HC Deb 12 May 1931 vol 252 cc1145-58

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD

This first Clause is the principal Clause of the Measure and seeks to extend Section 2 (2) of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, for a further period of five years. In the light of the discussion that took place on the Second Reading I do not think it can be seriously apprehended in any quarter of the House that much objection will be raised to the extension. The opinion was almost unanimous that this was a desirable step to take. I was anxious to move to lengthen the period but I was advised that, in view of the terms of the financial Resolutions, it might be held to be out of order. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), my twin brother in this respect, will, I am sure, desire that anything that can be done should be done to promote further housing, particularly in rural areas. There is no union in the country that is suffering more unduly, and I think quite unwarrantably from unemployment than the union in which he occupies such an important and responsible position. In commending this Clause one has only to look at the condition of housing and of unemployment in the building trade in rural areas to come to the conclusion that never was there so much necessity for a Clause of this kind being adopted, I hope unanimously. The Secretary of State for Scotland commended the success of the Act on the experience that Scotland has afforded, and I am glad to think there is increasing evidence that the Act of 1926 is being now- generally adopted in England. When you have said that, no one can say with any confidence that the Act has been adopted as extensively and by as many local authorities as all members of the committee would desire. I hope that, if the hon. Member for East Woolwich speaks on the Bill, he will also urge upon the Government that it is not sufficient merely to pass this particular Clause, but that they should put it actively into operation. I feel sure that no one interested in housing and unemployment, even though he may belong to a different political party from that to which I belong, will desire to retard in any way the operations of this proposal, simply because it is an extension of a Conservative Act.

In Sub-section (2), of Clause 1, line 15, it says: Subject to the provisions of any amending scheme made by a local authority with the approval of the Minister any reference in a scheme under the said Act to any date in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-one shall be construed as a reference to the corresponding date in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-six. I should like the Secretary of State for Scotland to tell us what is the meaning of the phrase: Subject to the provisions of any amending scheme made by a local authority with the approval of the Minister. Does it mean that the scheme can be limited by the local authorities, or does it mean that either the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State for Scotland can, by withholding approval, impose a limitation upon either the operation of this Clause or the building operations of particular local authorities in this connection? An explanation ought to be given before we part with the Clause to-night. No doubt the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give an adequate reply. Speaking on behalf of my party, I commend the proposals which the Government make in Clause 1 of the Bill. I very much regret the halfhearted attitude which the Minister of Health adopted towards these proposals. It was a strange contradiction of the attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who very generously commended the proposals under the Bill and referred in very glowing terms indeed to the success which the Act of Parliament has achieved in Scotland, [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman on the benches opposite dissents in any way from that proposition, perhaps he will get up and have the courage to say so. If not, I must assume that this is some peculiar manner of his own of giving approval to my method.

In many rural areas this Act of Parliament, Section 1 of which is to be extended for five years, is giving the best hope to the agricultural workers of Scotland and England. But for this Act of Parliament and the prospect of the extension of part of it for five years, there would be very little hope of any decent and proper provision being made for the agricultural labourer at a rent which he can afford to pay. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), whose attitude I am not sure about, evidently supposes that the agricultural labourer must rely upon the Wheatley Act. Having regard to his close relationship with the late Mir. Wheatley, whom we all respected, he has every hope and confidence in the Wheatley Act in rural areas. I think the hon. Member for East Woolwich will confirm my statement that, far from providing houses at rents which the workers can pay in rural areas, that Act has been a miserable failure. The reason why the Secretary of State for Scotland is bringing forward this proposal is that under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, by the spending of a comparatively small sum of money the agricultural labourer is provided with a cottage, not at the same rent as under the Wheatley Act or the Chamberlain Act, but at a rent which he can afford to pay. It is one of the great advantages of the scheme that one of the conditions laid down is that the houses shall only be used by agricultural labourers. That is not provided for in the Wheatley Act. Under the Wheatley Act, both in town and country, we find houses occupied not by agricultural labourers or by the poorer paid workers, but by people of a different class. In my own area the housing estate has an attraction for borough councillors. Under the Section of the Act which is to be extended for five years, we ensure that houses will be provided at small expense to the agricultural labourer.

I think the Committee will be satisfied to pass this Clause provided the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that there is no question of any limitation either of local authorities or the Minister under Sub-section (2). I can only commend the courage and manly qualities of the right hon. Gentleman when, on Second Reading, he said that he had made a great mistake in voting against the Third Reading of the Conservative Housing Rural Workers Act. He also had the grace to say that he not only regretted it, but asked the House to extend the Act, not for one year, but for five years. Rarely have we seen such gratitude to the Conservative party on the part of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. In these circumstances, it would be ungracious of me to prolong the proceedings.

Mr. SMITHERS

On a point of Order. May I call attention to the attitude of an hon. Member opposite? Is it a Parliamentary attitude to have both feet on the bench and not on the floor?

Major COLVILLE

I do not think it is generally recognised what a wide scope the Act has. It is called the Rural Workers Housing Act, and in the Preamble it says it is to promote the provision of housing accommodation for agricultural workers and persons whose economic condition is substantially the same as that of such workers. It is not generally recognised—

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is now going outside the point under discussion. The Clause only deals with the extension of the Act for five years.

Major COLVILLE

In the conferences which the right hon. Gentleman has been organising in various parts of the country to promote housing development, I trust he will impress on local authorities the value of this Act in that it can be applied not only in rural areas, but by boroughs and towns.

The CHAIRMAN

I must again draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he is going outside the question under discussion. All we are discussing is whether the Act should be extended for five years.

Sir K. WOOD

On a point of Order. I take it there would be no objection to hon. Members adducing reasons in support of passing this particular Clause and why it should be extended?

The CHAIRMAN

Not as long as they keep to the five years.

Major COLVILLE

I have great pleasure in supporting an extension of the Act for five years because I think it is a Measure which can be used very wisely and widely. It is not an Act, as some people imagine, which is confined to rural workers in remote districts, because it applies to people who are described in the Act as "persons whose economic condition is substantially the same" as such workers, and it may be extended if local authorities understand that it can be applied to workers not only in the agricultural industry but to those in a similar economic position. I hope I am in order in asking that the right hon. Gentleman will impress upon local authorities the wide field to which this excellent. Conservative Act may be applied.

Mr. BRACKEN

I desire to support the arguments that have been put before the Committee by the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles (Major Colville), and I speak as the representative of an urban constituency, and as one who is not a Scotsman. In one of his rare intrusions into our Debates the right hon. Gentleman for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) showed a rather unholy desire to consult and combine with the Secretary of State for Scotland in promoting a Bill of this kind. I want to consult with you, Mr. Chairman. I am a new Member to what has been called a Council of State, and I am greatly disturbed how to reconcile the theory of the Council of State with the previous attitude of the Secretary of State.

The CHAIRMAN

That certainly has nothing to do with, the Clause.

Mr. BRACKEN

I apologise. I was consulting with you on that point, and I am glad to have had your Ruling. It seems to me that this unanimity on this matter is highly dangerous from the point of view of the House of Commons. Surely a Bill of this kind should not be passed by the billing und cooing of the two Front Benches, and I feel that the secret agreement between the right hon. Member for West Woolwich and the Secretary of State to give facilities for this Bill is not doing justice to hon. Members on this side who sit for urban constituencies and who are anxious to save money. We have had no information or instruction from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who is in a sort of purdah, upon which we can form a decision. I remember the great speeches which the hon. Lady made against the provisions of the previous Measure, and surely I am in order in asking why this extraordinary change of mind has taken place.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member can ask that question at the appropriate time, but he cannot ask it on Clause 1.

Mr. BRACKEN

I bow to your Ruling, and I hope the hon. Lady on a future occasion will explain the extraordinary change of mind which has occurred since she opposed the Bill brought in a few years ago.

12 m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

On the whole I can support the Clause. I have read it very carefully. In this Clause we have the words: Subject to the provisions of any amending scheme made by a local authority. Those are words which the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) said he did not understand and I would not like to guarantee that I understand them. May I ask whether they will enable the Government, either in England or in Scotland, to deal with a recalcitrant authority, that is an authority which is not putting the Act into force. When you are extending the Act for five years it may be possible to deal with what is really the one flaw in the Act. That one flaw is that whereas certain places are administering satisfactorily the powers they have, others are dormant, and in a period of five years it would be possible to deal with the dormant local authorities. We want the local authorities to deal with this matter over a wide scale, and if the period named in the Clause were less than five years they might not enter into the matter very heartily. I want to see the Government nailed down to this good work for five years. The Secretary of State for Scotland is a convert in this matter, and I trust him, but the Minister of Health is rather hike-warm. We had an example the other day of how the scheme is working in Scotland. Counties like my own are working the scheme well in England. Has the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health any information to show that the recalcitrant counties are going to work this scheme more thoroughly in the future? One need is to consider the community section by section. The Clause deals only with the agricultural community, but if people are to be encouraged to go back to the land it is essential steadily to reorganise the whole of the countryside, and that this is to be done should be made known. It should not be made possible for any local authority to say, "We shall do a bit this year, but the rest of the houses in the district will not be taken in hand." We want to tell these agricultural people that it is really a definite plan going on right into the future. We do not want any Amendment moved by hon. Members opposite to cut down this period, because it is essential from the point of view of the agricultural labourer. This Clause is part of a great scheme. We have to look at one particular brick in a building, always remembering the rest of the building. It is essential to remember that the reorganisation of housing in this country has been carried on by both parties, and unless we get this Clause now, it is quite possible that you might throw out of joint something else.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) was rather criticising this Clause from the financial point of view. Perhaps he objected to the five years, but I do not think it is really a waste of money having this Clause for a long time and carrying on this Act, because there has been absolutely no hint of any waste of money anywhere, and it would be a waste of money if you did not carry this thins out properly. Therefore, my hon. Friend need not be afraid. I represent a far more intelligent and far better urban authority than he does, and far more advanced in every way, and they would not take the line that he does.

Mr. BRACKEN

I wonder if the hon. Member would give us the figures for five years, with such appropriate comments upon them as may occur to him?

Mr. WILLIAMS

That is what I was coming to, and that is what I do not think we have had. I was going to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he could give us some estimate of what houses he thinks are to be completed—

The CHAIRMAN

The Act of Parliament to which this Clause relates only deals with the assistance given by local authorities and with the Government contribution to the expenses.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Can I not ask what the Government contribution would be during the five years?

The CHAIRMAN

I do not know whether it would be possible to say.

Sir K. WOOD

On it, point of Order. I submit that my hon. Friend is entitled on this Clause, which seeks an extension of five years, to ask the Government the number of houses which they anticipate will be assisted by means of this extension and, secondly, for any further information as to their plans as a result of this extension.

The CHAIRMAN

The Section with which we are dealing has to do with the power of local authorities to make grants, and I presume that the local authorities must act first and that the Government could only give assistance on the expenditure that they might make.

Sir K. WOOD

On the point of Order. I may say that from time to time the Ministry of Health in England have, in their annual report, shown the number of houses that have received assistance, first, by way of State grants to the local authority and, secondly, by the contributions which the local authorities have themselves made. Clause 1 of this Bill seeks to extend the particular Section which you have quoted, and—

The CHAIRMAN

Is this a point of Order?

Sir K. WOOD

Yes, Sir Robert, That Section enables the Government to make a grant to local authorities under certain conditions, by which a house may be renovated and repaired, and under that Section the local authorities submit schemes to the Government, and the Government say whether or not they will approve them and make a contribution. Therefore, I submit that under these circumstances it is a proper question to ask that before the Government obtain the sanction of this House to that extension, they should at any rate endeavour to forecast how far they think this particular provision is likely to be utilised by the local authorities.

The CHAIRMAN

I think that that is all problematical.

Sir K. WOOD

May I submit that the mere fact that the matter may he problematical does not in fact in any way prevent the Government from giving a reasonable forecast of what is likely to be obtained? In any other Bill of this kind, so far from the matter being disposed of by its being said that it is problematical, the Government in fact under the Rules of our House, have to give some estimate of what financial provision may be necessary, and obviously they have to forecast the number of houses which will be receiving financial provision.

The CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman realises that Section 2 lays down the conditions under which financial assistance for houses will be allowed and whether grants will be paid or will not be paid. I fail to see how you could have any estimate of that nature at this stage, beyond that given in the Financial Memorandum.

Sir K. WOOD

May I respectfully submit, further, that I do not think the Chair can be fully appraised of the scheme under this particular provision? The Government came to the House to ask for this particular Act of Parliament to be extended for five years. They had to do that on a Financial Resolution, and in that Financial Resolution they had to estimate what they anticipated—

The CHAIRMAN

There really is no such thing in the Financial Resolution. I will read the Resolution: That it is expedient to amend the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, by extending by five years the period within which applications for assistance under that Act may be received by the local authorities. There is nothing at all about finance there.

Sir K. WOOD

I regret that I have not explained myself sufficiently. It was not in the terms of the Financial Resolution, hut on the first page of the Bill—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence)

On a point of Order.

Sir K. WOOD

There can be no point of Order when I myself am submitting a point of Order. I am submitting that in the explanation which the Government gave in support of the Financial Resolution they gave an estimate of what is really to be expended under this Act in the next five years. They did that by referring to the amount of money expended in the last five years, and gave a forecast of the amount likely to be expended; and as that has been done I say it is perfectly proper to ask what they anticipate will be the number of houses built in future.

The CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman misconstrues the Bill altogether. The Bill is for the purpose of extending the time within which applications for assistance may be made. You cannot calculate with accuracy what assistance may be asked in the extended time, and therefore the question of money does not arise on this particular Clause. That should have been raised on the Financial Resolution.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

There is a reference here to Government contributions, and I wish to know whether we can have any information as to the basis on which those contributions are to be made.

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member will refer to the original Act he will find the basis of contribution.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I wanted it brought out because I was not quite sure that I could get hon. Members opposite to vote for the particular Clause with which we are dealing. Now you have pointed it out, I think I can manage that all right, and I will go on to another point. This is really a very important one. When we have been talking about five years, one or two hon. Members have shown signs of thinking that this had something to do with Russia. May I assure them that it has not.

The CHAIRMAN

Observations like that are quite unnecessary in connection with this Clause.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Of course, I willingly accept your Ruling on that point. I was only going to assure the Committee that the five-year condition is an essential backbone of the Clause. Another reason why the Clause should be approved is that both the great political parties have now shown by their actions that they feel there is nothing in the Clause which is unsound. Hon. Members opposite used to regard the proposals as unsound when they were submitted by our party, but now their attitude has changed, and I can invite them to vote for the Clause now for one sound and fundamental reason apart from all other reasons that it is a thoroughly sound Tory Measure.

Mr. SMITHERS

Axe we to understand that by an extension of this provision for five years we are giving a Socialist Government carte blanche in the spending of money? Is there no estimate of the amount to be expended; is there no limit?

The CHAIRMAN

I have already explained that the Bill arises out of Sections 2 and 4 of the Act of 1926. The Government are only extending the provisions of that Act and there is no estimate. On the Financial Memorandum there was an estimate to September, 1931. After that much depends on the application of the local authorities.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson)

I am a little surprised at the amount of discussion which has taken place on this particular portion of the Bill. We have been asked about the number of houses likely to be built. On Second Reading I gave a very full statement of the number of houses built and their cost, and consequently I thought there would have been no need for all these questions. The only point I did not cover, as far as I have been able to gather, was the estimate for the next five years. I can give that in a single sentence. It is 25,100 houses. With that exception I gave full information on Second Reading-The next point with which I wish to deal was raised by a right hon. and learned Member opposite. The Bill automatically extends the scheme in operation until 1936, but every local authority has the power to submit an amending scheme if they so desire. Having explained the two principal points which have been put by those taking part in this discussion, I hope that the Committee will see their way to give us the Committee stage of this Bill.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP

The right hon. Gentleman expressed some surprise instead of gratification that the Opposition are taking a great interest in his Bill. He really must not think that because the Government chose to force us to sit after Eleven o'clock, night after night, we are to be deprived of the opportunities of asking for information by the ribaldry which is so often shown when we pursue such inquiries. The right hon. Gentleman has, with his accustomed courtesy and clarity, given us the information at the persistence of my right hon. Friend beside me and of my hon. Friend behind me. The right hon. Gentleman says that the information was given on the Second Reading. I am not sure whether his recollection is quite accurate, though I will take it from him that he intended to give it on the Second Beading.

Mr. ADAMSON

It was given on the Second Reading.

Sir T. INSKIP

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says that the information was given on the Second Reading. We are glad to have some information as to what the probable anticipated cost will be. On reflection, we shall all appreciate that it is necessary, in considering the merits of the Bill, to know what the Government contemplate, because here we have the Secretary of State commending this Bill, and the knowledge that he commends it disarms suspicion on all sides of the House. But we have his colleague who is absent here—[Interruption]. Where is his colleague? Yes, he is absent here. Hon. Members opposite do not understand the English language. Here is a Minister professing to support this Bill—his name is on the back of it—who absents himself from the discussions. He, after all, is the Minister who will be responsible for administering this Bill in a part of Great Britain which is wider in extent, if not more important, than Scotland, and it is important for us to know whether the Minister of Health really means to sit down and try to make a success of this Bill. It is not enough for the Secretary of State for Scotland, with his engaging candour, to tell us, as I know he does in all sincerity, that he means to make it a success. We want to know whether the Minister of Health is anxious to make it a success. Now that we have had some little information as to the expenditure contemplated in the next five years, we shall be in a position to hold the Minister of Health to the expectations which he has held out to this House as an inducement to get the Opposition and Members of the House generally to support the Bill. But, after all, it is hon. Members opposite whom he has to convince, more than hon. Members on this side. He has to convert and convince the Parliamentary Secretary to this proposal. The discussion this evening on Clause 1 will have this advantage, that the Parliamentary Secretary will have appreciated that she and her Minister must mend their ways if this Bill is to be made to succeed. We have to use the opportunities which the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule gives us to give a little education on the merits of this Bill to I he Parliamentary Secretary. No doubt she will take advantage of the opportunities we have been so generous in presenting her with to communicate to the Minister of Health the obvious intentions of this Committee and of hon. Members opposite that this Bill should be made a triumphant success. Now that we have had this estimate we are in a position to hope that hon. Members opposite will agree with us in our wholehearted support of this proposal.

As to the other points he has dealt with regarding the meaning of Subsection (2) of the Clause we are considering I venture to think that the words in question are, at least, a surplusage and unnecessary drafting, because, after all, the Act of 1926, so far as Clause 1 was concerned, provided that schemes were to be submitted by local authorities and the only limitation on the duration of the Bill was contained in Clause 2 (c), which provided that no assistance should be given after 1st October, 1931. If 1st October, 1931, had simply been replaced by 1st October, 1936, then the operation of the Bill would have been automatic, without the introductory words to Clause 2, which seem to me to complicate the Measure. But, as the right hon. Gentleman says it is only to give opportunity to local authorities to submit new proposals, with that elucidation, I hope that we shall have the whole-hearted support of Ministers and back benchers opposite in carrying into effect a measure which it has taken five years to convince them is an admirable Bill, designed in the interests of a class that has been too long neglected. As we have succeeded in that, we hope that a similar process will teach hon. Members opposite that there are a great many merits in many of the proposals for which the last Administration was responsible. I hope we shall all feel that this time has not been wasted and that the Patronage Secretary, whom I see in his place, will take notice that we do not intend that these suspensions of the Eleven o'clock rule shall be abused by hon. Members opposite.