not be continued because the Minister had given his promise, I say that there is a peculiarly solemn obligation on the part of the hon. Lady to honour it in the letter and the spirit. The hon. Lady looks at me as if I was not correctly representing what took place. Let me read from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 7th July. Says the Minister: Before the Bill reaches its final stage I shall be pretty definite about the kind of committee this will be. But I prefer not to say anything about it now.

The CHAIRMAN

Will the constitution of the committee be in the Bill?

Mr. GREENWOOD

It will be in the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN

Then any question about it arises on the Bill, and not here.

Mr. HURD

We are asked to hand over this money to a body of which we know nothing.

The CHAIRMAN

When the hon. Member comes to the Bill he can propose to change the committee if he is not satisfied."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1931; cot. 2001, Vol. 254.]

Therefore, on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution, the House by, if I may say so, your proper Ruling, was precluded from getting a statement from the Minister on the explicit ground that the Minister had given an undertaking which everybody intended and expected he would honour. I admit that it places the Government in a difficult position if they are not prepared at this moment to implement their promise. I can see the inconvenience of doing it, and that it may possibly require the withdrawal of a letter or the sending out of another letter to-morrow morning, but the inconveniences that may attach to the insertion of this proposal in the Bill now are as nothing compared with the disastrous consequences of refusing to implement a promise given to an Officer of this House, and governing the conduct of a Debate.

The hon. Lady has this one great argument in her favour: she has the big battalions. If the numbers at her disposal this evening are to be the justification for a refusal to keep the promise that was made, I have such a sincere respect for many hon. Members opposite—I say this in all sincerity and solemnity, and I am honestly reluctant to say anything to exasperate feeling in this House—but I seriously and solemnly say that it will not be creditable to the Government if the inconveniences to which I have alluded are not faced and the Minister's promise kept. I hope the hon. Lady will reconsider her position.

Miss LAWRENCE

Really, I cannot believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman was present at the Committee Debate.

Sir T. INSKIP

I heard every word of it.

Miss LAWRENCE

I meant that I did not think he could have listened to the Debate at a much later stage, in the Committee.

Sir T. INSKIP

Every word.

Miss LAWRENCE

Very well, then. There was an interchange of words between the Chairman and the Minister, and the Minister used these words: If I misled hon. Members I am very sorry for having done so, but I did not mean to put anything in the Bill of that character. I am also very sorry that it has not been possible to make any announcement of names."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1931; col. 327, Vol. 255.] Then there comes the point when the discussion was stopped. It had nothing to do with it. We had a very full and long discussion on the Committee stage and Second Reading, but not on the Financial Resolution. The hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) moved an Amendment for a committee of 12 members. The Committee discussed it at great length, so that no substantial injustice was done to anyone by the discussion of the constitution of the committee not being taken on the Financial Resolution. Even so, I think that the constitution of the committee was a thing which any Chairman of Committees might very probably have ruled out of order on the Financial Resolution on the ground that it would be better discussed on the Bill. The House was not deprived of a discussion, because we had a very long Debate on a specific motion to put a particular constitution of the committee in the Bill. It was one of our longest Debates; the very worst that happened was that the discussion took place on the Committee stage.

Sir T. INSKIP

The discussion to which the hon. Lady is now referring took place about 12.30 or 12.45 one morning, whereas the important discussion which was stopped by the Chairman in Committee was taking place about 5 o'clock in the afternoon—a much more reasonable hour.

Miss LAWRENCE

The discussion occupies 22 columns in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and can anybody say that the House was cheated of a proper discussion, whatever the hour? Now consider the practical point. A committee of eight was mentioned by my right bon. Friend; it is set down in this Amendment, and was supported in all parts of the House. Now we have a demand for Wales, which I have to-day promised to meet. How-can I across the Table of the House adjust the new demand to the old? How can I say here and now what people will go on the committee, and what adjustments have to be made? All this business amounts to is that the Minister made a slip and afterwards said that he was sorry; the House has not been cheated out of a word of discussion and has had ample opportunity of debating the question. Did ever a right hon. Gentleman make such a fuss about nothing or use such pompous solemnity regarding something not enough to whip a cat about.

Sir K. WOOD

The Parliamentary Secretary is not going the right way to get her Bill. The right hon. Gentlemen who are on the Front Government Bench will, I am sure, regard this matter as of some importance. It is not to be dealt with in the fashion in which the Parliamentary Secretary has endeavoured to deal with it. I would not have prolonged the Debate but for her speech, for the Lord Privy Seal knows that I would have helped in the progress of this Measure, as I have undertaken to do, but no one who has any regard for our procedure and the undertakings of Ministers can lightly allow a speech of that kind to pass without any further observations. I would like the First Lord of the Admiralty and the First Commissioner of Works, who are on the Front Bench, to listen to this undertaking, and to say whether it can be regarded as a mere slip, and whether the House has not a grave complaint, not on the grounds that there was not a proper opportunity for debate, but because a definite undertaking was given. This was the question put by the Chairman on the Financial Resolution: "Will the constitution of the committee be in the Bill?" That is perfectly plain. Then the Minister of Health said: "It will be in the Bill." Upon that, the Chairman said that any question about it arises on the Bill and not on the Financial Resolution. You could not have a more definite Parliamentary pledge than a pledge of that character. If the Minister or the Lord Privy Seal had come to us to-day and said, "There is grave inconvenience in carrying out this undertaking and we wish to withdraw it"—

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury)

Is not the right hon. Gentleman overlooking the fact that since that statement was made, the Minister of Health has apologised to the House and told the House that he made a mistake, and that the House has debated the matter?

Sir K. WOOD

I say that there was a definite undertaking given, and that then the Minister of Health said there was a slip. My point is that if a definite undertaking of that kind is given, and if it is found to be a matter of grave inconvenience to carry it out, I can imagine that the House, if a responsible Member of the Government had got up and said that, would have said, "In these circumstances, as there is grave inconvenience in the undertaking being carried out, and having regard to the explanation of the Minister, we will not take the matter further." What I want to put to the Government, however, is that there is no grave inconvenience at all in carrying out this undertaking. What is it? It is simply that the constitution of this Advisory Committee should be put in the Bill.

Having had some experience in dealing with Bills, I should have thought that the Minister of Health would have said at once, "Whether I made a slip or not, I have given an undertaking, and as there is no very grave inconvenience in putting the constitution of this committee in the Bill, I will put it in." Instead of that, we had a very long argument in the Committee stage, and we have had another to-night, much longer than I anticipated, and all because the Government are refusing to put the constitution of this Advisory Committee into this Measure. There is no inconvenience about adding one member for Wales. I do not think the First Commissioner of Works sufficiently appreciates that this Amendment carries out, word for word, the suggestions of the Minister himself as regards the Advisory Committee. These are his own words. I have the OFFICIAL REPORT here of that also. There is not a single person here, except the Parliamentary Secretary, who does not know full well that if we desire to add "and one member representing Wales," it could be done in a couple of minutes. Yet, although a definite undertaking has been given, although it has been explained that it was a slip, although there would be no difficulty whatever in putting this in the Bill, for there is no constitutional or other question involved, the Parliamentary Secretary has taken up an attitude which I am sure the Minister of Health will be the first to regret when he hears about these proceedings and knows we have made a strong point about it. I regret very much that the Government has taken up this attitude. But for the fact that we shall keep up our undertaking that they shall have the Report stage of this Bill to-night, and so as not to inconvenience the programme tomorrow, I think this would be a real occasion for a Motion of Adjournment of the Debate. I have given my undertaking to the Lord Privy Seal, and I will keep it as far as I am concerned, and will not take that course, but I do feel very strongly about this matter.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. T. Johnston)

In the unavoidable absence of the Minister of Health, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not object if I add a word to the statement which he has made. I do not object to anything which he has said. He very properly says that he will stand to his undertaking and let us have the Report stage to-night. But I think it is due to hon. Members that they should be fully seized of the fact that on the discussion of the Money Resolution the Minister did inadvertently say that he intended to put the composition of this committee in the Bill. At a later stage, in the discussion on the Committee stage, on 14th July, that pledge was very fully and elaborately read out from the Opposition benches. The Committee was made fully aware of his pledge, and the Minister, in reply, when the pledge had been read out fully by the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), himself said that he had made a slip, but that he did intend to make the House aware of the categories of persons whom he hoped would be put on this committee. Subsequent to that ex- planation, the Committee divided. The Committee was fully aware of all the facts, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, having again drawn attention to the fact that a slip was made on the Financial Resolution, might well enable us now to take the feeling of the House.

Sir K. WOOD

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. All I can say is that his speech is of a very different character from that of the Parliamentary Secretary. After the explanation given it becomes a very different matter. I consider the observations made by the Parliamentary Secretary grossly impertinent and insulting.

Miss LAWRENCE

On a point of Order, I desire to ask you whether those words are in accordance with Parliamentary Order. I am perfectly certain they are not in accordance with the ordinary practice of civilised people.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN

On that point of Order. Is it consonant with Front Bench procedure to charge other hon. Members with pompous solemnity?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think it is very regrettable that such words should be used by speakers on both sides of the House.

Major LLEWELLIN

Is there any value at all in the hon. Lady's undertaking given to Wales to-night? I am not suggesting for a moment that I do not accept her word, but I have no doubt that she would not say that her word was any better than that of her chief. An undertaking to-night has been given to include a Welshman on this committee. We may get at the last moment to-morrow, on the Third Reading, somebody saying to us that that was an unfortunate slip. We have had the same thing with regard to other members of the committee, and we may have it again with regard to the Welsh representative if Ministers are to ride off as they have done. The hon. Lady could have been very much more frank and friendly with the House than she has been to-night. I think it is the right of every hon. Member to point out what exactly has happened, and to show quite clearly to the House that everybody appreciates undertakings given across the Table. I am very much con- cerned when an undertaking which has been given has to be gone back upon later. If the going back is done pleasantly and frankly, everybody in the House accepts it, but, when the hon. Lady adopts the attitude which she has done to-night, she has only herself to blame if hon. Members take exception to the way in which she expresses her views. Although perhaps it was done in loyalty to her chief, it was unnecessary of her to do so in the words she used to-night.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

I should like to echo, for a moment, the words of my predecessor on these benches. I feel very seriously, that this is not the first time the Government have offended in this matter. It would not be in order to refer to the action of the Lord Advocate, but, after all, this is the second occasion on which a definite statement from the Front Bench has been given which at a later stage has been cast away; in the one case on the ground that there had been a slip; in the other, with the use of the word "inadvertence." We should like to know, in future, from someone on the Front Bench, when a definite promise is a slip and when it is an inadvertence.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I do not think we ought to add to the difficulties of the situation. We have already had three speakers dealing with this subject. The hon. Member is not entitled to repeat his own arguments on the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

I am very much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The words you have said sufficiently crown the achievements of this Government, so I will say no more. But I hope this will not be a precedent, because the country will not stand it.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

May I ask the Government whether at any rate they cannot help us in one particular point. As far as I personally am concerned, there is one individual in this committee in whom I am most interested, and that is the representative of the farm workers. I think nearly every Member of the House agrees with that particular point. I am not—particularly after your ruling—going into the question of the incident we had a few minutes ago. It is far too early in the night to begin that. But may I ask the' Lord Privy Seal or the First Lord of the Admiralty, or some responsible Member of the Front Bench, whether it would not be possible, by changing the word "eight" into "nine" and adding, at the end, "one representative of Wales,"—would it not be possible, in these circumstances, for the Government to accept the Amendment? They could move these words and have them inserted now, or, if that is not satisfactory, they could do exactly the same as has been done on other occasions when promises have been made by the Front Bench to put in matters at a further stage of a Bill. Would it not be possible—it will, indeed, have to be, so far as I see it—to put in a Welsh member in another place, and to pledge the Government that the word "eight" will be amended to the word "nine" in another place? That is not a very difficult proceeding, and I think it would enable a good many Members of the House to look at it from a quieter and more mild point of view.

I appeal to the Government, on this point, to try to treat the case with that reasonableness which the Lord Privy Seal showed just now, to go just a little farther than they have gone, and to accept the Amendment now on the understanding that in another place the Welsh difficulty will be met. So far as I personally am concerned, I do not in any way wish to criticise, or to say anything on behalf of the Amendment, except that once again I must say I think it is most essential that we should lay down this matter of the farm worker. Also, I believe that now we are dealing with this matter in this way it would do no harm if the Government would assure the House—which they have not done on this Bill, so far—that this committee will not be made up, as to the chairman or any other member, of what I might call political persons, but rather of persons chosen for their knowledge and skill, and if they would definitely give a pledge to the House to rule out political persons, or persons of a political party, a pledge definitely to rule them out from the Bill. If we want to see the Bill working satisfactorily, that is absolutely essential. I hope the Government will yet see their way to accept the Amendment, particularly when I realise that the House has been rather hardly treated in this matter, from many points of view, especially from this aspect, that we know little or nothing of whom or what the Minister is going to put into the Bill. We have his own words that he gave us the other day; but, now that we have tried to place his word's into this Amendment, they are turned down in the Amendment. The Government turn down the Minister. I think the Minister has been extremely badly treated in this respect, and I think

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE

I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert the words: (3) A copy of any application made to the committee under this section by a rural district council shall at the same time be sent by that council to the council of the county in which the rural district is situate, and the committee shall, before making any recommendation upon the application, consider such observations as maybe submitted to them by the county council within such period (not being less than fourteen days from the date of the application) as the committee may prescribe. I understand that, although the Minister is unable to accept this Amendment,

it would be only in accordance with the dignity of the House if some really responsible person would accept the Amendment on behalf of the Government.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 94.

Division No. 437.] AYES. [12.45 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Gunston, Captain D. W. Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Albery, Irving James Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Aske, Sir Robert Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hurd, Percy A. Train, J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Inskip, Sir Thomas Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby) Womersley, W. J.
Butler, B. A. Llewellin, Major J. J. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Margesson, Captain H. D.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greene, W. P. Crawford Muirhead, A. J. Sir George Penny and Captain
Sir George Bowyer.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hastings, Dr. Somerville Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hayday, Arthur Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Potts, John S.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Quibell, D. J. K.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Hoffman, P. C. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Alpass, J. H. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Ritson, J.
Ammon, Charles George Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Arnott, John Kelly, W. T. Rowson, Guy
Batey, Joseph Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Sanders, W. S.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Lawrence, Susan Sherwood, G. H.
Burgess, F. G. Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Shillaker, J. F.
Caine, Hall-, Derwent Leach, W. Sitch, Charles H.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Charleton, H. C. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Colline, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Lloyd, C. Ellis Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Daggar, George MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Dalton, Hugh McElwee, A. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) McEntee, V. L. Sullivan, J.
Duncan, Charles Mander, Geoffrey le M. Thurtle, Ernest
Ede, James Chuter Manning, E. L. Viant, S. P.
Edmunds, J. E. Marshall, Fred Walker, J.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Mathers, George Wallace, H. W.
Egan, W. H. Matters, L. W. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm-, Ladywood)
Gill, T. H. Messer, Fred Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Gillett, George M. Middleton, G. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Glassey, A. E. Mills, J. E. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gossling, A. G. Mliner, Major J. Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Morley, Ralph
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Muggeridge, H. T. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Murnin, Hugh Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen) Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Paling.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

he was able to make a statement and satisfied the county councils on the subject. [Interruption.] They should have a chance of making their protests. I move the Amendment formally.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HURD

I would like to point out the extraordinary difficulty of putting this Amendment into operation. The county councils are not the bodies who are going to put it into effect. After all, this is an emergency Measure, the object of which is to get these houses in the quickest possible time. The idea is that the rural councils can send these notices to the county councils. A county council only meets once a quarter. If you try to put this provision into operation you will hold up everything which we wish to expedite. I hope the Minister will not think of accepting this Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE

I was about to ask the hon. and gallant Member to consider this question. In the first place, the county councils must have a very important part in these housing proposals, because they keep the applications which are registered. It will be necessary for the committee to consult the county councils for two reasons. There is the question of the county contribution of £l a house. It will also be necessary to know whether the county council accepts the estimate of the rural district council as to the number of houses. [Interruption.] I think, therefore, that all the County Councils Association desire in ordinary administration is there and that this Amendment will not be necessary.

Mr. HURD

Has the Minister of Health consulted the rural district councils on the matter of this really complicated machinery?

Miss LAWRENCE

We have seen that this Amendment is too complicated.

Mr. HURD

You are holding up the Bill.

Miss LAWRENCE

The Act of 1930 says that they must make a contribution of £1. They may make a contribution of another £1.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE

On the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary that the county councils will have plenty of time to put forward their protests, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 2, line 42, at the beginning, to insert the words Subject to the provisions hereafter in this sub-section contained."—[Mr. Albery.]

In line 44, to leave out from the word "exceed," to the end of Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words three shillings per week."—[Captain Gunston.]

In page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert the words Provided that in no case shall the Minister determine on a rent for such houses which exceeds ten per cent. of the statutory agricultural wages in force in the area concerned at the time of his undertaking to make a special contribution in respect of such area under this Act."—[Mr. Albery.]

In line 9, at the end, to insert the words Provided that when the committee makes a recommendation to the Minister that a rent exceeding three shillings per week should reasonably be charged the Minister may make an order in the terms of such recommendation."—[Captain Gunston.]

Mr. ALBERY

I beg to move in page 2, line 42, at the beginning, to insert the words: Subject to the provisions hereafter in this sub-section contained. I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that, in speaking to this Amendment, to which two others are to some extent consequential, we are allowed to discuss the three Amendments together.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The four Amendments.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. ALBERY

I will try to be brief. The Amendment in which I am principally interested is the Amendment which proposes that the Minister shall not be empowered to fix a rent higher than one-tenth or ten per cent. of the statutory wages of the agricultural labourer in the district concerned. This particular Bill has two main objects, as mentioned in the money resolution. One is to build houses speedily, and the second is to build them to let at a low rent which agricultural workers and the poorer sections of the population can afford to pay. It does not seem to me conceivable that either this House or the country would be willing to add to the housing subsidies already in existence a still further housing subsidy unless they were convinced that the two main objects of the Bill were going to be achieved; above all, that the houses were to be let at a rent within the means of the leas well-paid population. As I spoke on this matter during the Second Reading Debate, I do not intend to pursue it now at greater length, and I will content myself with moving the Amendment.

Captain GUNSTON

I beg to second the Amendment.

I also have an Amendment down to achieve the same object as the hon. Member who has just addressed the House. Our object is really to ensure that this Bill shall carry out what it is intended to do. The object of this Bill is to build houses for the agricultural labourers, and we feel that, unless, by some means, you put in the Bill what the maximum rent will be, two very disastrous results may happen. In the first place, unless you have a limit to the rent, the effect will be to send prices of buildings up. You will check that by putting into the Bill a maximum rent. The other object is to concentrate the attention of the local authorities on the object of the Bill—that is, to build houses and let them at rents which the agricultural labourer can afford to pay. That is why we consider it so essential to have in this Bill some figure—as I suggest, of about 3s. a week. The Minister of Health has a chance in this Measure, by putting in this Amendment, of doing more for the agricultural labourer than the Minister of Agriculture will do in 50 years. The agricultural labourer gets a very low wage. He is likely to get a lower wage the longer the Labour Government remain in office. Apart from that, we all want to get him a house for which he can afford to pay the rent. The Minister of Health suggested the other day that that was quite reasonable, but that there might be areas where, owing to difficulties such as transport, it might not be possible to let a house at 4s. or 4s. 6d. Tent. Therefore, I have put down a second Amendment, which reads as follows: Provided that when the committee makes a recommendation to the Minister that a rent exceeding three shillings per week should reasonably be charged the Minister may make an order in the terms of such recommendation. I suggest that an Amendment on those lines is practical and is very simple. It says that you shall let these houses to the agricultural labourer at a rent not exceeding 3s. a week, but, in order to get over the border line cases, the Committee will advise the Minister and, in that case, you can have a higher rent. I do think that the Minister might accept these Amendments, because it will be a death blow to this Bill if it goes out to the country that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have so little confidence in it—and I have never seen more lukewarm support for a Bill from a Minister and Parliamentary Secretary—that they dare not put it in an Act of Parliament that you can build houses, even with your subsidy, for agricultural labourers at 3s. a week.

Mr. JOHNSTON

We appreciate the point of view that has been stated by the two hon. Members who have just spoken on this series of Amendments. We sympathise with their object, and we accept the fundamental proposition which they have both stated, that the object of this Bill is to provide healthy habitations for agricultural workers and persons of the right economic status at rents within their competence to pay. In this series of Amendments they ask that some maximum figure as to rents should be placed in the Bill. One Amendment specifies a figure of 3s. I merely ask the House to note, in passing, that that Amendment is so framed that it does not say exclusive of rates. It leaves the question of rates, so to speak, in the air.

Captain GUNSTON

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the discussions the other day I suggested 4s. 6d. with rates, and that the Minister said that if you had a maximum figure it tended to become a minimum. Therefore, we put 3s. in without mentioning rates, and it was entirely to meet that point.

Mr. JOHNSTON

I know; that is precisely one of the difficulties. I merely say, in passing, that if you put a figure of 3s. in the Bill, as is suggested here, you do not say 3s. exclusive of rates. Another Amendment fixes the figure at 10 per cent. of the statutory wage rate, and a still further Amendment says that if the committee should in any circumstances fix a rent of over 3s. a week the Minister may make an Order in the terms of such recommendations. Those are the three propositions.

Let us examine them, and, if I convince the House that it is not in the interest of the agricultural labourer, nor of low rents, then I hope that hon. Members opposite will agree with me. Let me take the first one dealing with the fixed rent. Let us consider Norfolk with a wage rate for agricultural labourers which varies from 30s., the lowest, to 35s. 6d. for shepherds, teamsters, and so on, a difference in wages alone of 5s. 6d. Let us take Suffolk, which has the lowest wage rate in England. The rate there is 28s., while in other agricultural districts the wage rate is 41s. I put it to hon. Members opposite that, if they put in a figure of 3s., it might be applicable in one area, but not in another. If we take the Eastern counties, there are variations of 5s. and 6s. per week above the minimum fixed by the wages board. If you take Somerset, the wages committee there has, in fixing the wage rates, made allowance for the value of a cottage and has fixed cottage rents there as high as 5s. 6d. In Essex the wages committee has fixed the rents as high as 5s. With all these wide variations which are possible, we would immediately land ourselves in a state of chaos if we fixed the rent at 3s. either with or without rates. You cannot make it applicable to all these varying circumstances in all these different districts. I hope the hon. Gentlemen opposite will see that.

The question then comes as to what is the Government's intention and what is the purpose of this Bill. The Ministry will endeavour to give such a subsidy as will enable these cottages to be let at about 4s. 6d. a week including rates. That is the general purpose, the general superstructure, but, if the Minister or anyone else seeks to put into precise language the maximum rent which will be applicable to all these varying circumstances in the different districts, it will make the committee's task impossible and will defeat the object which we all have in view.

Mr. ALBERY

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question? Does not the 10 per cent. proposal cover the different districts?

Mr. JOHNSTON

No. Wages vary and the district rates vary, and a 10 per cent. rent in one area would be lower than a 10 per cent. rent in another.

HON. MEMBERS

Why not?

Mr. JOHNSTON

It is possible to let your houses at no rent at all, but, if we set out with the object of making a maximum of 4s. 6d. including all rates, we are securing the object which the hon. Member has in view of enabling cottages to be let at rents which the agricultural labourer, whatever his wages, is able to pay, and we leave it to the committee to fix the rent in the different districts according to the circumstances and according to the facts placed before them. In view of all these facts, we see no reason whatever but very grave disadvantage in placing a maximum rent in the Bill. We believe we should handicap the committee and tie their hands in certain districts and that we should rule out certain classes of agricultural labourers whom everyone desires to see included.

As to the last Amendment, which says that the Minister shall make an order if the committee recommends a rent of over 3s., we can see no purpose whatever served by making a formal order, by issuing a printed document stamped with a seal. If you leave to the committee power to make the necessary regulations, to temper the wind to the shorn lamb, and to fulfil the object which the House has in view in passing this Bill, then we shall get our 40,000 houses in areas where these houses have never been built before and we shall provide houses for a class of the community which has had no previous assistance from any Housing Act passed by Parliament. We shall also provide employment in the coming winter to many unemployed men in the building industry. I hope the hon. Members opposite will therefore see their way not to press this Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD

I shall only be a few minutes, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated his case perfectly plainly, and, after we have divided the House on the two points we desire to make, we shall keep the House no longer than is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman knows, however, that he has not met the points which my hon. Friends have raised. I would say to hon. Members, who are interested in this question, that, in the first place, the Bill itself leaves the matter at large so far as rents are concerned. It is true that the intentions of the Government are perfectly honourable in this connection, that they desire, as they did in the case of the Wheatley Act, to provide houses at low rents. All the statements which the right hon. Gentleman put so well at the end of his speech to-night are familiar to me. They were all said when the Wheatley Act was before the House. It was said that that Act, with the extra subsidy it gave, would provide houses at lower rents and that the extra sum provided under that Bill would bring that desirable end about. We all know, despite those aspirations, that, although the Wheatley Act has played a part in its contribution to housing, it has failed in providing houses at lower rents. Therefore, we say that we should have a definite understanding about this matter and that we should lay down in the Statute itself exactly what the rents are that are going to be charged.

There are not three proposals before the House to-night, because one is consequential upon the other. There are only two proposals. We take the Minister's own figures and not the figures of the right hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir J. Tudor Walters), because, if we did, we should have to take a much lower figure and put an unnecessary burden upon the Government. We say to the Government "Let us take your figures and put them in the Bill and thus secure that particular rent to the agricultural labourer. If, in fact, your figures are wrong, as unfortunately they may be and as experience in the past has proved; if the extra subsidies do not bring lower rents, then, if the committee does recommend a rent exceeding this figure of 3s. a week for the agricultural labourer, they must specially report the case to the Minister with the reasons for it and the Minister will make a special order." That involves the Minister in the matter and involves the Minister's scrutiny of the particular case and his concurrence in an increased rent of over 3s. a week.

This has an additional advantage, so far as the House is concerned, because while we cannot challenge the decision of this committee, we can challenge an Order made by the Minister. The advan- tage of the first Amendment to the agricultural workers is to secure to them a figure which the Government have themselves laid down, and, if it is exceeded, we shall be able to examine the matter in the House of Commons. That is of distinct value to the agricultural workers, because it secures in the Act of Parliament what the Government say they can achieve. If the Government say this is a hard and fast rule, that there may be cases where the 3s. per week must be exceeded, and that where the wages of the agricultural worker are higher in some parts than in others a rent of 3s. may or may not be justifiable, in that case we wish to say that the rent shall not exceed ten per cent. of the statutory agricultural wage in force in the area. We wish we were moving both these Amendments in a much fuller House at a much more reasonable time. I shall be very interested in this Division, because, although there may be few of us here to-night, we shall hear a good deal about these two Divisions in the months to come. I am sure that a large number of people will be disappointed so far as the rents are concerned, and they will examine with interest the proposition we are making to-night to secure a maximum rent of 3s. per week in return for the £2,000,000 to be paid, or, in the alternative, a maximum rent which shall not exceed 10 per cent. of the agricultural wage. We have no desire to prolong this discussion, and we shall be quite content, after the statement that has been made, to divide on these two Amendments.

Mr. BUTLER

I have not taken a very large part in these proceedings, and will not keep the House more than a few moments. I agree with the Lord Privy Seal that it would be rather a mistake to fix an actual figure for these rents owing to the great disparity in wage rates. It might lead to great unfairness. I do not see any harm in the proposal that the rent shall not exceed ten per cent. of the agricultural wage, because that would mean that agricultural workers who receive 30s. a week would have to pay a rent of 3s. It would also be a fair arrangement in Lanes., where the wages are 41s., and would work out to a rent of about 4s. a week. I see no objection to that, and, if there is a division on that point, I shall support the percentage arrangement.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN

The Government have admitted that they cannot tell what the rents will be when this Bill is operating. You will have rural workers going into houses of which they will have to pay more rent than if the houses were obtained from a private owner. This proposal means that you are doing all you can to stop those who have been helping the agricultural labourer. It will show up Government housing more than anything else you have done. It will show that if you kill private enterprise you will kill housing.

Division No. 438.] AYES. [1.28 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hardie, David (Rutherglen) Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hardie, G. D. (Springburn) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Hastings, Dr. Somerville Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Hayday, Arthur Potts, John S.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Quibell, D. J. K.
Ammon, Charles George Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Arnott, John Hoffman, P. C. Ritson, J.
Aske, Sir Robert Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Batey, Joseph Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas Rowson, Guy
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Kelly, W. T. Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas Sanders, W. S.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Sherwood, G. H.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Lawrence, Susan Shillaker, J. F.
Caine, Hall-, Derwent Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Sitch, Charles H.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Leach, W. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Daggar, George Lees, J. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Dalton, Hugh Lewis, T. (Southampton) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Lloyd, C. Ellis Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Duncan, Charles MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Ede, James Chuter McElwee, A. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Edmunds, J. E. McEntee, V. L. Thurtle, Ernest
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Manning, E. L. Viant, S. P.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Marshall, Fred Wallace, H. W.
Egan, W. H. Mathers, George Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Gill, T. H. Matters, L. W. Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Gillett, George M. Messer, Fred Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Glassey, A. E. Mills, J. E. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gossling, A. G. Milner, Major J. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Morley, Ralph
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Albery, Irving James Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Train, J.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Hurd, Percy A. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Bracken, B. Inskip, Sir Thomas Womersley, W. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Llewellin, Major J. J.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Greene, W. P. Crawford Muirhead, A. J. Captain Margesson and Sir George
Gunston, Captain D. W. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Penny.
Mr. ALBERY

I beg to move, In page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that in no case shall the Minister determine on a rent for such houses which exceeds ten per cent. of the statutory agricultural wages in force in the area concerned, at the time of his undertaking

Mr. ALBERY

May I withdraw the first Amendment in my name in order that we may divide on the subsequent Amendments?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain GUNSTON

I beg to move, in page 2, line 44, to leave out from the word "exceed," to the end of Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "three shillings per week."

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 23.

taking to make a special contribution in respect of such area under this Act."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 90.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Margesson, Captain H. D. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Womersley, W. J.
Hurd, Percy A. Muirhead, A. J. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Inskip, Sir Thomas Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Llewellin, Major J. J. Train, J. Captain Sir George Bowyer and
Sir George Penny.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hardie, David (Rutherglen) Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hardie, G. D. (Springburn) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Hastings, Dr. Somerville Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Hayday, Arthur Potts, John S.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Quibell, D. J. K.
Ammon, Charles George Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Arnott, John Hoffman, P. C. Ritson, J.
Aske, Sir Robert Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Batey, Joseph Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas Rowson, Guy
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Kelly, W. T. Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas Sanders, W. S.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Sherwood, G. H.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Lawrence, Susan Shillaker, J. F.
Caine, Hall-, Derwent Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Sitch, Charles H.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Leach, W. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Daggar, George Lee, Jeanie (Lanark, Northern) Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Dalton, Hugh Lewis, T. (Southampton) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Lloyd, C. Ellis Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Duncan, Charles MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Ede, James Chuter McElwee, A. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Edmunds, J. E. McEntee, V. L. Thurtle, Ernest
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Manning, E. L. Viant, S. P.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Marshall, Fred Wallace, H. W.
Egan, W. H. Mathers, George Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Gill, T. H. Matters, L. W. Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Gillett, George M. Messer, Fred Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Glassey, A. E. Mills, J. E. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gossling, A. G. Milner, Major J. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Morley, Ralph
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton.
Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, after "1930," to insert the words: and that such dwelling accommodation is not likely to be provided within a reasonable time by any public utility society or any other form of private enterprise. The object of this Amendment is to try to secure that areas where cottages are most required shall receive the benefit of this Bill. As has been pointed out already, only about three or four cottages are available per agricultural parish if they are equally distributed; and I think that that is a very poor contribution on the part of this Government towards meeting the situation. If you study the Amendment, you will find it limits it, to a certain extent, to those areas in which cottages will probably not be provided by any form of private enterprise and where public utility societies are not prepared to supply cottages. I would point out the benefits which certain areas receive from building societies and which are not really available in country districts that are far from towns. It must be obvious that the contribution of the building societies to the housing problem is a very important one. I dare say that hon. Members know there are something like 600,000 people receiving benefits from building societies, having, presumably, an interest in houses. These building societies, as a rule, operate round the outskirts of large towns. They do not operate in some of the parishes which should be called agricultural parishes. Where the influence of these societies is felt it would be better to apply to them to provide the houses than that the Office of Works should come in and build them. If it were earlier in the evening, I would give the House a number of figures, but I will spare the House now. When State assistance has been given in certain localities the building by private enterprise has gone down, because private enterprise has waited for State assistance. I think that is fairly well known and generally accepted, certainly on this side of the House. In these days when economy is needed every help should be given to develop private enterprise. While we realise that in certain districts which are sparsely inhabited, and farms are few and far between, they require assistance of this kind, other districts do not. As far as I can see, there are few of the sparsely inhabited areas getting the share of the assistance which they require.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE

I beg to second the Amendment.

You are doing an irregular thing, and introducing a new and original proposal. It ought to be a very exceptional measure for the Office of Works themselves to come down and do the building. It may be necessary to do it in certain cases, but you ought to take the utmost care you possibly can that it is absolutely necessary to get it done by the central authority; and you have exhausted all possible local facilities to get the building done. If you possibly can you must avoid the State coming down from the centre and interfering with the economic life of the locality. The Clause in the Bill should only be used for very extreme cases. If you do not introduce some reservation, there is a definite danger that, instead of these powers to the Minister to bring down plant and build in exceptional cases being used only in these exceptional cases, the proposal may be used in all sorts of places which could quite well make an

Division No. 440.] AYES. [1.52 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Albery, Irving James Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Train, J.
Bracken, B. Hurd, Percy A Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Inskip, Sir Thomas Womersley, W. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Butler, R. A. Llewellin, Major J. J.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Margesson, Captain H. D. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Captain Sir George Bowyer and
Greene, W. P. Crawford Muirhead, A. J. Sir George Penny.
Gunston, Captain D. W. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Glassey, A. E. McEntee, V. L.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Gossling, A. G. Manning, E. L.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Marshall, Fred
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Mathers, George
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Matters, L. W.
Ammon, Charles George Hardie, David (Rutherglen) Messer, Fred
Arnott, John Hardie, G. D. (Springburn) Mills, J. E.
Aske, Sir Robert Hastings, Dr. Somerville Milner, Major J.
Batey, Joseph Hayday, Arthur Morley, Ralph
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Hoffman, P. C. Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Caine, Hall-, Derwent Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Daggar, George Kelly, W. T. Potts, John S.
Dalton, Hugh Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas Quibell, D. J. K.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Duncan, Charles Lawrence, Susan Ritson, J.
Ede, James Chuter Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Edmunds, J. E. Leach, W. Rowson, Guy
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lees, J. Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Lewis, T. (Southampton) Sanders, W. S.
Egan, W. H. Lloyd, C. Ellis Sherwood, G. H.
Gill, T. H. MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Shillaker, J. F.
Gillett, George M. McElwee, A. Sitch, Charles H.

effort if they wished to do so. If there is a possibility of bringing in the god in the machine from Whitehall it will absolutely prevent others from using their own efforts to supply their own needs.

If only Members could put themselves out of the political arena and envisage this need for houses in the outside districts they would support this new Clause which would provide an opportunity, where the possibility exists, for private employers and co-operative societies, working together, to provide the buildings. It is proposed in Clause 2 to relieve the local authorities of the whole trouble, and there will, naturally, be a tendency of the local authorities to call in the Minister and to say "It would be a great deal of trouble to do it ourselves." This proposed reservation would be useful and harmless and would promote that self help which I am afraid is liable to be so much undermined by a great deal of the social legislation of our days.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 89.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Thurtle, Ernest Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Viant, S. P. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attarcliffe)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Wallace, H. W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Whiteley, William (Blaydon) Mr. Charleton and Mr. Paling.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute before Two o'Clock.