Commons Sitting of 3 July 1935

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Consideration deferred till To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  GERMANY.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has ascertained what are the definite conditions upon which Germany is prepared to consider returning to the League; and whether these conditions include any stipulation and, if so, what stipulation, regarding the question of colonies?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Samuel Hoare): An inquiry was made some time ago with a view to ascertaining what precise conditions have to be fulfilled in order that Germany may be prepared to consider a return to the League. The German Government have not, however, thought it possible to supplement their views, as stated by my predecessor in his statement in the House on 9th April, and by the German Chancellor in his speech of 21st May.
    Mr. COCKS: Has the attention of the Secretary of State been called to the statement of Dr. Goebbels to the effect that it is a perfect delusion to expect Germany to return to the League, and does not his answer bear that out?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have had no official communication about the statement referred to, and I therefore could not venture to make any answer to the hon. Member's question.

    AIR STRENGTH.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, with regard to
    1840
    the statement made in April last that Germany had then reached parity with Great Britain in the air, he can give any information as to the present strength of the German air force and the number of aerodromes possessed by Germany?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I do not think I can usefully add to the statements which were made on this subject in the debate on the 22nd of May.
    Mr. COCKS: Has not the Secretary of State any information as to the present production of aircraft per day in Germany, from which a simple calculation would enable us to know how many more they have built in the last 60 days?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. One thing of which I am quite certain is that any information that could be given would not form the basis of a simple calculation.

    SEAPLANE STATION (SYLT).
    Mr. COCKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information regarding the construction of a naval and seaplane base at Sylt; and whether he can give any details?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): We have no information regarding the construction of a naval base at Sylt. There has been a commercial seaplane station on the island of Sylt for many years past, but no details are available.
    Mr. COCKS: Is the First Lord of the Admiralty quite certain that this base is purely a commercial one or is it in connection with the naval agreement with Germany? Will he ascertain further particulars?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No details are available.
    Mr. COCKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman not get them?

  DISARMAMENT.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that in any general naval disarmament negotiations the British Government will be prepared to proceed upon the basis of the restrictions imposed upon Germany in the Treaty of

  1841
  Versailles, provided that other nations agreed?
  Sir S. HOARE: As there seems to be no prospect of securing a general international agreement on the basis of the qualitative and quantitative limits laid down in the naval clauses of the Versailles Treaty, I regret that I am unable to give the assurance indicated by the hon. Member.
  Mr. MANDER: Do I understand from that that even if all the other nations of the world were prepared to come to an arrangement on the basis of the Treaty of Versailles, the British Government would still hold out?
  Sir S. HOARE: I should prefer to wait until the time when I saw all the other nations unanimous in a view of that kind.
  Mr. MANDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be a great encouragement to the world if it were known that the British Government—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider asking the president of the Disarmament Conference to call it together forthwith, with a view to achieving a convention covering the reduction and limitation of all armaments and armament expenditure of every kind, the abolition of certain specified weapons, the regulation of the manufacture of and the trade in arms, and the creation of an effective system of armament supervision and of security, with special consideration as to the possibility of establishing an international air police force; and whether the Government will take the initiative in bringing forward at it a detailed programme of their own on the lines of the British draft convention of March, 1933?
  Sir S. HOARE: I have nothing to add to the reply which was given to a question which the hon. Member put on 5th June in regard to the resumption of discussions by the Disarmament Conference.
  Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a recent international conference of League of Nations Union Societies of the whole world a resolution was unanimously passed on
  1842
  the lines of the first part of this question, and would he be good enough to bear that in mind?
  Sir S. HOARE: I certainly will bear a resolution of that kind in mind, but at the same time I still retain the view that no conference can hope to be successful that is not attended by the main Governments on whom disarmament depends.
  Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Would my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that at a League of Nations Union special convention on aeronautical matters there was considerable divergence of view on all these matters, and that no decisions were come to on all these points?
  Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he now desires to make a statement on the measure of progress achieved in negotiating a general limitation of air armaments, together with a Western air pact of mutual guarantee?
  Sir S. HOARE: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) on 17th June.
  Mr. ADAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure us that His Majesty's Government still regard this question as being of extreme urgency?
  Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, certainly. We are doing everything in our power to expedite its discussion.

  BRITISH SCHOOL IN PARIS.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that a grant of £1,500 a year is made to the Institut Francais in London for educational purposes, whereas there is no financial support given by the British Government to the British school in Paris, he will consider the advisability of some reciprocal arrangement?
  Sir S. HOARE: His Majesty's Government do not follow the practice of certain foreign Governments, among them the French Government, of granting financial assistance to schools and institutes of their own nationality in foreign countries. An exception has been made

  1843
  only in the case of certain British schools in Egypt, in view of the special relations existing between the United Kingdom and that country. I regret that it is not possible to depart from this principle in the case of the British school in Paris.

  MALAYA (MUI-TSAI SYSTEM).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that there are more registered mui-tsai in Malaya, than in Hong-Kong, that in Malaya there is only one lady inspector for the Singapore and Penang Islands, respectively, as compared with one whole-time inspector for a smaller area and number of mui-tsai in Hong-Kong, and that there are other parts of Malaya, without any inspectors whatever, he will consider the importance of appointing forth with a sufficient number of suitably paid whole-time inspectors to supervise the registered and unregistered mui-tsai wherever mui-tsai in any numbers are held by their owners in these territories?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): It has hitherto been held that although special inspectors are required in Penang and Singapore, elsewhere in Malaya the duties can adequately be carried out by the officers of the Chinese Protectorate Department, who are specially charged with the administration of the mui-tsai legislation. But I propose to consult the High Commissioner for the Malay States with regard to the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Mr. LUNN: Is there a system of mui-tsai registration in Malaya similar to that in Hong Kong; why are there not more inspectors than there are at present, and is it the policy of the Government to abolish mui-tsai in Malaya as in Hong Kong?
  Mr. MacDONALD: The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative, and there is a system of registration in Malaya. Officers of the Chinese Protectorate Department who, as I have already said, are charged with the duty and have the powers of inspection, are considered to be adequate in number, and we feel that the inspections have, so far, been satisfactory.
  Mr. LUNN: After the right hon. Gentleman has consulted the authorities in Malaya upon this matter, may I be informed of what is taking place?
  Mr. MacDONALD

  NYASALAND (NATIVE TAX).
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a report from the Governor of Nyasaland with regard to the administration of the native hut and poll tax?
  Mr. M. MacDONALD: I have now received a report from the Governor, including particulars of an impartial inquiry which investigated alleged abuses in the collection of native tax. It is quite clear that there is no foundation for the statement that chiefs and headmen are permitted, with the knowledge of the district commissioners, to detain female relatives of alleged tax defaulters until tax has been paid.
  Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that, as a result of the census he has now taken, the matter will be sufficiently public in Nyasaland to remove the impression there that there has been widespread abuse?
  Mr. MacDONALD: We shall do all that we can to remove that impression.

  MALTA (HOTEL ACCOMMODATION, VALETTA).
  Commander BOWERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many proposals have been received by His Majesty's Government in Malta for the erection of a first-class hotel in or near Valetta; and what facilities His Majesty's Government are prepared to offer either financially or by the provision of a suitable site?
  Mr. M. MacDONALD: Six proposals from different interests have been received by the Government of Malta. It has been decided to let the concession by public tender. Tenders were called for on 25th June, and full particulars can be obtained from the office of the Crown Agents for the Colonies. The Malta Government are prepared to guarantee the principal and interest on debentures

  1845
  up to £76,000. A site on Government land is offered at a minimum rent of £100 a year.
  Commander BOWER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the site is the site just outside Valetta or in some other part of the country?
  Mr. MacDONALD: It is quite close to Valetta.

  CEYLON.

    MATERNAL MORTALITY.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the maternal mortality rate in Ceylon for the latest year for which figures are available; and how many deaths were involved?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: The maternal mortality rate in Ceylon for 1933 was 18.6 per 1,000. The number of maternal deaths involved was 3,852.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this constitutes the highest maternal mortality figure of any civilised country in the world, and can he say what steps the Government are taking to deal with the matter?
    Mr. MacDONALD: The figures represent a considerable decrease on what they have been, and in recent years there has been a steady improvement. The Government are taking various steps to meet the situation. Perhaps I could let the hon. Gentleman have a list of the steps which are being taken.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the 18 per 1,000 births compares very badly with the 4 per 1,000 births in this country, and that there is a very real room for improvement?
    Mr. MacDONALD: The fact that there has been a steady improvement in recent years shows that we are aware of the problem and that we are doing everything we can to solve it.

    EDUCATION.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many children between the ages of six and 14 years are not attending schools in Ceylon; and how many children are attending schools?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: At the end of 1933, which is the last date for which figures are available, there were 631,122 children between the ages of six and 14 at school in Ceylon. I am not in a position to say how many children between these ages were not attending school.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not possible to ascertain exactly how many children are not yet attending school?
    Mr. MacDONALD: I will make inquiries.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    AIRCRAFT FACTORIES, SCOTLAND.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Air whether there are at the present time any aircraft factories in Scotland which will be able to take advantage of the recent increased orders for Government supplies of aircraft and accessories; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of encouraging the installation of such a factory or factories by some form of guarantee?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but no necessity arises for the suggested guarantees, since the existing capacity of the industry is expected to be sufficient to meet the increased requirements. Engineering firms in Scotland may, however, receive indirect advantage in the shape of subcontracts for materials and components.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that there is land and a factory belonging to the War Department at Irvine, Ayrshire, which would be eminently suitable for the manufacture and assembling of aircraft?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If my hon. and gallant Friend is inviting us to start State manufacture, I certainly can hold out no hopes in that direction.

    OVERSEAS SERVICE (PROMOTION).
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Secretary of State for Air, whether he can give any assurance that the prospects of promotion for officers and men of the Royal Air Force serving abroad will not be detrimentally affected by the sanctioned increase

    1847
    in home establishments, and that no suitable man serving abroad will be passed over in favour of airmen immediately available for promotion because serving at home?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend may rest assured that the claims of officers and airmen serving abroad will be in no way prejudiced.

    CONTRACTS (CONTROL OF PRICES).
    Dr. ADDISONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether those whom he has appointed to advise him on the prices to be paid for aircraft supplies will be able to inform themselves of the costs of production, as well as of the overhead and general charges of the firms providing the supplies?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. Where it is considered desirable, a clause will be inserted in contracts under which particulars of costs may be called for and verified. It is already the practice for the overhead and general charges of the firms concerned to be periodically examined.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that there will be no waste of money in connection with this programme such as there was in the early days of the housing programme?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I shall do my best to profit by all experience.
    Dr. ADDISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, profiting by those lessons, take care to have powers which the Minister at that time did not possess?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I never was aware that the right hon. Gentleman's extravagance was in any way connected with the powers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order. Withdraw."] Do not let us be so mealy-mouthed. I think the difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself is that he has a passion for coercion, and I prefer to get effective action by agreement and good will.
    Mr. PALING: Will the right hon. Gentleman's advisers have power to advise him on such operations as took place last week in regard to aircraft shares?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have nothing whatever to do with aircraft shares.
    HON. MEMBERS: Do not be so mealy-mouthed.
    Dr. ADDISONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether any arrangements have been made by his Department to secure economies in the supply of materials, machinery, or other requirements to the different firms responsible for aircraft supplies, or whether the firms are obtaining their requirements for themselves?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Contractors will continue to obtain their own supplies of material, machine tools, etc. Arrangements have been made for them to report any difficulties that they may encounter, with a view to any necessary assistance being afforded by the Air Ministry, in consultation with the Board of Trade. Moreover, it is the practice of the Air Ministry to purchase a considerable number of items of equipment and components in bulk and issue them to the manufacturers for embodiment.
    Dr. ADDISON: If the right hon. Gentleman is allowing contractors to obtain these supplies for themselves, will he not take into account the enormous economies which would be obtained by a combined method of purchase, thus obviating the waste which he deplores in another Minister at another time?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that anyone who has practical experience will realise that this is entirely a matter of practical value in each particular case. Where experience has shown that bulk purchase is the most economical, it is being followed; but it is by no means certain—indeed, I think it is certainly not the case—that a Government Department buying raw material which is bought on a large scale by an individual manufacturer would necessarily, or, indeed, probably, buy much cheaper.
    Dr. ADDISON: Is it not a fact that there is a very large body of experience available to show the advantage of this central bulk purchase system; and has the right hon. Gentleman's Department any powers to carry out that system?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is being carried out in those cases where experience shows that it is convenient.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Why has the right hon. Gentleman taken all these unnecessary precautions when he knows that private enterprise is so competent?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Because I am endeavouring to help private enterprise.

    RECRUITING.
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the Secretary of State for Air what were the total number of officers and other ranks recruited for the Royal Air Force in the last three months?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: During the three months ending on 30th June, 117 officers were gazetted to the Royal Air Force (including 13 attached or seconded from the Navy or Army), and 1,455 airmen were finally accepted for enlistment.

  AIRCRAFT SUPPLIES (EXPORT).
  Dr. ADDISONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether aircraft engines of types similar to those supplied to British Air Forces have been supplied to other nations during the past year by British firms?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir.
  Dr. ADDISON: In view of the fact that aircraft engines similar to those supplied to the British Forces have been supplied to other nations by British firms, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what they are, and how many?

  Description.

  Exports.

  United Kingdom manufacture.

  Imported merchandise.

  Quantity.

  Value.

  Quantity.

  Value.

  Number.

  £

  Number.

  £

  Aeroplanes:

  Complete

  5

  4,675

  —

  —

  Parts, engine

  80

  183,964

  4

  6,000

  Parts, other (except magnetos)

  …

  4,720

  …

  10

  Airships and balloons and parts thereof (except magnetos).

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mr. ADAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the terms of this question are taken verbatim from the Arms Export Prohibition Order of 19th May, 1931?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is, I think, some return of total exports. But any questions about exports should be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, who is the Minister responsible for all statistical returns.
  Mr. COCKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any have been sent to his new German friends?
  Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Is there any reason why our manufacturers should not export aircraft engines?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As long as export goes on at all, it is surely desirable that British firms should export and British labour be employed.
  Mr. COCKS: Hail Hitler.
  Mr. V. ADAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether during the past 12 months there have been exported to Germany from Great Britain any aircraft, assembled or dismantled, or aircraft engines?
  Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): There have been certain exports and re-exports, particulars of which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following are the particulars:
  Total exports from the United Kingdom of aircraft and parts thereof registered during the 12 months ended May, 1935, as consigned to Germany were as follows:
  Mr. COCKS: Why are we allowing aircraft engines to be sent to Germany at present, seeing that the German Air Force is entirely illegal?
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The hon. Member will be able to study the report, which I will circulate.

  AIR SERVICES (NORTH ATLANTIC ROUTE).
  Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for Air how the plans for the establishment of a North Atlantic air-route, under British or foreign control, are progressing?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The whole question of the establishment of air services on the North Atlantic route is under active consideration, alike in its technical and other aspects.

  TRANSPORT.

    EXPERIMENTAL IRON PAVING.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any reports on the success or otherwise of the experimental iron roads, particularly with regard to the safe use of them by solo motor cyclists?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The reports which I have received on the experimental lengths of iron paving laid in different localities indicate that the material is generally satisfactory, but I shall be very pleased to receive any reports from motor cyclists, who have not made any special representations to me, or, indeed, from any other road users.

    MERSEY TUNNEL (ROAD SURFACE).
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any complaints with regard to the road surface of the Mersey tunnel and its effect on the driving of motor cycles?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir, no complaints.

    KILTON VALLEY ROAD, YORKSHIRE.
    Commander BOWERasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the dangerous state of the Kilton Valley Road at Loftus-in-Cleveland; and whether he will urge the North Riding county council to put forward a suitable improvement scheme?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. I understand that the North Riding county council have included a scheme for its improvement, estimated to cost £16,000, in the five-year programme which they propose to submit for my consideration.

    HIGHWAY CODE (DISTRIBUTION).
    Sir W. BRASSasked the Minister of Transport whether arrangements could be made for the printers so to expedite their work as to be in a position to deliver the copies of the new Highway Code to the Post Office for distribution to all householders before August Bank Holiday; and how many copies will be involved?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. Arrangements have been made for distribution of the new Highway Code to all householders between the 22nd July and the 2nd August, which is the Friday preceding Bank Holiday. The first print will be 16½ million copies, of which 13,000,000 will be distributed through the Post Office.
    Sir W. BRASS: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether the foreword, written by himself, will be given to us so that we can read it before it is published?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly; I will send it to my hon. and gallant Friend.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Transport what were the casualties in 1934 per 1,000 of private motor cars, of public service vehicles, and of cycles, assuming the latter to be 10,000,000?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The approximate number of persons killed or injured during 1934 in road accidents in Great Britain attributed to private motor cars and to public service vehicles were respectively 66 and 247 per 1,000 vehicles. These figures do not, however, take into account the difference in mileage run by the two classes of vehicles. 61,890 casualties were attributed to pedal cycles, which, on the basis of the assumption in the question, gives 6.2 casualties per 1,000 pedal cycles, but I must not be taken as accepting the hon. Member's estimate of the number of cycles.
    Mr. WEST: Do not the figures show that the accidents caused by cyclists are fewer than those caused by any other type of road vehicle?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I could not accept that statement as an exhaustive conclusion, but surely it is desirable to take every precaution to reduce the number of accidents to cyclists, and, as they are more vulnerable than any other sections of the population, it is preeminently desirable.
    Captain BROWNEasked the Minister of Transport whether he will give for the last convenient period of three months the total number of road accidents, fatal or otherwise, and the number of these ascribed to the fault of the pedestrian and those in which the driver is to blame?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The number of persons reported as having died or been injured during the 13 weeks ended 22nd June, 1935, as the result of road accidents in Great Britain was 55,006, of whom 1,398 lost their lives and 53,608 were injured. This represents a decrease of 18.3 per cent. in the case of those killed and 10.4 per cent. in the case of those injured as compared with the corresponding period of 1934. An analysis of the causes of fatal road accidents for the current year is being prepared.

    CYCLE TRACKS.
    Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Transport whether he has decided to make cycle-tracks compulsory on all newly-constructed arterial roads?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir. Where it appears that the proportion of cyclists to other traffic is likely to be appreciable, I shall use my best endeavours to secure that separate tracks are provided as circumstances permit for the use of cyclists.
    Mr. WEST: Has the hon. Gentleman considered, as an alternative to cycle tracks, constructing special motor tracks?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: One arises to some extent out of the other. If cyclists are segregated, motorists are more segregated than at present.
    Mr. PALING: If cycle tracks are provided, is the use of the main road prohibited to cyclists?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, not yet.
    Sir W. BRASS: Where cycle tracks are provided, are they being used by cyclists?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: By the overwhelming majority. They are most popular.

    HEAVY OILS DUTY.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Transport what will be the estimated additional cost to the London Passenger Transport Board during the 12 months following 8th August, 1935, occasioned by the withdrawal of the rebate on heavy oils?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that, on the basis of the number of oil-engined vehicles in the fleet at the present time, the net additional cost to the board during the 12 months following 8th August, 1935, occasioned by the withdrawal of the rebate on heavy oils is estimated to amount to £55,000, after allowing for the reduction in licence duty on heavy oil vehicles from 1st August.

    PEDESTRIANS' CROSSING-PLACES.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Transport whether his Department has given any definite ruling as to the rights of a pedestrian in relation to approaching motor cars when once he has actually entered a controlled crossing?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. The Regulations provide that a driver at or approaching a crossing where traffic is controlled by a police constable or light signals, shall allow free and uninterrupted passage to every pedestrian who started to go over the crossing before the driver received a signal that he might proceed.

    BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the progress that has been made as a result of his representations to the local authorities to de-restrict from the speed limit roads which have been unnecessarily subjected thereto?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 27th June on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) of which I am sending him a copy.

    MOTOR CAR INDEX MARK (RETENTION FEE).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Transport whether he will

    1855
    state the reasons for imposing a charge of £5 upon people who desire to transfer the index mark from their old motor car to their new motor car; and whether he will consider the substitution of a purely nominal sum?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 26th June to a question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw). The reason for the charge is to discourage a practice which, if widely adopted, would undermine the whole system of registration of motor vehicles as provided by the statute.

    TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, THORNE, DONCASTER.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the urgent need for a by-pass road at Thorne, near Doncaster; that the main thoroughfare is not wide enough for two motor vehicles to pass at one time; and, in view of the enormous increase in road traffic through the town, will he use his influence with the highway authority to expedite the necessary improvement?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will ascertain whether the West Riding County Council, who are the responsible Highway Authority, propose to include the scheme in the five-year programme of road works which they now have under consideration and communicate the result to the hon. Member.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the West Riding authority, who already know the facts, that this is one of the worst and most urgent examples in any part of Yorkshire?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will put myself in communication with the authority.

  CUSTOM HOUSE QUAY, LONDON.
  Major CARVERasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consult with His Majesty's Custom House authorities and have the unsightly temporary huts removed from Custom House Quay, in Lower Thames Street, in view of the fact that there is now other accommodation available nearby; and, as it is about 20 years since the public have been allowed to use this riverside promenade,
  1856
  whether he will see that this rightful privilege of access is restored to those who work in this area?
  Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The necessary steps have already been taken to consult the Board of Customs and Excise on this suggestion, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend was informed on the 30th May, in view of the extensive additional duties imposed on the Custom and Excise officials by recent legislation, the removal of the staffs now housed in the huts on the quay cannot be contemplated at present.
  Major CARVER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that for hundreds of years City workers have been able to use these for rest and recreation, and that it was only a war-time restriction? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to exercise the rights that he holds for public amenities and restore the privilege?
  Major DAVIES: I will certainly convey that to my right hon. Friend.

  HYDE PARK (BATHING FACILITIES).
  Mr. RICKARDSasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider increasing the space allotted to bathers on the Serpentine, as at present it is constantly overcrowded?
  Major DAVIES: My right hon. Friend doubts whether it is correct to say that there is constant overcrowding of the space alotted to bathers in the Serpentine. Apart from special heat wave periods, the accommodation is ample, and my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to increase it.

  SOUTH AFRICAN PROTECTORATE.
  Mr. WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the widespread interest in this country in the whole question of the high commission territories of South Africa, he will consider issuing, in the form of a Parliamentary Paper, the memorandum handed to General Smuts in July, 1933, and the despatch upon the subject addressed to the High Commissioner in South Africa and any other documents relevant to the subject?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) when it was explained that I am in communication with General Hertzog as to publication of the memorandum handed to General Smuts in 1933.

  SCOTLAND.

    HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the grant for historical publications in Scotland amounts to £200 per annum, which sum is insufficient to publish one volume, whereas the grant for England is £2,300; and what steps does he propose to take to get at least the Goschen proportion for Scotland?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The grant referred to is provided on the Register House Vote for the remuneration of outside editors employed part-time in preparing calendars of State papers, largely from records kept in the Public Record Office in London and the British Museum. The cost of printing and publishing these records is additional and is borne on the Stationery Office Vote. The existing grant is sufficient for present purposes. The grant of £2,500 for calendars and historical documents borne on the Public Record Office Vote covers much work which is of interest to Scotland as well as England, and the matter is not, therefore, one to which the Goschen principle can properly be applied.

    SENTENCES FOR PERJURY.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the sentence of six months' imprisonment passed on eight persons from the Garngad area on Wednesday, 26th June, for alleged perjury; whether he will reduce this sentence; and whether he will specially consider the release forthwith of Mrs. Kelly, who is an expectant mother.
    Sir G. COLLINS: My attention has already been drawn to the sentences imposed on the eight persons referred to who were convicted of perjury. Inquiries
    1858
    which are being made into the cases have not yet been completed. Arrangements will be made to remove Mrs. Kelly to a hospital outside the prison before her confinement.
    Mr. McGOVERN: While inquiries are being made, can not the right hon. Gentleman see that this woman, who is due to give birth to a child in five weeks, is released, and does he think justice has not been satisfied already and that the woman can be restored to her home?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The case of Mrs. Kelly can be treated exceptionally because of the exceptional circumstances, and arrangements will be made to remove her to outside accommodation before her confinement.
    Mr. McGOVERN: That is not an answer to the question. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this woman collapsed in the dock and that the future child's life may be impaired by her continuance in prison?
    Sir G. COLLINS: This is a purely medical case, and I shall be guided by those who are responsible for guiding me in such matters.
    Mr. McGOVERN: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    SLUM CLEARANCE, GLASGOW.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Glasgow corporation received certain grants of subsidies to build slum-clearance properties in the Glasgow area, and that in certain cases these properties were let as intermediate houses and much higher rents charged than was intended; and whether he will inquire into this matter with a view to seeing that grants are only used for the purpose that they were intended for?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am not aware that any subsidised slum-clearance houses in Glasgow have been let as is stated by the hon. Member, but if he will furnish me with particulars of the cases he has in mind I shall have inquiry made.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I will furnish the hon. Gentleman with details of the cases I have in mind.

    JUVENILE OFFENDERS (LEGAL AID).
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can state the number of young persons under 16 years of age who were before the Glasgow courts for each year 1930 to 1935, inclusive, charged with theft and housebreaking; and whether he is aware that no legal defence is available for these young persons whose parents are mostly unemployed?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As regards the first part of the question, I would propose, as the reply involves a table of figures, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part, Poor's Agents are available for the defence of cases in the Sheriff Court on prior notice to them being given. There are no Poor's Agents attached to the Glasgow Police Courts.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no legal aid is provided in the Sheriff Courts in Glasgow? The other week I was present When scores of boys were being asked to plead, and no legal defence was available. Will the right hon. Gentleman see that notice is given on the summons where legal advice can be given?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am given to understand that legal advice is always forthcoming for poor persons. If the hon. Member has any specific case where he knows of such advice not being forthcoming, I will immediately look into it.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how recently such a procedure has been adopted in the sheriff court, when two months ago the conditions applying to these people were those mentioned in the question?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I can only speak from information received. I will naturally look into the matter in view of the supplementary questions which have been put to me, but I am assured that proper arrangements are available for the defence of cases in the sheriff court. However, I will make inquiries.
    Mr. McGOVERN: If these arrangements are not available in the court when poor people are summoned in respect of offences which their children have committed, they do not know how legal aid can be obtained; will the right
    1860
    hon. Gentleman see to it that some method is adopted when issuing the summonses so that the information may be given?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I will see what can be done under the existing facilities.
    Following is the table:
    The numbers of children and young persons proceeded against in the courts in Glasgow in the years 1930–33 in respect of theft and housebreaking (including theft by housebreaking) are as follow:

    —

    Theft

    Housebreaking (including theft by house-breaking).

    1930

    509

    181

    1931

    566

    263

    1932

    742

    321

    1933

    758

    430

    1934

    1,052

    552

    1935 (to 31st May, 1935).

    460

    225

    The figures for the period to 1st November, 1933, are in respect of children and young persons under 16 years of age, but as from that date the age of "young persons" was raised by the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1932, to 17 years, and the figures for the period subsequent to 1st November, 1933, relate to children and young persons under 17 years of age.

    UNEMPLOYED PLOTIIOLDERS (COMMUNAL HUTS).
    Mr. MILNEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that at Crosshill and elsewhere in Fife, where the Department of Agriculture for Scotland have provided plots for cultivation by unemployed persons, the plot-holders are suffering serious inconvenience and hardship by reason of the lack of communal huts where they could store their tools and obtain shelter in bad weather; and whether he will take steps to secure that communal huts at these places are provided by the Department?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The sums available for plotholders' schemes would not permit of the general provision of huts in addition to the other expenses of the schemes. Plotholders elsewhere have provided tool stores without assistance,

    1861
    or in some cases with assistance received from voluntary sources. If my hon. Friend will send me details of any particular case he has in mind I will have the matter inquired into.

  PRISON POPULATION.
  Mr. BERNAYSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the average daily population of the prisons in England and Wales in 1924 and in 1934 or the nearest convenient date?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Euan Wallace): The daily average population of all establishments excluding Borstal Institutions, was 10,097 in 1923–24, and 10,154 in 1934.

  ARMORIAL BEARINGS (LICENCES).
  Sir J. POWERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of licences issued in respect of armorial bearings and the amounts received in respect of the financial years ended March 1904, March 1914, March 1924, and March 1934?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following are the figures:

  Year ended 31st March.

  Armorial Bearings' Licences

  Number

  Net Receipts

  £

  1904

  …

  …

  56,275

  74,545

  1914

  …

  …

  53,802

  69,642

  1924

  …

  …

  89,073

  47,155

  1934

  …

  …

  31,865

  37,019

  CONTRIBUTORY OLD AGE PENSIONS (UNMARRIED WOMEN).
  Mr. GUYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total contributions paid in respect of pensions by unmarried women under national health insurance, and the total amount paid in contributory old age pensions to unmarried
  1862
  women, in both cases for the year ended 31st March, 1934?
  Mr. COOPER: I regret that the figures are not available.

  RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  Mr. WHITEasked the Financial Secretary to the. Treasury whether any progress has been made in prosecuting the claims of the Treasury against banks and trading firms incorporated under the law of Tsarist Russia?
  Mr. COOPER: The liquidations of the banks and trading companies are still proceeding, and accordingly I have at present nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 19th December last.

  UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (SCHOOL MEALS).
  Mr. CLEARYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in the city of Liverpool the Unemployment Assistance Board is making deductions in respect of meals given to necessitous school children; under what regulation of the Board this is done, and whether he will take steps to have the practice stopped, in view of the fact that the Board of Education, by making grants towards the cost, is encouraging the granting of such meals, particularly in industrial areas, in order to enable children to benefit from the education afforded in the schools?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I am informed that the Board's practice in the treatment of school meals is as set out in the Appendix to the Memorandum on the Unemployment Assistance Regulations, 1934, presented to Parliament in January last (Cmd. 4791). As indicated there, the Board entirely ignores all meals given upon a doctor's certificate that a child is suffering from a specific pathological condition and also all those consisting of milk and other special forms of provision. Moreover, other meals are only taken into account where they exceed 12 a week and the adjustment made in the allowance is based on a moderate estimate of the saving to the household, approximately one penny per meal. The Board inform me that they are keeping

  1863
  a close watch on the working of these arrangements.
  Mr. CLEARY: Will the meals in question granted to the necessitous school children come under the exemption mentioned by the hon. Member in his reply?
  Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I cannot answer that question without notice.
  Mr. CLEARY: Is it within the knowledge of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that deductions of the character mentioned are being made in the city of Liverpool?
  Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I understand that that is so. It is being made in accordance with the Instruction made last January.
  Mr. CLEARY: In view of the fact that the Board of Education make a grant of 50 per cent. towards the cost of these meals and by recent circular are endeavouring to encourage, very definitely, their provision in industrial areas, is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his reply and the action of the Unemployment Assistance Board is militating against the policy of the Board of Education?
  Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I can only say that the Board are acting under the powers granted to them by the House.
  Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: If the public assistance committee give these meals without taking them into account, what authority have these other people for taking them into account because there is a standstill order? Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer that question?

  GRAN CHACO DISPUTE (ARMISTICE).
  Mr. PALING (for Mr. T. SMITH)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the armistice in the Gran Chaco dispute is being strictly observed by the two belligerents; whether the conciliation committee is meeting; and what steps are beng taken for the final settlement of the dispute?
  Sir S. HOARE: So far as I am aware the Agreement signed at Buenos Aires on the 12th June, which contained provision for an armistice, is being loyally observed by the contracting parties. In regard to
  1864
  the second and third part of the question, the Buenos Aires agreement provides for the convening of a Peace Conference to negotiate a final settlement of the dispute. The Conference was summoned to meet on 1st July.

  PALESTINE (RAILWAYS).
  Mr. JANNER (for Captain PETER MACDONALD)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the report of Sir Felix Pole on the reorganisation of the Palestine railways has been received and considered by the High Commissioner; whether he can give an assurance that the proposals will be adopted at the earliest possible opportunity in order to further the economic development of that mandated territory; what will be the approximate cost of the reforms proposed; and what will be the value of railway material which will have to be imported into Palestine to carry out this work?
  Mr. M. MacDONALD: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the previous replies which have been given to questions on this subject.
  Mr. JANNER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see to it that this matter is taken in hand at once; and is it true that the report has been in the hands of the Colonial Office and of his Department for some months, and that there is a considerable amount of difficulty being experienced in Palestine at present owing to the fact that the report has not been dealt with?
  Mr. MacDONALD: As the hon. Member will understand from previous answers, the report has been in the hands of the High Commissioner for some time, and he has lost no time in giving it his careful consideration. I cannot take any further action in the matter until I have heard his views on the report.
  Mr. JANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that he will let us see the report so that we may consider it ourselves?

  BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY (STATE ASSISTANCE).
  Mr. MAINWARINGasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will provide a return showing the amount

  1865
  of subsidy given in other producing countries for the production of sugar-beet; the amount of subsidy, if any, granted respectively in other countries to beet-sugar factories; and a return showing the relative scale of operation and costs at each of the 18 beet-sugar factories of this country?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): As regards the first two parts of the question, State assistance to the sugar-beet industry in other producing countries is normally accorded through the incidence of sugar duties and the regulation of supplies. The combination of these factors, with, in most

  STATEMENT showing the State assistance given in certain sugar-beet producing countries in the campaign year, 1934–35.

  The figures are based on imported white sugar of a value of 5s. 6d. per cwt. calculated in shillings and decimals of a shilling per cwt. of 112 lb. at gold parities.

  Country.

  Home grown sugar produced and retained for home consumption.

  Wholesale price for standard granulated sugar, including consumption tax and/or excise duty, which the home industry is permitted to charge.

  Consumption tax or excise duty.

  Wholesale value of imported standard granulated sugar.

  Effective State assistance to the sugar-beet industry.

  per cwt.

  Total.

  tons.

  s. per cwt.

  s. per cwt.

  s. per cwt.

  s.

  £

  Czechoslovakia

  400,000

  35·35

  11·38

  5·5

  18·47

  7,388,000

  Denmark

  91,000*

  21·82

  5·98

  5·5

  10·34

  941,000

  France

  1,050,000

  23·97

  6·95

  5·5

  11·52

  12,096,000

  Germany

  1,550,000

  37·72

  10·44

  5·5

  21·78

  33,759,000

  Holland

  246,000

  35·24

  28·31

  5·5

  8·23†

  2,025,000

  Hungary

  90,000

  40·17

  18·26

  5·5

  16·41

  1,477,000

  Irish Free State

  71,000

  Import duty of 21s. per cwt. less Excise duty of 4s. 8d. per cwt.

  16·33

  1,159,000

  Italy

  330,000

  67·02

  43·95

  5·5

  17·57

  5,798,000

  Poland

  325,000

  23·42

  10·19

  5·5

  7·73

  2,512,000

  Spain

  300,000

  27·79

  7·67

  5·5

  14·62

  4,386,000

  Sweden

  272,000

  16·22

  —

  5·5

  10·72

  2,916,000

  U.S.A.

  1,390,000

  22·50

  —

  8·0

  14·50

  20,155,000

  * Small production duo to crop failure. The sugar-beet industry normally supplies the total requirement of 200,000 tons.

  † Includes 6·80s. direct subsidy.

  COAL INDUSTRY (EXPLOSION, HOYLAND SILKSTONE COLLIERY).
  Mr. PALING(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give any information to the House about the explosion at Hoyland Silkstone Colliery on Monday, 1st July.
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): Hoyland Silkstone Colliery is an abandoned mine from which no coal has been drawn since 1928. One of
  cases, a prescribed scale of wholesale prices, makes it impracticable to determine the precise amount of State assist ante in every case. In only one of the more important producing countries, Holland, is part of such assistance rendered by a direct subsidy. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement containing all the information which I have been able to obtain on the subject. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the information given in the table on page 68 of the Report of the United Kingdom Sugar Industry Inquiry Committee (Cmd. 4871).
  Following is the statement:
  the three shafts, which had been stopped off from the other two, is used as a man-riding shaft for Rockingham Colliery. It had been decided to fill up the two disused shafts, and the filling of one of them was in progress on the day of the explosion, which occurred, however, during the suspension of work for the lunch hour. It was at the other disused shaft that the explosion took place. At noon on 1st July, three workmen were taking their lunch in a fitters' cabin close by.

  1867
  Shortly after noon flames were observed at the top of the shaft, and though the three men escaped from the cabin they were badly burned, and in spite of immediate treatment I greatly regret that they have since died in hospital from their injuries. Investigations into the cause of the explosion were commenced immediately by the Divisional Inspector of Mines and are still proceeding. The House will, I am sure, wish to join with me in conveying an expression of deep sympathy to the dependants and relatives of the deceased.

  SUBMARINES (BRITISH POLICY).
  Mr. RADFORD(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the course of his recent conversations with the German naval delegates, they offered to abolish entirely the use of submarines, and, if so, what reply did His Majesty's Government make to this offer?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: As was stated by the German Chancellor in his speech of 21st May, Germany is ready to agree to the abolition of submarines provided that other countries will do the same, and her willingness to do so was reaffirmed by the German Representatives in the recent conversations. As is well known, this country has long taken the lead in endeavouring to secure a general agreement for the abolition of submarines, and has over and over again pressed for this at every possible opportunity from the Washington Conference onwards. The German Representatives were reminded of our views on this point, which are in full accord with their own. Unfortunately, however, these views are not universally shared by other countries.
  It will be clear from what I have said that the report quoted yesterday by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to the National Convention on Peace and Reconstruction is absolutely without foundation. This report, which alleged that, whereas Germany offered to abolish submarines, we were not prepared to accept this offer, is not only contrary to the plain facts, but ignores several authoritative statements made by His Majesty's Government quite recently on this subject.
  Mr. RADFORD: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will take immediate steps to give the utmost possible publicity to the true facts as stated by him, and so counteract as far as possible the effects of the irresponsible and mischievous statements made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I hope my answer will receive full publicity. I am not afraid of the mischievous effects in this country, because I cannot believe that anybody except the right hon. Gentleman is unaware of the true facts of the case. I am concerned with its effects internationally. A kind of submerged attack of this sort on His Majesty's Government must tend to damage the credentials of this country in the eyes of the world and so hamper the ceaseless efforts which His Majesty's Government are making for the preservation of world peace.
  Major OWEN: Is it not a fact that the German Chancellor, in his speech on the 21st May, made the following statement—[Interruption]. I think I am entitled to read the words that the German Chancellor used. I am merely quoting the words that he used on that occasion:
  "Finally, they (meaning the German Government) are ready to agree to a limitation of tonnage for submarines or to their complete abolition in case of international agreement."
  Is it not on record that the German Government were in favour of the total abolition of submarines at the Disarmament Conference and that France was the only one that objected?
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that at least half-a-dozen of the great Powers have expressed their willingness not only to abolish submarines but all armaments if each other will do it, but none of them will make a start?
  Mr. COCKS: Is it not a fact that the Japanese Government have always refused to abolish submarines?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Yes, Sir, there are some of the great Powers that have not yet consented to abolish submarines, including Japan and France.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. V. ADAMSasked the Prime Minister when the House of Commons will be given an opportunity to confirm or reject the granting to Germany of 35 per cent. of our naval strength and 45 per cent. of our tonnage in submarines?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I understand that the Opposition desire to debate this matter on one of the allotted Supply Days.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the changed business for to-morrow?
The PRIME MINISTER: Supply: Committee (10th Allotted Day). The
following Scottish Estimates will be considered:

Class 3, Vote 12, Police; Vote 13, Prison Department;

Class 5, Vote 16, Commissioner for Special Areas;

Class 6, Vote 21, Fishery Board;

Class 5, Vote 13, Department of Health.

Mr. LANSBURY: I wish them joy.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government, Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 40.

Division No. 260.]

AYES.

[3.36 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. sir Francis Dyke

Eady, George H.

Liddall, Walter S.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Eales, John Frederick

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Elmley, Viscount

Llswellin, Major John J.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Apsley, Lord

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Assheton, Ralph

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Mabane, William

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Everard, W. Lindsay

MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Fermoy, Lord

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

McKie, John Hamilton

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Blindoll, James

Gledhill, Gilbert

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

Boulton, W. W.

Gluckstein, Louis Halie

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

Granville, Edgar

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Boyce, H. Leslie

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Grimston, R. V.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Broadbent, Colonel John

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

Harris, Sir Percy

Milne, Charles

Browne, Captain A. C.

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Burnett, John George

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Caine, G. R. Hall

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Morgan, Robert H.

Carver, Major William H.

Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Cavzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Hornby, Frank

Morrison, William Shepherd

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Horsbrugh, Florence

Moss, Captain H. J.

Clarke, Frank

Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Clayton, Sir Christopher

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Colman, N. C. D.

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

North, Edward T.

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Hurd, Sir Percy

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Conant, R. J. E.

Hurst, Sir Herald B.

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Cooper, A. Duff

Iveagh, Countess of

Patrick, Colin M.

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Pearson, William G.

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Peters, Dr. Sidney John.

Cranborne, Viscount

Janner, Barnett

Petherick, M.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Power, Sir John Cecil

Curry, A. C.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Bedford, E. A.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Law, Sir Alfred

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Leckle, J. A.

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Donner, P. W.

Lees-Jones, John

Ramsbotham, Harwald

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Duggan, Hubert John

Levy, Thomas

Rea, Sir Walter

Rickards, George William

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Train, John

Ropner, Colonel L.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Tree, Ronald

Ross, Ronald D.

Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Runge, Norah Cecil

Somerset, Thomas

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert R.

Watt, Major George Steven H.

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Stevenson, James

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

White, Henry Graham

Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)

Stones, James

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Sandys, Duncan

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Wise, Alfred R.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Sutcliffe, Harold

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Tate, Mavis Constance

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Thomson, Sir James D. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Captain Sir George Bowyer and

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Major George Davies.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Maxton, James

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

Owen, Major Goronwy

Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Paling, Wilfred

Banfield, John William

Healy, Cahir

Parkinson, John Allen

Batey, Joseph

Jenkins, Sir William

Tinker, John Joseph

Cleary, J. J.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

West, F. R.

Cove, William G.

Lawson, John James

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Leonard, William

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Daggar, George

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Lunn, William

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Wilmot, John

Dobbie, William

McGovern, John

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Groves

Question put, and agreed to.

BILL PRESENTED.
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CREDITING OF CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL,
  "to provide that regulations made under section seventy-five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, shall apply to persons otherwise qualified under that section who, at any time during the period of four months ending the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, were continuing to receive whole-time education," presented by Mr. Ernest Brown; supported by Mr. Oliver Stanley, Mr. Duff Cooper, and Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. James Duncan and Mr. George Harvey; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Thorp and Mr. Wise.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Brigadier-General Nation; and had appointed in substitution; Mr. Law.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the City of Oxford." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Oxford) Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the City of Norwich." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Norwich) Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Pwllheli." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Pwllheli) Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Fylde Preston and Garstang Joint Smallpox Hospital District." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Fylde Preston and Garstang Joint Smallpox Hospital District) Bill [Lords.]
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Ottershaw Joint Hospital District." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ottershaw Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (OXFORD) BILL [Lords.]
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (NORWICH) BILL [Lords.]
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 101.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (PWLLHELI) BILL [Lords.]
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (FYLDE PRESTON AND GARSTANG JOINT SMALLPDX HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL [Lords.]
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (OTTERSHAW JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL [Lords.]
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1935).
Estimate presented,—of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1936 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I desire to ask your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. We considered this Bill on Report stage yesterday, and extensive Amendments of the Secretary of State for Scotland were made. The Bill which is now in the Vote Office and in the possession of hon. Members is merely the Housing (Scotland) Bill as amended in Standing Committee, and I submit that if hon. Members who take part in the discussion on Third Reading want to refer to the Bill in an intelligent manner they will find it impossible to do so, because the Amendments which were carried yesterday on Report are not in the available copy of the Bill. It would require a reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday to see the extensive Amendments which were carried. They are not in the copy of the Bill now in the Vote Office, and I am asking for your advice as to the position in which hon. Members are now placed in being asked to give a Third Reading to a Bill, not as amended on the Report stage, but as presented on the Report stage.
  3.47 p.m.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Before you give your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I draw attention to one point. It is true that the Bill was amended yesterday, and that the copy of the Bill in the Vote Office is as it left the Scottish Standing Committee. A great number of the Amendments yesterday were purely drafting, but, in addition, there were certain Amendments which had been on the Order Paper for several weeks. The point I desire to put is that no change was made yesterday to which the House took exception. There was only one Division. A great number of Amendments were considered yesterday without the House joining issue; indeed, there was a general desire that the Government Amendments should go through, and we are grateful to the Opposition for assisting us in that matter. I believe there are previous occasions, although I cannot recall them to my mind at the moment, when the House
  1878
  has considered the Third Reading of a Bill immediately after it has been through the Report stage, during which Amendments have been inserted in the Bill.
  3.49 p.m.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is true, as the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) says, that considerable alterations were made in the Bill during its passage through the Report stage yesterday, and that the Bill which we have now in our hands is not the Bill as it left the Report stage. On the other hand, the hon. Member must realise that it was quite impossible to print the Bill in its amended form by to-day. What the right hon. Gentleman said just now is not incorrect. This course has often been taken before, that is to say, the House has taken the Third Reading of a Bill the day after the Report stage when many Amendments have been made in the Bill. At the end of the Report stage last night the question was asked, when the Third Reading would be taken, and it was announced then that the Third Reading would be taken to-day. I do not remember any objection having been raised to the taking of the Third Reading to-day. Such a, course is sometimes inconvenient, but there is no action that I can take.
  3.51 p.m.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The Amendments brought in by the Government on the Report stage were extensive, and while some of them were merely drafting Amendments it is now difficult for Members of the House to continue the discussion of the Bill when it is not the same as the printed Bill which they have in their possession. You, Mr. Speaker, were in the Chair most of the evening of yesterday, and you will recall that of the eight pages of Amendments on the Paper at least six pages were occupied by Government Amendments. Therefore the Government are responsible for the very extensive alteration of the Bill. Surely for the benefit of Members who have to explain this Bill to their constituents it would have been a more convenient matter if the altered Bill had been printed yesterday in the same way as the OFFICIAL REPORT was printed. We have here in the OFFICIAL REPORT all the Amendments that were moved, as well as every word that was spoken in yesterday's Debate.

  1879
  It would not have been beyond the power of the Department nor of His Majesty's printers to have printed the Bill with the Amendments incorporated, so that it could have been in our possession at the end of Questions to-day, and by 3.30 we could have got it at the Vote Office. The Bill passed the Report stage last night and the Third Reading is to be taken to-day, but it must not be accepted that we agree to the method that has been adopted if we now place no obstacle in the way of the Bill and allow it to get final ratification, so that it can be put into operation at the earliest possible moment. We wish to assist the Government in getting the Bill, but that is no reason why the Government should place the whole House at an inconvenience by not having available the Bill that we are now to discuss. All that we have is the Bill as it left the Standing Committee three or four weeks ago.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The printers had no expectation and certainly no notice that they would be required to print the Bill in its amended form by to-day. I agree that it must be an inconvenience to Members not to have in their possession the Bill in its amended form, but that cannot be helped. It is not for me to arrange the business of the House; that is not in my hands. If the hon. Member wishes to take the opinion of the House on anything of the kind he is always at liberty to do so, and is at liberty even now
  Mr. MACLEAN: I thought it right and proper to draw your attention, as the custodian of the rights of the House, to this matter at the earliest opportunity. One does not wish to force an issue that would mean practically the suspension of the Debate upon a very important Bill. One does not object to a smaller Bill that does not carry so much weight with the Scottish people as does this Bill being read a Third time without the Report stage Amendment having been printed in it, but this is not that type of Bill. I trust that this protest will at least be a lesson to the Government, and that the fact that attention has been drawn to the matter will ensure that when Bills have to be passed quickly through the House facilities will be given for the printing of the Bill, so that at each stage of our discussions we shall have before us the
  1880
  Bill in the form in which we are discussing it
  Mr. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member does not think that I resent his bringing the matter forward. This is an exceptional case, and the fact that attention has been drawn to it will possibly ensure that this procedure does not become a practice.
  3.57 p.m.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  I shall deal only with broad points and deal with them briefly. I propose to group the points under two main heads, namely, the positive results and achievements, and, secondly, one or two misunderstandings which still prevail in certain quarters. With regard to the first head I shall be very brief, because the House as a whole is well aware of the main provisions of the Bill, and is satisfied, I think, that it will reach its objective. Overcrowding in Scotland is one of the most serious dangers and difficulties from which our country suffers. I say categorically that the powers and finance which this Bill gives to the local authorities arms them satisfactorily to deal with the problem as it has never been dealt with before. That is the first main feature of the Bill, but it is not by any means all. The Bill will achieve a double result which has been increasingly demanded by the people of Scotland in the matter of housing: First of all that those who are low wage-earners or who have very limited financial means should be given an opportunity of being re-housed at rents which they can afford to pay; and, hardly less important, that those whose means would enable them to take houses at an economic rent should not be subsidised by their fellow citizens with regard to housing accommodation. In the course of the last few years I have watched public opinion crystallising on both these points. The two hang together. If you have a number of people receiving State assistance when they can afford to provide their own housing, you cannot expect that those whose means are scanty can have the same opportunity of being housed at rents which they can afford to pay.
  Next, it is of great importance that in the re-housing of those who will be

  1881
  taken from the overcrowded centres of the town, the central sites should not be allowed to degenerate. That would be a public waste. I venture to say that the provisions with regard to those areas will ensure that the central sites of our bigger cities are used and are not allowed to degenerate. I need do no more than refer to these points, of first rate importance though they are, because the House, I believe, is in agreement that the provisions of the Bill do meet them.
  There is one feature in the Bill that is hardly of less importance, and that is the financial pooling arrangements. I think they are of great importance, and the more one studies the administration of housing activities under the existing laws, which are many in number, the more one realises that the various forms of subsidies, provisions, and so on have resulted in certain restrictions. The financial pooling arrangements have the double effect, first of all of getting rid of the special conditions imposed by the different Statutes, and, secondly, of giving far more elbow-room to the local authorities in their housing activities—elbow-room not merely because they get rid of the restrictions, but because they will be able to use with far greater freedom the funds which the pool will put at their disposal. That is a matter of very great importance. Let me add a word upon that. The pool, in order to be effective and fully valuable, has to contain contributions from the local authorities bearing a relation to their contributions under the various Acts, otherwise the pool, to the extent to which that principle was cut into, would cease to be a pool.
  Therefore, my right hon. Friend has not found it possible to accede to the request of the local authorities that where, in fact, they have been able to get off with a less rate of contribution, though receiving the whole State subsidy with regard to this particular class of house, the actual figure so involved should be the amount they put into the pool. My right hon. Friend has not been able to accede to that request, and I think the House will realise, when they look into the nature and function of the pool, how very seriously anything of that sort would have cut into the principle. The pool is valuable, and I believe that, as the years go on, it will be found to be ever increasing
  1882
  in value, and it would have been a mistake to have reduced it in that way, quite apart from the inequity of using the State subsidy up to the statutory height, and allowing, with regard to the rate contribution, a much smaller amount to be put into the pool. I believe that the existence of this pool will enable local authorities to look with a wider vision upon their housing needs, and I hope that its existence will enable future housing schemes to contain such provisions as open spaces for play and other purposes which, up to date, have not often been part of a housing scheme. At this stage it must be in the nature of a policy. I, myself, entertain the possibility of very beneficial results flowing from this new pool provision. I say no more upon the main issues of the Bill, which, I think, have been, on the whole, fully understood by the House.
  May I turn for a moment or two to one or two misunderstandings which, I think, still exist with regard to the Bill? One cause of misunderstanding undoubtedly was removed by the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading, and the alteration made in Committee, to remove the fears of those who thought that the object of one of the Clauses was to force the owners of existing property to adopt forthwith a new standard. That cause of misunderstanding has been removed. There has been one other misunderstanding, namely, that the provisions of the Bill will result in what I may call the indiscriminate slaughter of existing housing accommodation. If that were so, obviously it would be a very great misfortune, but it is, I think, a complete misconception.
  First of all, let us consider the provisions of the Bill with regard to that matter. Let the House remember that action under the Bill begins with a survey by the local authority, and one of the matters to which that survey must appertain is not only the housing needs but the housing supply in the district, and the provisions of the Bill make it clear that, where the results of the survey show that there are available for the housing needs of those presently overcrowded, existing houses of a suitable sort, then the local authority's programme will not be allowed to be of such a size as to neglect the existence of those houses. There will not be that indiscriminate slaughter which is feared. In that connection let me add

  1883
  that when I say the local authority's programme will not be allowed to be of such a size as to neglect the existing supply, the provisions of this Bill do strengthen the Department in its control over local authorities in carrying out the Act. It has been sometimes a difficulty to make certain that the Department was armed with powers to ensure that the provisions of the Acts were, in fact, being carried out. The House has strengthened our powers in that regard, and therefore I say the House may take it that where a survey shows that existing houses are suitable for replacement for occupational purposes, then that fact will undoubtedly have to be borne in mind in relation to the housing programme.
  The House well knows the superfluity in Scotland of one-and two-roomed houses. Of one-roomed houses let me say that they are not suitable for family life, but, even so, they are not entirely without value to the childless couple or the single person, and anyone who has any practical experience must be able to recall individual cases of a man or woman living by himself or herself in a single room which he or she makes very comfortable, and which is very often extremely well kept. But no one will advocate that a one-roomed house is suitable for a family. Not so the two-roomed house. A two-roomed house may well be suitable to a newly married couple and even a couple with one child. Therefore, I say there is nothing to lead one to suppose that there will be an absolutely indiscriminate slaughter of two-roomed houses. But there are in Scotland many two-roomed houses which date back to the middle years of the nineteenth century, built in vast rookeries with lighting, air space and passage space entirely out-of-date. There are a number of two-roomed houses which, according to modern conditions, ought not properly to be inhabited, and I do say some of them will undoubtedly go. For the rest, I say there is a class of two-roomed houses built shortly before the War with proper modern amenities, and I do not myself believe that they run any risk. Summing up the points I have made, I say there is a real misunderstanding as to the effect of the Bill with regard to the wholesale slaughter of existing housing accommodation. I think some must go. The conscience of
  1884
  the day we live in will obviously demand it on ordinary grounds of public decency, but nobody need fear that an indiscriminate slaughter is imminent, and I need not extend the argument in the case of the three- or four-roomed house.
  The other topic on which, I think, there is still misunderstanding is that of compensation. I do not propose to enter into the arguments for and against that. The views of both sides were strongly advanced, and both views have arguable cases. I will not go into that: It may be that the matter will emerge in the Debate. But I would like to make one general observation. The proposition that there has been a fall in value as the result of this Bill will not, I think, stand examination. There has been, undoubtedly, a fall in values since the War with regard to certain classes of pre-war houses, but we have no right to attribute to this Bill a course of events which has been operating long anterior to this Bill. The second point is that there is a fear that, whatever the value be, owners will not receive that value if habitable houses are taken. It is suggested that here and there there will be a tendency on the part of those responsible for scheduling houses, namely, medical officers of health, to put habitable houses into the category of uninhabitable houses. I mention that only to dismiss it with this observation. When you have, in the first place, independent commissioners, and, secondly, Ministers responsible to Parliament, I think that if any attempt were made to put habitable houses into the uninhabitable category—I, myself, do not believe that responsible officials would make such an attempt—it would clearly have to be dealt with by the Department and by Parliament. With regard to the method of valuing, and so on, let me say that, so far as I know, it is exactly the same method as that adopted in the valuation of property for purposes of death duties, and I have never heard those concerned complain of estates being under-valued in the case of death duties
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: But is not the position entirely different in the two cases? When an estate is valued for death duties the Government are going to take money from the subject and there is no fear that they will under-value the estate. But this is a case in which the subject is going to get something from

  1885
  the Government, and there is every danger of the estate being under-valued
  Mr. SKELTON: I think I dealt with that point in saying that the proper result could only be arrived at by the impartial operation of the system, and I think it will be found that the method of valuation proposed will work successfully. I have dealt with the general structure of the Bill and with two matters on which misunderstanding has arisen. I think that misunderstanding is capable of being dissipated, and I hope that what I have said may, to some extent, dissipate it. In conclusion, I would say that this is the beginning of an immense effort to deal with an immense problem. I believe that we are initiating that effort along the right lines, and I submit that the importance of the effort to Scotland as a whole cannot be exaggerated. One has heard from time to time recently expressions of the view that the morale and character of the people of Scotland are on the decline. I have never subscribed to that view.
  Mr. MAXTON: There is no evidence of it here
  Mr. SKELTON: The Leader of one of the Oppositions says—and nobody is more fitted than he to say so—that there is no evidence of it in this House. What is even more important, there is not, I think, any evidence of it in Scotland. But every generation has its own dangers and its own problems. The population of both England and Scotland to-day is largely urban and it is clear that, so long as the conditions of overcrowding remain as serious as they are we are running grave risks of a decline in the morale of the people. In this Measure we are facing a danger which, as long as it exists, must be real and a formidable danger to the character and the future welfare of the people of Scotland. For my part though I see no sign of degeneracy, no sign which could give one any excuse for defeatism with regard to Scotland or the character of her people, yet I present this Bill to the House as a Measure of first-rate importance to our people at the present time because it seeks to deal with a problem the successful treatment of which is one of the means which will most definitely raise and sustain the morale of our people.
  5.19 p.m.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: The sentiment contained in the concluding words of the hon. Gentleman's speech is one in which every Scottish Member will at once agree. I have been in the House now for a number of years and I have listened to various Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries introducing housing Measures for Scotland. Every one of those Measures has been introduced with the same high motives as those which—as one can believe from their speeches and their actions—have actuated the present Secretary of State, the present Under-Secretary and the others concerned in this Bill. The unfortunate thing in the past has been that each one of those Measures, which set out to change housing conditions in Scotland, miserably failed to effect the high purpose for which it had been introduced. I hope, and I am sure every one here will join me in that hope, that the defects of previous housing Measures will cease to have the same results in Scotland once this Bill becomes operative. Whatever our different views may be we can all agree upon the urgent need that exists for an improvement of the housing conditions in Scotland and particularly in the urban areas. Unfortunately, while this Bill contains many good points several things have been introduced into it which, from our point of view, are not improvements. One cannot upon this occasion go into the details of the Bill in its amended form to show the various alterations which have been made, but the concessions made by the Government during the proceedings on the Bill in Committee and in the House will in our view militate against the development of good housing as we would like to see it in Scotland.
  We fear the results of those changes. I hope that our fears may prove to be unfounded and that it will turn out in practice that the Government have not damaged the Bill to a serious extent by the concessions made to certain sections in the House. The Government say and I daresay with some truth that under the Bill they have increased the existing powers by which local authorities can be forced to take action in the matter of housing. I trust that those powers will be exercised a great deal more industriously than they have been in the past. I would also like some guarantee that

  1887
  the subsidies given under previous Acts are not going to be stopped by tale operation of this Measure as has been the case with regard to some of the earlier Measures. We have had various subsidies to enable houses to be provided for the working classes and then subsequent housing Measures have either reduced those subsidies or abolished them altogether. As long as the Government play with these subsidies and with housing conditions in that fashion, local authorities are unable to embark on long term programmes of housing reform with a feeling of security. They fear that a subsequent Government may come in and smash their programme to pieces and leave them with a large and possibly expensive scheme only partially completed upon their hands.
  During the discussion on the Bill in Committee claims were made for the compensation of shopkeepers whose customers had been taken away from them as the result of new housing schemes. The Government gave a rather sympathetic hearing to those claims and indeed I understand that in the Bill itself they have in a manner provided for the possibility of compensation being payable to shopkeepers in those circumstances. During the earlier discussions I suggested—and I think the suggestion will be borne out by anyone who has had experience of housing schemes—that while we have set our minds in the past on the actual housing of the people we have largely left out of account the necessity for providing shopping facilities for the people who are rehoused under these schemes. These people require shops close to their place of residence. In our great towns we see large housing schemes, covering anything from 10,000 to 20,000 inhabitants—I know of one which covers close upon 40,000 people—with very inadequate provision of shopping facilities. There may be only half a dozen shops for a very extensive area.
  The position of the shopkeepers is that they are unable to set up new shops and run them as they did in the old district under the old conditions. Under these new schemes they must either buy the ground or feu the ground from the corporation and then erect the shop upon it. If shops are erected by the corporation then they must buy the shops from the corporation before they can
  1888
  start business. I submit that this is one of the factors which brings about overcrowding in the central districts of large cities on Saturday afternoons and evenings and even on ordinary evenings. The people, not having the shopping facilities which they require, at their doors, are compelled to use the transport system to go into the centre where the large multiple firms have their headquarters. That may be a good thing for the municipalities which own their own transport systems but it involves a great amount of complication and it is a matter which ought to be considered by the Government. My view is that instead of offering compensation to shopkeepers whose customers have been transferred to these new housing estates, the Government ought to introduce an Amendment in another place providing for the offer to those shopkeepers of alternative shops in the new housing estates. An alternative shop in one of the estates, to which possibly the most of his customers had removed, would enable a shopkeeper to retain the larger part of his business, and it seems a more sensible way of dealing with the difficulty than merely assessing the value of the business and the average of the profits taken year by year in the old locality, and then paying compensation from that basis.
  There is another difficulty which I would like to mention, though I am pleased to see that the Government have already recognised it by the inclusion of an Amendment which does something to meet the case. We drew attention in Committee to the fact that in the lay out of the schemes of local authorities, little account was taken of the recreations of the people. I instanced, when I spoke upon it, some junior football clubs which were under warning to leave playing fields in which games had been played, in one instance, for 40 years, in order to make room for an addition to a new housing scheme, and I suggested that greater facilities should be given for the recreation of those who were going to live under the new housing schemes. I am glad to see that the Government have included, in one Amendment which was carried yesterday, a suggestion that playing fields are one of the things that must be laid down as part of the facilities granted to those moving into new housing estates.

  1889
  I should like the Secretary of State for Scotland, who gave a promise that he would meet a number of local authorities in Scotland which have taken exception to the stopping of subsidies as laid down in one of the Clauses of this Bill, to have told us the result of that meeting. They were feeling greatly perturbed in the matter, and they sent out a circular, which, owing to lack of time in Committee, because of a division in the House being called, I was unable to read, but which I handed over to the Government. I was promised in Committee at the next meeting that the right hon. Gentleman would call these people together and see what exactly was the extent of their grievance and how far the right hon. Gentleman might be able to meet them. We have had no report from the right hon. Gentleman on that point. In answer to a question yesterday, he promised to let me have some information later on, but unfortunately, owing to the manner in which the Debate was going, I expect it slipped his memory. I do not complain of that. Indeed, the discussion went completely another way, because those who were the die-hards upstairs became even the greatest supporters of the Bill last night.
  Mr. TRAIN: Is that the official Opposition?
  Mr. MACLEAN: No. I was referring to the die-hards opposite, not to the legitimate Opposition, but to what I might call the illegitimate opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not using the word in any moral sense, of course. I feel that those who support the Government should support the Government, but on this Bill we have not found that to be the case. One never knows into which category to place the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten). He can support either the Government or the Opposition, and he can always find good reasons for whatever attitude he takes up. Consequently, I am always in doubt as to how to regard him. On this occasion, however, we did regard him, if not as one of the leaders, at least one of the stalwarts of the opposition to the Government from their own side. During the latter stages upstairs, I think that was the most violent opposition that they had, and indeed one of the reasons why we were given two days for the debate on the Report stage was to give the Government's own supporters
  1890
  who were opposing the Bill an opportunity on the Floor of the House. The reason we were able to get through in one day was that that opposition was either satisfied with the concessions that were given, or that it wilted away.
  Mr. TRAIN: And the official Opposition too.
  Mr. MACLEAN: We had no Amendments down yesterday. We want the Bill. We recognise its limitations, but even with those limitations we want the Bill put into operation as quickly as possible. Some hon. Members opposite, from their speeches upstairs, apparently do not wish to have the Bill put into operation at all. I hope the Minister will be able to let the House know whether such a meeting with the local authorities as I expected was held, what the conclusions were, whether he was able to satisfy those municipalities, and, if not, why he was unable to give them any guarantees such as they required regarding the housing schemes already put into operation, concerning which they were fearful that they would lose the necessary subsidy.
  Mr. SKELTON: I said a word on that topic, though perhaps indirectly, when I spoke of the pool.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Yes, but the pool did not specifically refer to these authorities. The hon. Gentleman took all the authorities in general, and I did not therefore take that as an answer to my question. We recognise, as I have said, the limitations in the Bill. We think that a Housing Bill for Scotland might have contained additional steps to those that are to be found in this Bill. We believe that it will take too long to get the necessary and complete results for which we are looking, and we should have liked the machinery simplified and many other things done to enable us to get houses erected in Scotland. We do not agree that the room-and-kitchen house, built away back in the middle of last century, is a solution of the problem of housing. In my constituency I could show hon. Members room-and-kitchen houses built at the beginning of last century. They were well built, it may be, but they do not look well built now, and the people in them want to get out of them, but find it impossible to do so. It is the same in various other parts of Glasgow and in

  1891
  Edinburgh, and I have no doubt that if you went into some of the back streets in Campbeltown, you would find such places there, and perhaps in Oban too. Such houses, built such a long time ago, should be swept entirely out of existence.
  We want a completely new set of circumstances, and the sooner we get it, the better for the health and conditions of the people of Scotland. It is not merely an overcrowding question; it becomes a health question, and we want to see the features embodied in this Bill extended in a more generous manner, the machinery simplified, the methods to be adopted by the local authorities handled in a different way, and the Government Departments seeing to it that the local authorities attend to their duties under the housing legislation. We know that local authorities have been remiss in attending to their duties under the Housing Acts in the past, and we hope the Scottish Office will see to it that those authorities which desire to evade the conditions imposed on them under this Measure are made to carry them out. We hope that we shall have, if not in this Bill, at least in a later Bill, additional powers given to the Department to sweep out of existence the great curses of single-apartment and room-and-kitchen houses that have been so much to the detriment of the health of the people of Scotland.
  4.41 p.m.
  Sir ROBERT HORNE: I am afraid I am going to offend against the maxim laid down by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), when he indicated that in his view it was the duty of those who sat on the Government Benches to give indiscriminate support to the Government in whatever Measures the Government might produce. I have never regarded it as my duty to sacrifice my independence to that extent, although it is well known that there are few people who have been more loyal supporters of the Government than I have, or more loyal supporters, let me say, of some of the individual Ministers who have conducted the affairs of the Government.
  May I suggest for my hon. Friend's consideration that if his maxim be true with regard to those who sit upon the Government Benches, there is an obverse to his proposition, namely, that it is the
  1892
  duty of the Opposition to oppose, and, so far as I have observed in the course of the Debates in Committee and yesterday in this House, there has been very little sign of opposition from those whose duty it is supposed to be to give us due criticism of the Government. In fact, so far from such opposition having been noticeable, we had yesterday an Order Paper on which there was not a single suggestion made by His Majesty's Opposition. It may be that that fact in itself indicates some explanation of the divergence of opinion between the Government and some of us who sit on these benches, because a Bill which is so entirely satisfactory to people who hold doctrines completely contrary to those which we espouse can scarcely be one which is completely in conformity with the theories which we have been accustomed to maintain and indeed which we were elected to maintain in this House.
  Mr. LANSBURY: What about the Lord President of the Council? What has he been brought up on?
  Sir R. HORNE: After all, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the composition of this House is, as to 75 per cent. of it, represented by those who have held opinions somewhat different from those of the Lord President of the Council, and at least we are entitled to some sort of consideration. I pass from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan, and I come to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He has made a speech which, for lucidity, could not be surpassed, and which, for the expression of devoted interest to the welfare of Scotland, is one which we should all ourselves aspire to make. I have no objection at all to the general principles laid down by the hon. Gentleman. I am myself one of those who have been ardent supporters of a rehousing scheme, not only for Scotland, but for the whole of Great Britain. There are several Ministers in important positions in the Government who can testify to the fact that ever since this Administration took office I have been persistently, day in and day out, urging that the first duty of the Government was to bring forward Bills by which this great sore existing in the heart of our country should be cured. I have never ceased to urge in private upon Ministers that it was one of the first tasks to which they

  1893
  should devote their energies. It cannot, therefore, be supposed that in anything I have to say I am a less ardent sup- porter than Ministers themselves of the general idea of giving our people proper accommodation in which to live and proper sanitary conveniences such as everybody now desires they should have.
  I had indeed supposed, and I still think, that it would have been possible to produce a measure of rehousing which would have accomplished everything that we wish to accomplish and have done it without any injury to a single interest, and at the same time have achieved this great object at a cost to the State which certainly would not have been more than is involved in the present schemes. In that I have been disappointed. The schemes which have been presented here have got back-spangs of injury which should never have been present in a Measure of this kind. Rehousing could have been done in a way that would have ruffled nobody and have done justice to everybody. I find it difficult to understand why the Government should have ignored the most obvious line upon which they could have proceeded, and should have brought in a Bill which, instead of being a solvent to the feelings of the whole of the country, has produced a vast amount of irritation among people who are undoubtedly worthy of consideration and who are among the most thrifty and deserving of our population. I think that, in part, the difficulties experienced in dealing with Scotland are due to a failure to recognise the difference between Scottish conditions and English conditions. But before I come to that I would like to deal with a question which affects England and Scotland equally.
  I regret intensely that, both for England and Scotland, the Government have thought it necessary, or deemed it expedient, whichever phrase you like to employ, to use the municipalities for the purpose of carrying out these schemes. I confess that I see great difficulties in future with regard to the plan of action which the Government have adopted. I see the question of rent being brought into the arena of ordinary electoral contests in the municipalities. That is a thing to be deplored. One of the most insiduous evils that democracy has had to encounter at all stages of history has been that of the appeal to the acquisitive
  1894
  instincts of people. I do not attribute these tactics to one side more than to the other. The temptation to use them seems to me the most deplorable result of a great measure. It may be said that I am imagining things which will never occur, but let me give an example of what has already occurred. I have in my hand a circular which contains a questionnaire to candidates for seats in a town council in a not remote election. The Tenants' Association, holding tenancies under the corporation in question, put as one of the leading questions to those who were seeking their suffrages, "What steps are you prepared to take to bring to a successful conclusion the demand of the Tenants' Association for a reduction of rent of corporation houses?" If that is done in the green tree, what can we expect in the dry, when all over the country the sole owners and controllers of working-class property will be the local authorities who are elected by popular election? What are we to expect in the way of questions to the various candidates with regard to rent? Does anybody imagine that that will be a good thing for the life of this country?
  The Government have recognised this danger very prominently, as a previous Government did. When they dealt with London transport, they did not turn it over to the London County Council or any body of that kind; they sedulously and of intent put the matter into the hands of a body which is free from all political interest whatever. What did this Government do when they came to the question of unemployment relief? They recognised that the bidding for votes through the amount of relief to be given was something that would corrupt the life of our country, and they put it into the hands of an independent board. It is true that the first scale that was introduced did not satisfy everybody, but the definite endeavour of the Government which, I am sure, they mean to carry to complete fruition, is to keep these matters out of the political arena. Now over the whole country by this Bill and by the English Bill you will produce municipal candidatures in which one of the most important elements of consideration will be what particular candidates will promise to do about rents. I hope that I do not belong to a day that is past. I hope that I am not uttering a sentiment

  1895
  which is now regarded as fit only for the dustbin, but I do deplore the fact that you should be enabled to appeal to people upon the basis of what you are going to be able to give in this direction, for that, I am sure, will divert them from the proper subjects with which they ought to be concerned in caring for the welfare of the community.
  I will pass to what particularly concerns the Scottish Bill. As I have indicated, a part of our difficulties has arisen from the fact that we have been more or less considered as on all fours with England, and that whatever is to be done for England must also apply to Scotland. We argued strongly in Committee in favour of a special consideration being given to the owner-occupier. We were assured that on every count—moral, political and financial—it was impossible to give any such consideration, and that we ought not to ask for it. On the Report stage of the English Bill, however, the English Members succeeded in getting special consideration for the owner-occupier. Immediately, thereafter, on the Report stage of our Bill, we find special consideration given for the owner-occupier in Scotland. That is only one example of what has happened. There are certain things which have been refused to us because they did not suit England, and I have come to the conclusion that in this matter Scotland has been a kind of tin can tied to the tail of the English terrier. That is not a position which I for one am prepared to accept.
  Let me give the House some account of the differences which exist as between England and Scotland in order to show that legislation should proceed along different lines. In the first place England is built upon a leasehold system. Scotland is built upon a system of feuing, which, for lack of a better term, I would describe as a perpetual lease. The result has been that in Scotland houses have been built of a far more enduring quality that they have ever assumed in England. In order to reinforce my point, may I give a sentence from the report of the Whitson Committee, which described Scottish property in this way:
  "The solidity and substantial construction of large numbers of Scottish houses is a weighty factor in support of a policy for improving and reconditioning them."
  1896
  That is why re-conditioning has not assumed the importance in England that it has assumed in Scotland. In England, we are dealing with a type of building which is much less enduring and which is more easily removed at a time when the lease falls in and the proprietor turns the land over to somebody else. In the second place, Scottish houses have been built with much larger rooms than English houses, as is evident from the scale which the Government in their wisdom have put forward for living rooms, namely, 110 square feet for two people. I do not dissent from the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in the point of view which he expressed yesterday, that that is a small space, even for two people, but I say that if 110 square feet is good enough for two people, as the Bill lays down, 130 square feet is good enough for two people and a child on the basis of the scale itself. The scale says that 70 square feet are enough for one person, 90 square feet for one and half persons, and 110 feet for two persons. Scottish rooms are not generally built with only 110 square feet, but much more frequently with 130, 150 and up to 200 square feet. We are ruled by this scale, however, because 110 feet is the normal size of a room in England, and no allowance is made at all for the fact that you generally have rooms of much bigger sizes in Scotland. That is one of the reasons why we have difficulties in this Bill.
  I will go on to considerations which are more important. In Scotland the owner pays half the rates upon his property, but in England the owner pays no rates at all; they fall upon the tenants. That fact has had important results, and in particular it has had this result. The House will remember that during the War and afterwards rent restriction has created a severe curtailment of the owner's power to alter rents, but it was recognised in 1920 that, as the cost of repairs had gone up, the proprietors of houses were entitled to have some advance in their rents. Both in England and in Scotland they were given the opportunity of increasing their rents by 40 per cent. The Scottish owner, however, frequently lost the advantage of the 40 per cent. because there was inserted in the Scottish Measure a provision that no increase in the owner's rates could be charged upon the rents.

  1897
  That had the effect that in Scotland in many cases owing to increases in rates the owner did not, although his expenses of repairs were immensely greater, get any increase in rent at all, and I think that on the average it can be said that, instead of 40 per cent., he did not get more than 10 per cent. In England the owner was able to put up the rent, and therefore to keep up the value of his property as a marketable commodity. In Scotland he was not able to get any net increase of rent, beyond this small margin, with the result that instead of his property going up in value disappointment and distrust put it down.
  We have to-day this extraordinary situation—which this Bill does nothing to help, and, indeed, does a great deal to emphasise and exaggerate—that although before the War English property and Scottish property sold at more or less the same number of years' purchase of the rent, to-day, while English property is comparatively little affected, Scottish property, upon the admission of the Scottish Office itself—property of the working-class tenement order, I mean—cannot be sold at more than, and in many cases you cannot get as much as, six years' purchase. Why is that? It is not because the Scottish property is less valuable in itself than the English property, it is entirely the effect of legislation, and it is Parliament which has caused this depreciation in Scottish working-class houses.
  Mr. SKELTON: That was done under the Government in 1920.
  Sir R. HORNE: That is no reason why the Government in 1935 should take no account of that position and should seek to expropriate the property of these people, at a value much below what if ought to be.
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Government should have included in the Bill some proposal to increase rents?
  Sir R. HORNE: No, I am not suggesting that for a moment. My hon. Friend is putting an entirely false interpretation on my argument. My argument is entirely devoted to the way in which values have been artificially depreciated and the effect upon compensation. I have suggested by way of remedy a very modest remedy as the hon. Member
  1898
  would have found if he had looked at an Amendment which was on the Order Paper yesterday. That is one flagrant example of what is happening to Scottish property as compared with English. Here is another anomaly. In England, if a property is empty, rates are not paid upon it, but in Scotland the owner has still to pay rates. I shall show in a moment what an extraordinary effect this imposition has upon the fortunes of Scottish owners of property.
  I suggest that in dealing with the situation in which we find ourselves all these things should be taken into consideration. I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that property should not be capriciously demolished in the centres of our towns, but I cannot at all agree with him that it will not be so demolished. Let me give my idea of what will happen, in contrast with the view presented to the House by my hon. Friend. He says that there will still be a use for two-room houses, though not much use for one-room houses. I agree with him that the one-room house will go out of existence, and although there are certain cases, of which he gave examples, where a single person or a man and his wife may occupy with some comfort even a one-room house, I should hope they will not continue very long, because even in such cases another room to move into is a great benefit.
  The picture as I see it is something very much more tragic than that which my hon. Friend envisages. Let us take the situation when the survey of the houses which have been certified to be overcrowded is completed. I understand from the Amendment made yesterday that the most overcrowded houses are first to be dealt with. Then the local authority starts building houses in order to accommodate the people who are to be turned out of these overcrowded houses. That will mean that, gradually, there will be a flow from the overcrowded houses to the new corporation houses, and the houses left by the overcrowded families will obviously become derelict. What else could become of them? They do not afford the conveniences which modern sentiment requires. They have not bathrooms and sanitary appliances such as the new corporation houses are to have. While my hon. Friend says that all the trouble about this Bill has been removed by the alteration made in Clause 64,

  1899
  which seemed to and, indeed, did in its phraseology enjoin that houses should be declared uninhabitable for want of modern sanitary appliances, the effect of leaving that Clause in—I am not taking objection to the fact—even in a permissive form is to make all that kind of property taboo to anybody who can get any other house and inevitably reduces its value. Such properties will gradually become empty and derelict And there will be no compensation at all for the proprietors who, nevertheless, will be compelled to pay taxes to help to pay for the £6 10s, which the State provides for building new houses and to pay rates in order to make up the £3 10s. which the local authority provides for the same purpose. They will be paying rates upon empty houses in order to subsidise the houses which have emptied their own, and thus further complete their own ruin. I am not drawing a fancy picture. It is an absolutely inevitable picture in the eyes of anyone who chooses to face the facts. That is what will happen, and if I were a Socialist I should be delighted to see it happen. I have not the slightest doubt that it is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friends have had so complete a success with the Socialist party in regard to this Bill. In a quiet and constitutional way it completely carries out the Socialist view that private property is, if not a crime, at least an error, in any civilised community, and that the sooner you get rid of it the better. I cannot imagine any way under our modern constitutional system in which one could more insidiously accomplish that object than the way which the Government have taken in respect to this housing scheme. Either there is to be no compensation At all to the private owner or there is to be compensation which is based upon something which has become very much less valuable by reason of the new standard which the new Bill sets up. That will be the unhappy plight of All those who up to now have been doing a business which they probably thought was respectable but which has made them pariahs of the State, which by legislation has first of 'all reduced the value of their property from 14 years'—or whatever it may have been—to six years' purchase, and then exterminated its value altogether. I hope the House will not regard me as guilty of exaggeration.
  1900
  I am saying what I think must inevitably happen and why it is necessarily going to happen. It need never have happened at all.
  An obvious way of dealing with this difficulty was presented to the Government. It would not, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said on Second Reading, have given the existing houses a very long life but it would have given them some life. That way was to provide, on the terms of the Whitson Report, a subsidy by which this solid and enduring property which is spread throughout most of our large towns could have been kept in being. There are innumerable properties in Glasgow, which I know well, where two-room houses could be turned into two-room houses with bath and sanitary appliances, and innumerable two-room houses which could be turned into three-room houses, with sanitary appliances, at a very small cost. The Whitson Committee examined the question of cost and suggested that it could be done for an expenditure of about £75 a house. In passing, I may say I regard as fantastic, as does every practical man to whom I have spoken, and I have consulted many, the figures which the Secretary of State gave in Committee. Why should not this plan of reconditioning have been adopted? Obviously it has very great advantages. It could be carried out rapidly, at very little cost, and instead of a large mass of working people living in uncomfortable houses until sufficient new houses have been built for them we should be furnishing them quickly with houses in which they would have the proper appliances which modern civilisation demands. It is a method of dealing with the problem at much less cost than is involved in building new houses.
  There is an idea, which I have found in the minds of some people, that this would mean an addition to the cost of the scheme. It does not mean any addition at all, and even supposing it were only a transitional measure to carry us over the ten or fifteen years during which we shall be gradually spilling the overcrowded people into the outside areas it would obviously be a great scheme of public improvement to which it would be worth while to devote attention. What are the objections to it? I confess that I have never yet heard of an objection which had any just foundation. I heard

  1901
  a sough—to use a Scottish word—to the effect that we must not subsidise private interests. But the Government can never make that reply. The Rural Housing Act by these very subventions for reconditioning subsidises private interests all over Scotland, and if that is good in principle for the rural people it must be good in prinoiple for the town people. Few Acts passed by recent Governments have been so successful, and the Under-Secretary had a good deal to do with its passing. If it is not wrong in principle what other objection to it is there? It would have the effect of giving the people much more quickly and at an inconsiderable expense equipment in the way of houses and accommodation which we wish to give them. I feel it difficult to understand why we have not had a measure which by such processes would have brought relief not merely to the people who will immediately get the advantage of new houses but to those who will otherwise be kept in bad conditions for a very considerable time.
  I do not understand why the Government should have refused a modicum of support for the purpose. It is evident from the calculations of the Whitson Committee that the owners of property have had their resources so reduced over the last 20 years that it is impossible for them to do it by their own unaided efforts.
  Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend has not shown how the reconditioning of two-roomed houses has any relation to the question of overcrowding.
  Sir R. HORNE: Very large numbers of people who want two-roomed houses do not want them without the necessary conveniences. Since you have laid down in your Bill—quite properly laid down—and for the future made compulsory for new houses what the public conscience requires, here is an opportunity to deal with these older but competent houses in a way which would make them commendable to the people who could occupy them. You would be creating an entirely new situation—I recognise that if you initiate such schemes you are entitled to make conditions about them. If a subsidy is given for reconditioning you are entitled to see that the reconditioning is carried out according to the plans which the Government Department think appropriate and necessary. You would be
  1902
  entitled also to make conditions that the rents should not be above a certain figure. But at least let the property owner have the opportunity of doing it. If the proprietor does not want to do it he will not do it, but at least give him the opportunity of converting his property into something which is suitable for modern housing purposes and which the public will recognise as contributing to the great reform which you are making in housing conditions.
  I know that there is a certain amount of resistance to such ideas on the ground that some stunt or ramp is suspected on the part of the property owners. I hope, however, that the House will remember that investment in house property has been one of the safe investments sanctioned by the State into which a great part of the savings of the people of Scotland have been put. That sort of investment has been the repository of the pensions of many of the trade houses, of university bursaries and of friendly societies. When embarking upon these schemes, I hope that the Government considered what the result was likely to be upon all those institutions when the schemes come into force. I am not speaking merely for those who sit with me and who have spoken with me on the subject in Committee and upon these benches, but for a vast body of opinion in Scotland.
  I dare say every Scottish Member has received, as I have, in the last few days, communications sent by nearly every important chamber of commerce in Scotland, every legal society in Scotland, by the principals of three universities, and by the secretaries of several trade houses, whose funds are in property in some shape or form all of whom protest against this Measure because they foresee its evil consequences upon their own fortunes. It is no good anybody smiling and saying: "That does not matter; they know nothing about it; we are the only people who know," because such people represent great institutions, managed by skilled people who know very well the effects of legislation. They are not prejudiced in favour of property owners, except that they are prejudiced in favour of keeping investments alive and, not allowing wanton waste of wealth to occur through Parliamentary action.

  1903
  One of the things which I see coming under this Bill is undoubtedly disaster to a large part of the investments which have been put into working-class houses, in many cases by individuals who, perhaps do not amount to such an enormous number of votes as would influence the Government to give sufficient consideration to them. They are, however, people with human feelings, and they all deserve consideration. I do not hope to convince the Secretary of State for Scotland; I have no kind of expectation that he would begin to be affected by any of my appeals but there is one point on which he is still vulnerable. I believe that he will live to regret those provisions of the Bill which he has presented to the House and which he has now carried through, and that when he ultimately realises the amount of hardship which he has caused to people who are now unable to resist, and who are perhaps not vociferous enough to command consideration, he will bear in his heart some burden of their distress.
  5.22 p.m.
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I associate myself with the graceful compliment paid by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for the admirably lucid speech with which he opened the Debate. We missed the hon. Gentleman greatly in Committee, and we are glad to see him back taking part in our Debates. In his absence in the Committee the Bill was conducted with admirable tact and courtesy by the Secretary of State for Scotland, as I know every hon. Member will agree, and I should like to say for myself and my friends how much we appreciated the consideration and the invariable courtesy which he gave to the suggestions which we made in the course of the discussion on the Bill. We have consistently supported the Measure at every stage, and of any body of members I think we have the clearest and most consistent record. I am glad that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) now welcomes the Bill which he opposed at an earlier stage.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: I pointed out certain defects in the Bill and endeavoured to have them remedied.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: That is true. I know that very well. I merely remarked that the hon. Member is now supporting the Bill and does not propose to divide against it on Third Reading. Our criticism against the Measure is directed rather to the fact that there are things which are not in the Bill than to the things which are in it—but if I developed that line of argument I should be out of order. I will therefore confine my observations to one point, to which we attach immense importance and which is to some extent dealt with, although inadequately, in the Bill; that is, the rural housing problem.
  Efforts have been made, in the course of the discussions in the Committee upstairs, and in the course of discussions which have been held outside, to suggest that the problem of the rural districts, and more particularly of the Highlands, is not as serious as it seems at first glance. Figures have even been used by the spokesman for the Government to show that in the Highland counties the number of three-roomed houses is very large and therefore that the problem of raising the general standard of crofters' houses in the Highlands is not comparable in seriousness with the problem of urban housing. Such figures take no account of the fact that the three rooms in the ordinary crofter's house are what we call in Scotland two rooms and a closet and that in a great number of cases if not in all—nobody can say whether it is in the majority or a minority of cases, although I am certain that a large number of houses are concerned—the closet will not be large enough to come within the area of 70 square feet which is necessary if it is to be regarded as a unit under the First Schedule of the Bill.
  Before the Measure was brought in containing this improved and higher standard of accommodation, which we support, we were faced, in the rural districts of Scotland, with the very great problem of bringing our housing up to what was then considered a proper standard. Now we have to aim at a higher standard still, and it is our contention that the provisions of the Bill are inadequate to deal with that problem. We have to rely upon two main provisions of the Bill. There is one set of Clauses under which the Housing (Rural Workers) Act

  1905
  is prolonged. That is useful, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead has said, and has, on the whole, worked well in the country districts of Scotland. We could not dispense with it, but undoubtedly, the burden which it throws upon the ratepayers of the country districts, and particularly upon the Highland counties, is increasing very rapidly, and is causing serious disquiet to the Highland county councils, who feel strongly that they are reaching the limit of the burden which can be thrown on the ratepayers, a burden which is rapidly becoming intolerable. There are no provisions in the Bill to enable the county councils in the Highlands to deal with the problem of crofters' houses.
  In so far as an advance in the solution of rural housing problems in Scotland is concerned, we are therefore forced back upon Clause 23 under which the housing advisory committee is set up. As a result of the Amendment which we moved in Committee, and which the Secretary of State moved in a new form on the Report stage, there is to be a special sub-committee of that new advisory committee, whose first duty will be to study rural housing problems. I hope that, out of that Committee's study of the question, early recommendations will come, upon which the Government will take action.
  The Under-Secretary referred this afternoon to the pooling provisions, and said that one indirect advantage of those provisions would be that the difficulty with regard to the provision of open spaces and playing fields would be to some extent removed. I wish we could have a stronger assurance that those difficulties, which are very real in Scotland, will be effectively met. Only the other day I remarked that, except in two places, namely, Aberdeen and Glasgow, the progress with regard to town planning has been negligible; and even under the Aberdeen town planning scheme, admirable as it is, there was great difficulty in obtaining adequate provision for playing fields. The National Playing Fields Association, with the approval, I think I can say, of all the Government Departments concerned, has laid it down that five acres of public open space for every 1,000 of population, of which four acres should be devoted to playing fields, ought to be provided, and that is the
  1906
  standard towards which, with the support of Government Departments, the National Playing Fields Association is working in every part of the country. I hope that in Scotland the Government Departments concerned, now that this great housing drive is being undertaken in every part of the country, will see that adequate measures are taken in time, before all the available land is absorbed by development schemes, and that provision is made for playing fields and public open spaces on an adequate scale.
  I consider that the Under-Secretary has made out his case that this is a big Bill. I did not at any stage spare my condemnation of the Act of 1933, because I thought it a bad Act; and I think it is only honest now to say sincerely to the Under-Secretary that I regard the present Bill as a good effort which is worthy of all support, and which I hope will succeed. We all wish to help the Government in any way that we can, in the future administration of the Act, to tackle this appalling problem of overcrowding in Scotland. I know that individually the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary will put administrative drive behind the Measure, and I hope that they will get that support from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other important Ministers of the Government which will be indispensable if the harvest for which we all hope is to be reaped.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has spoken this afternoon on this subject with a depth of feeling which must command our respect, and has put forward the fears which are entertained by some people in Scotland, who are by no means confined to a single class in the community. I wish to do my best to avoid any repetition of arguments which have already been sufficiently laboured, both in Committee and on Report, but I think it would be unfortunate in the highest degree if anybody were to conclude, from the speech of my right hon. Friend, that the Government, in embarking on this great Measure of social reform, have been indifferent to the just rights of property. I believe that those apprehensions are founded, not only on a misunderstanding of the intentions of the Bill, but on a miscalculation, and in some cases, I think,

  1907
  a gross miscalculation, the origin of which it is exceedingly difficult to trace, of the practical effects which this legislation is likely to produce.
  We are told that our social legislation has artificially lowered the value of house property, and that we are now, by this Bill, enabling or encouraging a municipality to plunder the owner of house property by the compulsory acquisition of good property at this artificially depreciated value. I think it was made clear during the Report stage yesterday that the extent to which compulsory acquisition for the purpose of re-development schemes is likely to take place is exceedingly limited; but, within those limits, what ground is there for supposing that any injustice is likely to be suffered by the owner of property?
  My right hon. Friend represented that the effect of the Rent Restrictions Act had been to depress the value of property from, I think he said, 14 years' purchase to six years' purchase. It is possible, of course, that by limiting rents, if the capital value is calculated on so many years' purchase of the rent, you might depress the total value of the property, but I do not see how you could depress the number of years' purchase on which the property was valued. If a house before the War was producing a rent of £10, and if it was valued at 14 years' purchase, that would make the value £140. If it is now valued at six years' purchase, it will be valued at £60. But all that can be said is that the Rent Restrictions Act may have prevented the rent from going up to, say, £12 or £15, and it may have reduced the value in that way, but it cannot reduce the number of years' purchase at which the value is assessed. I think it is very little use making these representations unless we are prepared to indicate some remedy. My right hon. Friend was asked whether he wished the Rent Restrictions Act to be abolished and rents to be raised, and he replied that his remedy was the Amendment which he had on the Order Paper yesterday, and which was not called. I think that that Amendment—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—was to insert the words "willing buyer" after the words "willing seller" in the provision by which the determination of value is governed. That provision is to be found in
  1908
  Section 2 (2) of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, which reads as follows:
  "The value of land shall … be taken to be the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise."
  I do not see that additional protection would be afforded to the property owner by the insertion of the words "willing buyer," unless it is to be supposed that people in Glasgow or elsewhere are in the habit of buying house property unwillingly. The courts have interpreted this provision to mean that a willing seller is a free agent and one who cannot be required by virtue of compulsory powers to sell, and one who is willing to sell, making the most, in the circumstances, of his property. If there were any other means by which we could protect what we all agree to be the just rights of property owners by giving them a fair valuation, I am sure we should be glad to adopt it.
  Sir R. HORNE: I did not develop that part of the argument which I should have presented yesterday, but obviously my hon. Friend is giving an erroneous notion of the whole business. In the first place, he gives a wrong representation as compared with what is in the Act. The Act provides for sale in the open market by a willing seller. I provided for a fair value as between a willing buyer and a willing seller—a category of transactions very well known to valuators, whom, I am afraid, my hon. Friend has not consulted. My reason for rejecting the open market idea was that in Glasgow to-day there is no open market for these properties at all; there have been two transactions since the 1st January.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: Would it cause the arbiter to put a higher value on the property if he were instructed to carry out the valuation in the words suggested by my right hon. Friend?
  Sir R. HORNE: All that I have to say is that my Amendment was rejected by the Chair on the ground that it would involve a, higher charge on the State.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: I cannot, of course, pursue that point, but I rather think the Amendment was more likely to have been rejected by the Chair on the ground that it would make no difference whatever, although if, by

  1909
  any conceivable stretch of the imagination, it could make a difference, it would involve a higher charge upon the State. Perhaps, however, it is unwise to pursue the reasons for the non-calling of an Amendment.
  What are the facts about this depreciation in the value of house property? We know, of course, that any house property is normally a wasting asset, and it is undeniable that social legislation such as we have had for the last 60 years, even since Disraeli's Act of 1877, designed to raise the social standards of the housing of the people, is likely to accelerate the natural process of deterioration of the value of old property. Any prudent investor who puts his money into house property will allow a certain annual sum for depreciation, and I think it is exceedingly unfair that it should be suggested now that this natural process, which has unquestionably been accelerated by all the social legislation which we have had for the last generation, is in any particular sense the fault of the present Government. But if representatives of the property owners are determined to circularise Members of this House, and to proclaim and advertise to the public that the value of their property is being reduced to nothing, that no prudent investor will in future put his money into this form of property, and that no return is ever likely to be received from it, is that likely to encourage those "willing buyers" whom my right hon. Friend is so anxious to see?
  My right hon. Friend proceeded to say that the effect of this Bill would be to render an enormous amount of existing house property derelict. That is a question which we have already discussed so much that I am very reluctant to embark upon it to-day. The statement has been circulated, on the authority, I am told, of the medical officer of health, that 50,000 two-roomed houses in Glasgow will be rendered derelict by this Bill—houses in good condition. May I remind the House of the table at the end of the Whitson Report showing the number of two-roomed houses in Glasgow. The total number is 111,000, of which approximately one-half are overcrowded according to the standards of this Bill; so that, if it is to be assumed that 50,000 two-roomed houses will be left derelict, that means that the entire number of
  1910
  houses which are overcrowded according to the standards of this Bill are, in the first place, in good condition, and, in the second place, likely to become uninhabitated as the result of this Bill. When we look at the number of one-roomed houses, we find that some 22,000 out of a total of 37,000 inhabited by 90,000 people are at the present moment very badly overcrowded. I think it will be obvious that, when these people are moved out of the overcrowded one-roomed houses, they will occupy a very large proportion of the two-roomed houses which are in good condition. A great number of these two-roomed houses are occupied by more than one family and, when one of the families moves out, it does not follow that the remaining one will be too large to continue living in the house. There are also cases where there is more than one family in a three or four-roomed house, and, if the family is small, there is no reason why it should not be moved out into a two-roomed house.
  The most important factor is that the process will take a very considerable time, and during that time the number of married couples who wish to have only one or two children is steadily increasing. I cannot see any grounds for supposing that under the Bill any serious injustice will be suffered by owners of property which may have in some exceptional cases to be compulsorily acquired or that many houses in good condition will become untenanted. My right hon. Friend complained that a reconditioning subsidy had not been given by the Bill. He also made some observations about Clause M. It is true that the Whitson Report recommended a subsidy for the purpose of reconditioning houses, but it also recommended precisely what this Bill does not do. It recommended that the application of these by-laws should be made compulsory. Of course, by making a house a little nicer, which we should all be in favour of doing, you do not do anything to affect overcrowding. If you convert a one-roomed house into a two-roomed house and improve its quality you do not affect the question whether the house is overcrowded or not.
  The right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) raised the question of agricultural housing. I agree with him that the provisions of this Bill as it stands are not likely to cover the

  1911
  whole of that problem, and from another point of view misgivings have been expressed that some of its provisions might operate to the great disadvantage of married ploughmen with large families. I think it is generally acknowledged that both the nature of overcrowding in the country and the methods by which it can be removed are so different from the conditions that exist in the towns that the two problems can hardly be regarded as the same. In the country the expenses of building are very much greater and the expense of installing modern conveniences, particularly in the more remote districts, are sometimes incomparably greater. As for overcrowding itself, although you may have overcrowding in some particular houses, you do not generally have congestion of the houses themselves and in certain counties, particularly the Highland counties, there are peculiar difficulties concerning the incidence of local rates.
  The right hon. Baronet reminded us that he was responsible for the Amendment charging the Housing Advisory Committee to set up a special sub-committee to consider this aspect of the problem. I have always regarded this as an urban Bill except for those few Clauses which extend the provisions of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. I have always resisted any attempt to alter Clause 2, or the Schedule which is connected with it, but I have not concealed my opinion that it is unlikely that the appointed day under this Act will be applied within any measurable period of time by any local authority whose area is wholly or mainly rural in character. In these circumstances, it might perhaps be asked: "Ought you to support legislation which in this respect is likely to be a dead letter." In reply, I would say that, when we consider that the far greater part of our housing problem in Scotland is one of industrialism and that the agricultural part of it is of comparatively small dimensions, the provisions of Clause 4 are amply sufficient for the time being to meet the special circumstances of these areas without making it necessary for us to alter Clause 2 in a manner which might easily cause misunderstanding about our ultimate intentions.
  I had hoped in Committee that it might be possible to amend Clause 34 in
  1912
  such a way as to make it plain that we were going to use this as our main instrument in dealing with the rural problem, but it proved to be impossible to do that without exceeding the limits of the Financial Resolution. I am not certain what view is taken by the Government on this point. If they hope that the Bill is adequate for all parts of the country, that can only be proved by the event. If they think that the earlier parts of the Bill are unlikely to have very much effect in those regions which are exclusively agricultural I do not think an admission of this kind would be in the least damaging to the Bill as a whole. It would not be in order now to ask whether any further legislation is contemplated, still less what would be the character of that legislation, but it may perhaps not be out of place that we should mark those distinctions which place the rural problem outside the main current of this Bill, and that we should consider in our minds what further developments of our policy may become necessary in future.
  I hope that, whatever differences we may have about any particular features of the Bill, nothing will be said, either in the House or in the country, which would be likely to retard the immense expansion of building work which the Bill makes possible. Our primary motive in passing it is to improve the social conditions of the people, but we cannot be wholly indifferent to its incidental effects, to the increase of purchasing power, the renewal of monetary circulation and the impulse to the whole internal commerce of the country which will be brought about by an abnormally large expenditure on the building of houses. We may regard the Bill as a major part of the Government policy which began with the establishment of an abundance of credit, together with that confidence which is necessary to enable that credit to be used, and which is now proceeding to employ those advantages in the reconstruction of our country.
  5.55 p.m.
  Sir IAN MACPHERSON: I should like to add my tribute to those which have been paid to the Under-Secretary for the ability and lucidity of his opening speech. I do not propose to take part in the domestic quarrel between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) and the hon. Member who has

  1913
  just spoken. I associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman in the hope that his gloomy imaginings will never be realised, but the fact remains that he has delivered a very damaging speech, full of knowledge, and it was a speech which, in my judgment, requires an answer. I am not going to enter into the points that he raised, because they affect the urban side of the question with which I am not so directly associated, but I associate myself with the hope that we shall find that the Bill is a very great step in advance and a solution not only for the pressing urban problem, but also for the rural aspect of the housing problem. I think the Bill is indeed a great step in advance, though I should have liked to see it go very much further. It creates a new criminal offence, the offence of overcrowding. Overcrowding has two connotations as far as houses are concerned. Overcrowding in the urban sense is, in my judgment, a terrible crime. The problem does not exist in the same way in the rural districts. The problem there is not so much overcrowding as the habitability of the houses. There is fine open space and fine air and there are great opportunities of enjoying them, but it has to be confessed that in some of the burghs of the North of Scotland you can find individual houses as bad as any of the slums in the great city.
  We have a responsibility so far as these houses are concerned, and it is as important for us in many ways to attack an individual house in a small village as to attack a tenement in the large town. The principle is entirely the same. What we want in the Highlands is not so much these new subsidies as the right, under the Rural Housing Acts, to get a small subsidy to recondition houses. There are heaps of these houses in the rural parts of Scotland which require a little reconditioning. If new houses are necessary, let them be established, but the information that we get from county councils all over the North of Scotland is that with a little reconditioning of the existing houses the housing problem could be very adequately met. I am glad that there is a prolongation of the Rural Housing Act. It has been an enormous boon and, if it were only possible to differentiate between the urban and the rural sides and to get a permanent prolongation of the Rural Housing Acts,
  1914
  we should probably be ale to deal adequately with housing in the rural parts. I hope and believe that the Government will press forward with the Measure. If they do, it is bound to be a boon to the country as a whole, directly in that it will give homes to respectable citizens, and indirectly in that it will in some measure assist the Government in their struggle to overcome unemployment. I, therefore, hope that the Government will proceed wholeheartedly with the performance of their task.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. MAXTON: Nearly every Member who has spoken, I think, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), has said that this is a good Bill. I do not think that it is a good Bill, and I have said so right through. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hill-head both called attention to the anomalous position that Government supporters were opposing the Bill and Opposition Members were supporting it. That certainly is not usual, though it is not the first time that it has occurred in this House. I believe the reason is explained in this way. While this is a very bad Bill, it has a very fine object. If the Government had set about designing a Bill that would not attain its object, this is probably the Bill that they would have presented, but it affirms, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir Ian Macpherson) has said, that overcrowding is an evil. It is terrible to think that it is only now that we are getting that outlook in the matter of human beings in Scoland. We have had it for pigs for some time. It has been well accepted among poultry breeders with modern ideas that it is a sound line to take towards hens and chickens, that it does not do to overcrowd them. But it is only now that we are deciding that it is bad business to overcrowd human beings. It is very late in the day, but I am not going to vote against a Bill which, however late in the day, makes the definite statement for the first time in the history of Scotland, that to overcrowd human beings in their dwelling-places is an evil.
  Sir R. HORNE: Surely the hon. Member forgets the Act of 1875.
  Mr. MAXTON: I do, and I am very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman recollects it.
  Sir R. HORNE: I had some adventitious aids.
  Mr. MAXTON: Whatever was stated in the Act of 1875 on that matter it has failed to influence in any degree those who, are responsible for looking after the housing affairs of Scotland. I am glad that at last this statement has been made, and that it is going to be approved by the House of Commons. But I can see that, unless there is some change of attitude among the people of Scotland, this Bill will not produce the results that are desired. A big amount of freedom of action is left in the hands of the county councils. The county councils for at least a dozen years could have dealt with this problem quite easily without this Bill. They have not done it, largely, I think, because the majority of members of county councils in Scotland have a similar outlook on the subject to that which has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead, the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train), and the hon. and gallant Member for Glasgow Central (Sir W. Alexander). They are afraid that the Government should do anything about housing that would destroy housing as a field of investment for the investing population. That is what I gathered from the various speeches that were made on the Second Reading of the Bill, in Committee, and which are now being made. They are afraid that if the State starts to deal with housing and with the finance connected with housing, such as the feuing of land, the placing of mortgages and so on, it will lose its value as an investment.
  That has been one of the fundamental things which have been wrong with housing in Scotland. If a man started a grocer's shop, he knew that he had to put brains, energy and activity, as well as money into it. In nearly every line of business, a man on entering it knew that to retain his customers he had to put his brains and initiative into it and keep up to date. In Scottish housing—and I charge my friends of the legal profession with a very big share of the responsibility in the matter—the people who put money into it did so deliberately for the purpose
  1916
  of getting an income without putting energy, initiative or thought into it. It was not a business but an investment for people in Scotland to put money into houses in the same way as they would put money into Government stock. They expected, as they expected with Government stock, that the asset was a non-wasting asset, and that, without incurring any expenditure on the house, they would go on drawing their undiminished dividends for all time. If a very decent old body in Scotland came to a member of the legal profession and said, "I have had £200 left me by my grandfather, can you advise me where I can put it? "The reply would be "Oh, yes, I think that I can get you a nice mortgage on a property that would bring in a sure 5 per cent.", or "There is a nice new house here with four tenements bringing in £30 or 40 a year." That is an illustration of the advice of a typical Scottish country lawyer, and the hon. and learned Member for Argyll knows it.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have never seen a house that you could buy for £200.
  Mr. MAXTON: I saw one advertised in the "Glasgow Herald" a couple of months ago for £1.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Was it not perfectly obvious to the hon. Gentleman that it could not bring in an income? It was a liability.
  Mr. MAXTON: I know that it had certain disadvantages, and I will tell the hon. and learned Member what the big disadvantage was. Before a fellow who wished to buy it could occupy the house he had also to find £100 to pay the annual feu duty to the man who owned the property. That was the trouble and the snag, and that was in Pollokshields. That raises another question entirely. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the housing of Scotland has its characteristics because of the feuing system. That does not raise the question as to whether housing should be tackled, but the question whether the feuing system in Scotland should be tackled. That is the problem which is raised there. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll has done it himself on a dozen occasions before he got into the higher flights of his profession, when he was a mere humble solicitor. In the days when his

  1917
  voice rang through the City chambers and even beyond, he would go up to his office and advise those people that that was where they could put their money. Admittedly that attitude has to be changed. If private enterprise is to have a place in housing, and if they want private enterprise to provide houses for the people, they will have to see that it produces the goods. Those who are manufacturing motor cars have a staff perpetually at work improving, adjusting, making changes and bringing out a new model every year. But houses, even if built 100 years ago, must be kept going and profitable, and the State must come forward to see that private enterprise is not a penny out of pocket. They call it private enterprise. That is the joke of it. Enterprise consists in the State shouldering all the losses, while it insists upon having the profits.
  I have allowed myself to be dragged away from what were my original intentions when I rose to my feet. I think that this Bill is all false alarm. As soon as the Bill was mooted there was a great shout against it—I never heard anything like it before—from the property-owning or managing interests in the city of Glasgow, the house factors and property owners' associations and so on, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead like Sir Galahad said, "Here are people in distress. I am going to defend them and become their spokesman. I am going to fight the giants who are going to attack these poor people, the property owners." Yesterday I felt that he had really examined the Bill for himself, instead of merely reading the Circulars that they had sent out. He decided that he would not be a Sir Galahad or a Sancho Panza, and he withdrew out of the field with grace and dignity, but, none the less, he withdrew because there is no serious attack—and this is my big quarrel with the Bill—upon the existing property owners in Scotland. There is no atempt to provide the State or the local authorities with ample powers to alter the housing conditions in Scotland in a reasonably short time. There are years and years for adjustment and rearrangement, and the right hon. Gentleman and the Government spokesmen have attempted to make us believe that to get decent housing in Scotland is a matter of a long period of time. Remember that we have a population
  1918
  of only 4,000,000 in Scotland. It is not increasing at a very rapid rate; in fact, it is almost at a standstill. There is somewhere about 1,000,000 households. Supposing you were to face now the job of demolishing the whole of the houses in Scotland and rebuilding them, it would not be a big job owing to the fact that we have any amount of labour, skill and material available, and, I am told, any amount of money.
  The Corporation of Glasgow went into the open market the other day to raise £2,000,000. The Glasgow Corporation is at present under the control of a body of councillors and one would not expect that they would raise a high state of confidence in the heart of the investing public, and indeed they should not be regarded as quite safe from the point of view of the investing public. But the Glasgow Corporation, with a Labour majority, comes into the market and asks for £2,000,000 and gets in within a, few days. So there is no scarcity of money. Therefore, I say that if you had to face the job of rebuilding the whole of Scotland it would not be a job of which we need be ashamed. It has been said that you must allow for any amount of time, year after year, and even at that, the Bill does not provide the necessary compulsions to compel local authorities and those who are responsible to get ahead with the job even in an extended period of time. I hope that there will be a great propaganda by the Government, and that the right hon. Gentleman will persuade his many friends on the county councils and local authorities in Scotland to take the matter seriously and to go much further and faster than the Bill compels them to go.
  I also trust that when they are starting, as I hope they will start, to rebuild Scotland, they will try to make it look like Scotland. It is terribly distressing. I wander about Scotland a good deal, and look at it—after all, it is my native land; it is not responsible for that fact nor am I, but we have so much in common because of that fact—and I find, particularly about the new bits, the things that are supposed to be new and up-to-date, are so distressing. I do not want to pose as a far travelled man—I am not—but if I go into Holland I feel that I see Dutch houses. If I go to Bavaria I see Bavarian houses in keeping with Bavaria and its

  1919
  geographical characteristics. If I go into any country I feel that there is something distinctive about it, but if I go into Scotland I see something that has no character at all, nothing distinctive. It does not fit the landscape. It is just flung down. I hope to goodness that somewhere in Scotland we shall get some Scotsmen who can conceive of a Scottish architecture that will find expression in the development of Scottish housing. I think of Lanarkshire, or of my own constituency. I must give credit to the Glasgow Corporation for the fact that in my constituency a very large number of new houses have been erected during the last 10 years. Many pestilential slums have been swept away and new houses built, houses that are sanitary and that give a reasonable opportunity for rearing healthy families, but there is nothing distinctive or characteristic about them, or anything that makes them Glasgow. I do hope that in the development under the Bill the Secretary of State will call to his aid some really distinctive architectural skill which is Scottish in nature and inspiration.
  In my view the Bill is a bad Bill, because it does not achieve the things that it set out to achieve, but if there were put behind it a tremendous drive by everybody who is genuinely interested; if the Government's supporters who have paid lip-service to the idea of abolishing overcrowding were to denounce and condemn any person who tries to be reactionary on this issue, the results could be better than the Bill. It is in that sense, and because I believe that by extraneous measures—I will do my very best to stir the minds of the Scottish working people on this issue—we could make the results better than the Bill itself. If that were done all round, I believe that something decent might be done for our country.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. MILNE: This Bill has created more than one record. It occupied the attention of the Standing Committee for a period of 24 days-24 days of continuous clamour and strife. Yesterday it created another record. The Report stage was disposed of in the space of six hours. It was carried through in an atmosphere of the utmost peace and tranquillity. Do not let us be misled by to-day's proceedings. We know that the
  1920
  speeches to-day are merely ceremonial. What has occasioned this wonderful transformation? If the Secretary of State will permit me to say so, it is in large measure due to the statesmanlike manner in which he piloted the Bill through Committee, and the conciliatory attitude which he adopted. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) refered to the concessions which he made. Of course, he made concessions. He exercised a wise discretion. When the Bill was presented to the House it exhibited difficulties. There were obstacles in it which have been overcome. I should have been suspicious of the Bill if there had been no difficulties. The number of the difficulties are a true measure of the achievement of the Bill.
  Some of us have from time to time animadverted on the drafting of the Bill. Those were merely criticisms of detail. The Parliamentary draftsmen have had their special difficulties. In the first place, many of the proposals in the Bill are entirely novel. There is the overcrowding problem. There we have a new field of legislation which has to be explored. There is another special difficulty which the Parliamentary draftsmen had to encounter. I had the curiosity before I came into the House to turn to Dod's Parliamentary Companion, and I learned this remarkable fact that the Scottish Standing Committee consists of 83 Members, of whom no fewer than 24 are either advocates or barristers, and in addition there is a member of the solicitors' branch of the profession. Therefore, the work of the Parliamentary draftsmen had to encounter the scrutiny and, if you will, the captious criticisms of 25 qualified legal gladiators; but it has emerged from the ordeal substantially unscathed. The Parliamentary draftsmen have done their task well. The foundations have been well and truly laid.
  I have spoken of the Bill as novel. The part of the Bill which interest me most is that which deals with overcrowding. No Member for a rural constituency could read the report of our county medical officer unmoved. He states that in the Hill of Beath there is a case of three families staying in one house. Two rooms are sub-let, the number in each room being five and six respectively. In Cowdenbeath a family

  1921
  of six persons occupied one small dark room. In some quarters outside the walls of this House the idea still prevails that the proposals in the Bill are an invasion of the privacy of the family, that they interfere with the right of the owner of the house to do with it what he wills. The Bill prohibits overcrowding and stipulates the number of persons beyond which the house may not be occupied, but so long as the maximum number is not exceeded, the owner of the house can do with it what he will. The family, if they are so minded, can occupy one room in the house, provided always that the prescribed number is not exceeded. One member of the family can sleep on the kitchen dresser, one can sleep on the kitchen table and the rest can lie on the floor if they care to do so. They can do as they please. It is liberty hall. This Bill in no way interferes With the domestic arrangements of the family, but what it does is this: Clause 1 places upon local authorities the duty of providing alternative accommodation where alternative accommodation is required, and secures that when its provisions are in full force every working-class family in Scotland will have the opportunity, if it sees fit to avail itself of it, of living under decent conditions.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I congratulate the Government upon having at least two supporters from their own party. One of them to some extent qualified the speech of the right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne). In the Committee the Government had, in the main, the enthusiastic support of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), and they have had the more or less qualified and cynical support of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). The principal reason adduced by the hon. Member for Bridgeton for supporting the Bill was that therein overcrowding is acknowledged as an evil. He seemed to be unaware until the right hon. Member for Hillhead told him that there was a Bill dealing with this subject in 1875. I am surprised that the hon. Member did not know his own constituency well enough to know that there exists in that Division what are known as "ticketed houses." There is so much cubic feet of space for so many adults. I knew of the existence of these houses 50 years
  1922
  ago when I used to canvass as a Conservative in the election of 1885. I did not canvass in those particular houses because they had not votes. We have always known of overcrowding, but the difficulty has always been to get the people to stop it. Every now and again a case would be brought up in the police court, but the cases were very few.
  The hon. Member for Bridgeton chaffed us in his speech, which we all enjoyed. We enjoy every speech that he makes. He is really a national institution. It would be a matter of profound regret if he did not speak. The oftener he speaks the better we are pleased. He always adds to the gaiety of the House, which is sometimes inclined to be dull. He spoke about the members of my profession in the old days, and said that they advised people to put their money into housing bonds for security. He complained that the man who lent the money did nothing for it. Of course, he did not. It was not his business as a moneylender to do so. It would have been keenly resented if he had gone to the proprietor of the property and found fault with him over anything that was transpiring. It was not his business. It is like the case of a bank overdraft. The bank does not interfere with the man who gets the overdraft. All that the bank does is to keep an eye on the collateral security and see that it does not sink in value. Those bonds were taken by hospitals, friendly societies, and trade houses. The Glasgow university, of which the hon. Member for Bridgeton is a distinguished graduate, has over £500,000 invested in this way.
  This Bill is only the finale of a number of Acts which the property owners have had inflicted upon them. For a century or more we have left is to private enterprise to provide the houses for the wage earners. The wage-earners could not, as a rule, accumulate sufficient money to buy houses for themselves, and so they had to take them from private enterprise, and the private enterprise man got the smallest possible return. Usually it was the little investor and not the large investor who invested in houses. The large investor is not interested in houses. It was the little man, the little shopkeeper, who accumulated £1,000 or £1,500 and bought a tenement or two and borrowed on mortgage perhaps two-thirds of their value at as low I have known as two and three-quarters to 3 per cent., and he had

  1923
  only about 5 per cent. over all which gave him a reasonable return. But he used to go and look at his property and say: "Well, at any rate, it cannot run away. There is no company promoter fellow who can get hold of it." Therefore, it was the investment of the small, thrifty proprietor. Many of these people did their own factoring and that established direct relations between the man and his tenant and perhaps was the better system. These property owners have had their property very largely depreciated through the Rent Restrictions Acts, but there was a final and residual value left, and now as a result of this Bill that is affected. It is all very well for the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn) to say that these people should not have sent round a document declaring that they were going to be ruined. Why should they not do that if they believe it? There is no evidence that they do not believe it. No sensible man has bought heritable property since the beginning of the downfall of its value and none since the Act was introduced.
  I believe in the purposes which the Bill sets out to achieve, and I hope that they will be attained. It is indeed sad to think that the wage-earners in Scotland have not been in a position to pay a rent sufficient to provide them with suitable accommodation. The real crux of the situation is the poor wages of the people of Scotland, and there is nothing in the Bill which will increase wages. You may chivvy them out of condemned houses, but there is nothing in the Bill which will give them larger wages, although the subsidy will help them to pay the rent of a better house. The hon. Member for Bridgeton was very anxious and called to his aid the utterances of the Secretary of State in an endeavour to allay the alarm of property owners, and he said that if they were going to be extinguished it would be a slow death, so slow that they would not notice it. The fact is that with this fate hanging over them they cannot realise on their property; they can get nothing out of it. The Whitson Report made the sensible suggestion that as the price of property has been so reduced property owners cannot be expected to spend any money on their property without some assistance
  1924
  being given them. Why has not that suggestion been acted upon?
  My objection to the original Bill has been somewhat modified by the concessions which have been made during the passage of the Measure. It seemed to have been drafted under the delusion that you cannot have any reform without doing someone an injury. I do not agree with that view. Indeed, I think that you only carry real reforms with the good will of everybody; that is the true way to get reform. As originally drafted, there seemed to me to be an anxiety to injure the property owner. The Bill was redolent of malice to start with. Take Clause 8, that vicious Clause, under which the landlord had to be the "informer" against his own tenants. In the Bill as originally drafted the landlord had to be the informer against his own tenant—the most execrable figure in Irish history, and Glasgow is now full of Irishmen—he would have to peach on his own tenant, and if he went to his property and saw that a new baby had arrived he had to find whether the place was in consequence overcrowded, and if he did not inform the local authority he was liable to be punished. Take also the ridiculous provision in regard to the seaside landlady. Everyone knows that in summer time people want to get up in the morning early and go for a swim, and that in the evening they join up and overcrowd in great numbers. They only do so because they have not money enough to take a good-sized house. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) complained bitterly that seaside landladies wanted rent for the bathroom and the washhouse. If anyone wants to sleep in the bathroom or the washhouse why should be sleep there for nothing? But these seaside landladies had to go to the authority and take out a licence as though they were carrying on a dangerous trade or were members of the canine species.
  The Bill as originally drafted was framed on these lines, and there are Clauses in it still which are capable of being used in an oppressive manner, although I hope they will not be so used. There is, I think, a good deal of truth in what the hon. Member for Bridgeton has said, that the county authorities will not be quick enough off the mark or keen enough to put up houses such as

  1925
  one might approve. But there may be occasions, on the other hand, when there may be something in the nature of oppression. There is also this further point. In the larger cities in Scotland there are a number of thoroughly good houses, old houses, which can be re-conditioned. I lived in a house in Edinburgh which was over 100 years old, with walls like fortifications, and I always wished when the Zeppelins came over here dropping bombs that I was living in that old house, because a bomb would have had no effect on those walls. You have these magnificent structures all over Scotland. Nothing that is being put up to-day can compare with them. If they were re-conditioned they would make far better houses than those which are being constructed now. I heartily agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton that we really ought to have something Scotch in our houses. Scottish houses have been more or less severe and grim, and nothing fills me with more indignation, representing as I do a constituency which produces in Ballachulish and Cullipool the best slates in the world, slates which will last longer than the Pyramids, which will last longer than the houses upon which they are put, than to find all over Scotland Belgian and French tiles being used. I felt pleased the other day when I read that a picture house which desecrated the landscape was caught by a high wind and these foreign tiles and slates were swept away like leaves before the storm.
  I also hope that architects—Scottish architects—who are doing so much to beautify England, because I suppose it is much easier to get money there, will come to the help of Scotland in this matter, and that local authorities will not grudge the architects' fees. Far too much of this work has been done by the speculative builder himself. He made one plan and got an architect to sign it for £1 1s., and hundreds and hundreds of houses have been built in that way. I hope that local authorities will take the hint which the hon. Member for Bridgeton has given, and, if they are going to build houses, that they will at least get the services of the best type of architect. I wish the Bill well, but I am sorry it still has some of these elements in it. Some have been taken away during its progress, and they certainly caused great anxiety. With a little additional expenditure we
  1926
  could have made this housing programme worthy of Scotland. When you think of the amount of money which is taken out of Scotland, even out of the diminished resources of the whisky duty, if the Government had only given us half of the whisky duty to build our houses we could have dealt with the whole of Scotland on the lines suggested. They take all these taxes out of Scotland, and they might have done something more to enable us to recondition many of our houses. In this way we could have provided 50,000 houses needing reconditioning whose tenants, in Glasgow, will probably have to wait for years for suitable accommodation, whereas it could have been provided within a couple of years' time. If that had been done, it would have been a really progressive Bill.
  6.40 p.m.
  Miss HORSBRUGH: Reference has already been made to other Acts of Parliament of dealing with the housing problem and overcrowding. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) pointed out that in 1875 an Act was passed dealing with overcrowding, and he also referred to the ticketed houses. There is one promising feature, and that is that those who are strong supporters of the present Bill can learn from the experience and find out where previous Acts have failed. We are hoping that under this Bill the houses will be built and that overcrowding will be dealt with. In previous Acts which have been passed there was not sufficient machinery to secure the building of the houses and, therefore, I joined with those who urged upon the Secretary of State the importance of setting up an advisory committee which will make suggestions for the future organisation of house building and putting on pressure in order to get them built. Last week I asked a question as to how much of the slum clearance programme had been completed in Dundee, where the slums are so appalling that few people outside Scotland have any idea of their character. I was somewhat alarmed when I was told that so far only 69 houses had been completed. I hope that the advisory committee which is to be set up under the Bill will be able to give assistance and advice to local authorities, and that there will be an immediate preparation of schemes.

  1927
  As the hon. Member for Bridgeton has said, we are embarking on an enormous programme, starting a housing crusade, such as Scotland has never known before. The money is forthcoming, and the machinery has been set up, but I agree that we shall require continuous effort and pressure if the houses are to be built and the appointed day to arrive when the people of Scotland cease to live in the appalling conditions of to-day. Reference has already been made to the Whitson Report. The hon. Member for West Renfrewahire (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn) mentioned the real reason for the recommendation with regard to reconditioning in that report. Some people outside the House of Commons have not realised that what the Whitson Report recommended was that there should be set up a severe standard for existing, as well as new, houses, and because of this severe standard they recommended that there should be a grant. In paragraph 71 of the report these words occur—
  "Our recommendations involve the imposition of additional burdens and obligations on property owners, and in our view it is proper and right that the State and the local authority should pay part of the cost of carrying out improvements which are now to be imposed for the first time."
  Sir R. HORNE: Why not make it a condition of giving a grant that wherever a subsidy is asked for this recommendation should be complied with?
  Miss HORSBRUGH: I am not going into the question as to whether there should be a grant for reconditioning or not. I am pointing out that the Whitson report did not recommend a grant for reconditioning except on the ground that they had set up a severe standard for all houses. It was only because they set up a compulsory national standard that a grant was to be given. There was no question of a grant without setting up a national standard.
  Sir R. HORNE: No one suggested it.
  Miss HORSBRUGH: I did not hear the right hon. Member suggest that a standard should be set up.
  Sir R. HORNE: I think I made it clear that it should be a condition of a grant.
  Miss HORSBRUGH: I am glad the right hon. Member has given that explanation,
  1928
  because it has been supposed that if conditions were complied with a grant would be given, and the Whitson report has been quoted in this connection. The Whitson report set up a national standard for all houses, and they went so far as to consider that many of the owners of property would not be able to bring their houses up to the standard and they suggested—a suggestion with which I did not agree—that there should be a housing corporation to take over the houses in Scotland which did not come up to this universal standard. That is a considerable difference. Another point of interest mentioned in the report is that consideration of what compensation should be given when the houses were taken over by this Corporation. After a great deal of deliberation and many meetings and discussions and much hearing of evidence, we came to the conclusion, which can be found in the report, that there was no better scheme than that of paying market value, which is the arrangement in the clearance areas under the 1930 Act for good property. The same scheme with certain modifications is in this Bill.
  Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: Would my hon. Friend say whether she thinks that the proposals of the Whitson report could be imposed in addition to this Bill? Is it not possible, in other words, to get the benefit of both these proposals, the Government proposals and the Whitson proposals?
  Miss HORSBRUGH: My hon. Friend will understand that that would mean a separate Bill. There is nothing against any Government bringing in any Bill to deal with these things. If hon. Members will look at the terms of reference of the Whitson Committee they will see what it was we were set to consider. It was not how to deal with overcrowding, not what to do if subsidies for new housing were available, but if there was to be no subsidy what the possibility was of providing new houses. The only other thing is reconditioning, and we said it should take place, that as far as possible it should apply to the whole country, and that those who could not without a grant put their property up to that standard would have to be taken over by the Corporation.
  There are one or two points of interest in the present Bill, apart from over-

  1929
  crowding. There is the subject of re-development. The improvement areas under the 1930 Act have not worked well, but under the new scheme of re-development we have far greater chances. Many of the houses in Scotland have reached the stage of being unfit for human habitation. I do not think that any of us, whatever our political point of view, wish to see people remain in houses that are unfit for habitation. Apart from those houses, the way that some houses are planned and arranged makes it absolutely hopeless to deal satisfactorily with the housing question unless we have re-development areas. Many hon. Members know the type of place that I have in mind—close behind close, stairs going up from the close, steep, dark winding stairs. You find a mother carrying a baby with young children behind her, trying to creep up the dark stairs. The houses are so planned that it would be a waste of time to try to deal with the housing problem there. I hope that under re-development we shall deal with those parts of our towns to the greatest possible benefit of the people of Scotland.
  One other point that I should like to mention concerns the plans for the new areas. I hope that these areas will be well planned. People talk of the necessity for playing-fields and open spaces. I hope that in due time these new housing areas may not appear as rows of houses thrown down, but may have more the plan of a Scottish village, with all the amenities included, because some of these large housing areas are the size of towns in many parts of the country. I would remind the House that throughout Scotland in the last few years the Scottish churches have been very anxious that space should be left for them in the housing areas. I think most hon. Members have noticed how the different denominations of our churches in Scotland have been collecting funds. People have subscribed in order that new churches may be put up in the new housing areas. I hope, therefore, that all care will be taken so that space is left where these churches can be built, and that the people who are taken away from their own homes, forced away it may be, will have their welfare looked after. It is often not a case of people going to a particular area by choice, but going there because the local authority has sent them to that area. I am very doubtful whether it
  1930
  had been sufficiently considered that halls and other amenities for the young people ought to be included. Some of us are distressed at a great deal we have heard, not merely of juvenile crime, but of juvenile mischief, in some of these areas. You are taking people away from their surroundings and friends and interests, from the shops and streets. Many think that it is far better for them to go from these districts but let us remember that they are being taken away from their normal influences, and to areas where there is very little to interest them. In planning the areas we should not forget that there are Scouts and Guides and other societies working for the welfare of the young, and we should include halls and give every possible help for the social amelioration and spiritual welfare of the people.
  I welcome this Bill. I think the housing of the people of Scotland is in many cases a disgrace. We are all anxious to see a really radical change. Government after Government has passed Housing Bills, from which we hoped for great things. This Bill is intricate and complex, and the problem is extremely complex, but I believe that, acting on the experience of failures in the past, we are now going forward with a bigger but concentrated scheme, and I believe we shall succeed. The scheme cannot succeed unless constant pressure and constant interest are continued. The scheme ought to go forward quickly. The people are living in these conditions, and one trembles to think of another winter with some of them living as they are. We cannot wait. Children are growing up under conditions that are bad for their health. Older people's health is ruined and they are continuing in misery and darkness in the centre of our towns. Speed is a necessity. The conscience of Scotland is awakened to a certain extent. I think it could be awakened more and the people of Scotland as a whole become more widely awake to the necessity of seeing the housing problem seriously tackled. We are giving them a chance to do it. One of the speakers to-day suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would regret the passing of this Bill. I believe that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to look back on the passing of this Bill as perhaps one of the greatest things done for many years past for

  1931
  the people of Scotland. If by this Bill we get for the people good homes, we shall have done something for which the next generation will be thankful. We shall see the difference then.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. BURNETT: I would like to add my tribute to the Secretary of State, who has conducted this Bill through the long 24 days of Standing Committee and has brought it out at the end to what it is. Everyone in Scotland wants to see the appalling evil of overcrowding dealt with and dealt with drastically, as it is a threat to the health and to the morality of the country. We have been doing what we could with the clearance of slums. We have been considering the various areas, the demolitions and replacements, but in the meantime overcrowding has been going ahead. I do not know what other hon. Members have found in their constituencies but in the constituency of Aberdeen which I represent the houses overcrowded have increased from 1,340 to 1,644 within the last year. A part of this may be due to the agricultural depression, to the people crowding into the towns. Large numbers of families have been added from the country rolls and schools to the town rolls. But at the same time there is no doubt that we have not had from private building that help in dealing with overcrowding which we had hoped to have.
  We have had the five-years plan going forward. Overcrowding will take time to deal with. We have had our building capacity occupied to the full. In Aberdeen we cannot get people from the south to work in granite. Bricklayers are scarce. Now, in addition to the remains of the clearances, we have to deal with overcrowding. We cannot expect to have the appointed day within a short time, and we have to consider what is to be done in the meantime. It was said that there is no provision laid down as to overcrowding until the appointed day comes. I do not think that that is quite the case, because our local authorities have gone on the model by-laws which were sent out in 1931, and those by-laws laid down for improvement areas a certain standard, and that standard has been adopted very largely in connection with the new houses which have been built to cope with overcrowding—two
  1932
  adults to a room and one person under five, and 40 superficial feet area for a grown person and 30 feet for a child. That has been the condition so far, and under this Bill no doubt new conditions, two for one room and three for two rooms, will be enforced.
  Everyone wants to see the standard as high as possible. No doubt when we have all the accommodation that we want that can be done, but until we have that accommodation we are putting off the time when we deal with the grossly overcrowded cases of which we have so many just now. We have 34 people who are desirous of getting houses and are living in tents. If we can stretch a point and not make the standard more stringent we shall hasten the time when we can get enough accommodation. I wish we had been able to do something in the way of reconditioning, such as was suggested in the Whitson report. In that way we could have got on more quickly in dealing with the overcrowding problem. But it has not been included in the Bill in such a way that it can be financed by private owners. I am very glad that inclusion has been made of the cases of gross overcrowding, dealing with them first. Certain difficulties arise in this connection. There is the ease, for instance, which I have in mind, where large arrears of rent were due, say £26, rent owed by a family of husband, wife and six children, who were evicted from their house. Are those persons to be allowed, if they cannot get accommodation, to go out to accommodation in tents, or is the authority to take them over? This problem has been dealt with in Holland, where they have controlled settlements. I do not think we can manage controlled settlements in this country, but it is, certainly a serious problem as to whether a local authority can take over these cases. Something will have to be done sooner or later to provide for them.
  I agree with what the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) said about shops in the new settlements. I saw a settlement in Germany where there were church, bank, shops, a post office, and all requirements provided. The rents of the houses were advertised and so were the rents of the shops. That is a much better method of dealing with the matter than giving compensation to dispossessed shopkeepers, but at the same time, until

  1933
  we have some arrangement of this sort, we certainly have to do something in the matter of compensation. Under Clause 79 the matter is an optional one and it may not be put into practice, but the retail shopkeeper who has spent perhaps £60 or £65 in buying the goodwill of the property is losing this through the action of the local authority. Some provision should be made to estimate what the value of the goodwill was before the clearance was decided upon, and after, so that the compensation can be paid on those lines.
  With regard to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said about amenities, under the Bill there is to be a committee which will give advice on this subject, and I hope they will do something to remove what is certainly a blot both on our Scottish and English houses. We approach many of the towns in Scotland and see drab houses, all built on one pattern, and the whole character of the country is being changed. I hope that Clause 72 will have some effect. These are the main points which I wanted to bring out in connection with this Bill, which I support very heartily, and I hope it will have the effect of doing away at a very early date with overcrowding in Scotland.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: The Under-Secretary of State seemed to be quite pleased to have settled this Bill and congratulated himself that it was going to solve the overcrowding problem. I think he will be somewhat disabused as to that hopefulness with regard to the Bill after hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). It is suggested that we on this side have failed to perform our function as an Opposition. There are one or two small points in the Bill with which we agree. There is probably nobody in this House more directly concerned with, or who have a better knowledge of the conditions of the working classes than the Members on our side. I was much interested in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead correcting the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and reminding him that overcrowding was legislated for in 1875. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) told him that
  1934
  there were such things as ticketed houses. The Act of 1875 did not prevent, overcrowding even in the ticketed houses. Apart from that, I wish to draw attention to the fact that overcrowding is not so much an argument between legal individuals, but is much more a question of whether the Government intend to find out the defects of the present Bill, and when they have found them, to have them remedied.
  Like the hon. and learned Member for Argyll, I believe that the real problem lies in the fact that people are not paid sufficient wages. There is no difference between a man who has had a university education and the man who has been brought up as I have been. Their ideals are no higher because they have been given a university training. A man and woman living in a colliery row are as moral as people living in houses, and whose sons have had a university training. The only reason why the woman who lives in the colliery row has to put up with the existing conditions so far as housing is concerned is because her husband does not earn sufficient wages to enable her to get into a higher-rented house. When she does get into a higher-rented house in present conditions in Scotland, she finds herself running into arrears of rent. Then she is brought before the sheriff and evicted, and after eviction there is nobody who will offer that family a house—no private landlord and no local authority, because they cannot produce their rent book to show that they are clear in the payment of rent in the last house they occupied. I have no objection to that. I quite appreciate the position of the private landlord or the local authority, but as a consequence there are some thousands of people living in Lanarkshire in overcrowded conditions for whom this Bill does not provide.
  I should have liked the Government to have made themselves much better acquainted with the actual conditions of overcrowding in the industrial centres, and to have been less afraid of criticism and of the more or less corrupt letters of the people for whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead has spoken to-day. He referred to the possible corruption that would result from local authorities becoming to a large extent owners of houses and quoted a circular he had received from a housing association which is asking for a reduction

  1935
  of rent. They are rightly asking for a reduction of rent, because the rents were fixed at the time these houses were built far beyond the accommodation provided, and the fact that a housing association has sent out such a circular is nothing in comparison with the innumerable circulars that have come from lawyers, factors, accountants, surveyors and more or less every individual who is living on the rents that are paid for these houses. Many of them are mere parasites living on these houses. All of them have been, continuously for months past sending in circulars asking us to vote for the particular proposals that they were supporting, which in effect meant putting money into their pockets. Anything nearer to corruption I do not know, but I have no time to go into the matter in more detail. We have accepted this Bill, we have supported this Bill in Committee, and we are supporting it to-night because we believe that it contains the germs of something that will be of real value at some future time in solving, or attempting to solve, the housing problem of Scotland in a much more reasonable way than in the past.
  7.12 p.m.
  Sir G. COLLINS: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), in his opening sentence, asked the Government when the Bill becomes law to find out any defects in it and to remedy them. I can give him that assurance. The junior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) made an appeal to the Government that in new housing areas there should be adequate space for the provision of churches. I very readily give her an assurance that this point will be kept in mind, and I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the hon. Member for the practical knowledge and experience she has given to the Government with regard to this Bill in its long passage through the Committee stage.
  The Debate this afternoon was opened by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) who asked me two or three specific questions. He made an appeal that in regard to the compensation to shopkeepers we might consider offering shopkeepers, who are dispossessed of their premises and trade through the redevelopment areas or some other activity,
  1936
  alternative shops. It may not be possible to secure that object in the Bill, but I will direct my attention—without giving any undertaking—as to whether it would be possible by some circular from the Department to local authorities to give the first claim to shops in these new areas to those who have unfortunately been dispossessed of their shops and trade in the other areas. Then he asked me to tell the House, in pursuance of an undertaking I gave in Committee upstairs, about the meeting of the local authorities which took place in Edinburgh some fortnight ago. I am sorry there was no opportunity yesterday, but, as he knows, we got on rather quickly. My hon. Friend and I met the 29 local authorities—and not only the 29, but many other local authorities in Edinburgh—on a particular point which came out during the last few days of the Committee stage of the Bill.
  It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that some local authorities had been rating themselves on a smaller contribution than what was thought necessary, or had been laid down in the 1930 Act. The 29 authorities had received permission from the Department to do so, and although no special time was announced, it was thought to be for one year. Since that meeting the Government have given very careful consideration to the question, but I deeply regret that we are unable to accept their plea. What are we doing in this matter? We asked these local authorities to pay into the pool the rate contribution which Parliament laid down as normal, in order to secure that the proportion of State and local contributions should be maintained. That is the policy of these Acts, and therefore I regret that I have been unable—and I do not want to shirk this matter—to agree to the claim pressed on me in Committee, and pressed by that meeting of local authorities to meet their case. Since that meeting we have addressed a long memorandum to local authorities explaining the details of the proposals which are rather complicated. I do not say that we have satisfied all, but I know that the fears of some, who came to that meeting under a certain misapprehension, have been modified. Do not let me, however, create the impression that the fears of all have been removed because that would not be accurate. I think I have now dealt with

  1937
  the points raised by the hon. Member for Govan.
  Then the House listened with attention, as it always does, to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne). He expressed regret that the Government were relying on municipalities and local authorities in Scotland in their campaign for better housing conditions. Let me remind him that the Act of 1919, which was the first post-war housing Act, gave large powers to local authorities. Having studied the work of those local authorities throughout Scotland, since that time, I am satisfied with the manner in which they have discharged their duties. The local authorities, who were entrusted by Parliament at that time with this large power, have revealed clearly by their actions since that they are well entitled to further confidence and that they will push forward this matter efficiently.
  My right hon. Friend's second point was that this Bill had been shaped too much on English lines. He pointed out, with truth, that the concession to the owner-occupier, which I had refused in Committee, had been granted in the case of the English Bill, and he rather twitted me with having had the Bill re-committed yesterday for the purpose of inserting a similar provision. I can only say that where any concession, on any Bill, at any time, is given to England I shall do my best to make sure that a similar concession is at once granted to Scotland. The kernel of a, Bill of this nature must be its financial provisions. My right hon. Friend, I am sure, has studied the financial provisions of this Bill, and I think he will agree with me that they differ fundamentally from those of the English Bill. Let me also remind him of certain provisions contained in this Bill which are not in the English Bill. There is the provision that all inquiries under the 1930 Act should be held by independent commissioners jointly appointed by certain authorities in Scotland and the Department. In that respect, there is a fundamental difference from the practice which is to obtain under the English Measure. Then I need scarcely remind him of the 16 weeks which has been granted under the holiday resort Clause. That marks another difference between the Scottish Bill and the English Bill. Throughout the proceedings on this Bill, we have
  1938
  endeavoured, I hope successfully, to view this problem as a Scottish problem, and we present this Bill to the House as a, considered Measure based on Scottish conditions, to deal with Scottish problems in a purely Scottish manner.
  My right hon. Friend referred to differences of opinion which existed in the Committee upstairs. Throughout the long-drawn-out Committee stage, on every Division that was taken, a majority of the Government supporters voted in favour of our proposals, whatever differences of opinion may have existed in the Committee. Although the Bill was so closely examined, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne) pointed out, by those well competent to judge and analyse its wording, it stood the test, and, as I say, there was always a majority of Government supporters in our favour, although I admit that, at times, a certain number of Government supporters voted the other way.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: That does not apply to the occasion on which the Government were defeated.
  Sir G. COLLINS: I did not touch on that incident, but I have a complete answer to my right hon. Friend's remark. He was present and he will remember that the Government in that case left the question at issue to the free vote of the Committee. We did not press our point of view. We realised that there were differences of opinion and we were anxious to secure the common mind of Scotland on all these issues—so much so that when the Bill came down again to this House we did not seek to alter a single decision taken by the Scottish Grand Committee.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: Yes, one.
  Sir G. COLLINS: I think I know to what the hon. Member is referring and I think I have made that right with him. For any responsible Minister to run counter to the common feeling and opinion of the Scottish Grand Committee, drawn as it is from all parties in the House, is to run a grave risk of upsetting the legislative programme of His Majesty's Government, and rightly so. When hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen gather in Committee upstairs to discuss these Measures, they treat that business, apart from politics and

  1939
  party prejudice, and apply their minds to the problems before them. My right hon. Friend dealt also with the problem of decrowding. Let me repeat what I have, I fear, said very often in the past, that this is a Bill conceived, drafted, planned and driven through with the whole force of His Majesty's Government in order to cope with the problem of overcrowding. That is the problem we set out to solve. During the last few years the Government have directed the local authorities in Scotland to concentrate on the problem of the slum. Now when our slum programme is well under way, when we can see the fruition of their labours in that respect, when it is possible to see on the horizon the complete abolition of slums in Scotland, we ask the local authorities this afternoon to direct their attention to the second problem, that of overcrowding.
  Several hon. Members have with some force suggested that the Bill does not deal fully with that problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir Ian Macpherson), my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn) and others have urged the importance of the rural housing problem in Scotland. We indicated upstairs that this Bill was not a complete solution of that problem. We hope to get valuable advice from the advisory committee on rural housing, and when we get that report and are able to direct our attention to its recommendations, we may be in a position to come forward with a fresh Measure to deal with that long standing problem. I take this opportunity of thanking, most sincerely, Members in all part of the House for their assistance in moulding this Measure and making it a better one. I am conscious that it had many imperfections and blemishes when it was introduced, but thanks to the active assistance of hon. Members of all parties, I think we can now claim that the Bill is a very much improved Measure compared with what it was when it was sent upstairs. That is not to say that its fundamental features have been altered. For the first time in the history of the world a minimum standard of accommodation has been laid down for the working class as a standard which they are entitled to enjoy.
  1940
  My mind goes back many years to the days when Parliament for the first time decided not only that there should be Old Age Pensions, but that there should be a minimum standard of subsistence for those laid aside in the struggle of life through sickness, unemployment or any of the other tragedies of existence. This Bill lays down a standard of accommodation. It may not be perfect. It may not be as high as some would like and it may be, in the opinion of others, too high, but the standard is so drawn and the financial provision in the Bill is such that it is a standard which can be secured in our lifetime. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) spoke of the time which might be occupied in securing the results we all desire. My last word on this, the final stage of the Bill, after our long proceedings upon it, will be an appeal. This Bill is simply a piece of machinery transferred by Parliament to the local authorities in Scotland. I make this appeal to the local authorities. I thank them first for the energy and drive they have shown in the great slum clearance carried out during the last few years. I ask them during the next few years in the operation of this Measure to show the same energy and determination, supported as they will be, I am convinced, by the common conscience of Scotland and even by the ratepayers who will have to find the necessary sums to make the Bill workable. If they do, it is possible in our lifetime and even in the next few years, that not only will the slums be destroyed but the overcrowded tenement of Scotland will be removed for ever.
  7.27 p.m.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I refrained from expressing my views last night because I understood that the Debates on this Bill were to occupy three days. The time available has been shortened by the fact that the Report stage only occupied one day. I do not think, however, that any Member of Parliament should be prevented from expressing his opinions on a Measure of this kind because certain arrangements have been made for closing down the Debate. I regard this Bill as one of the most important Measures that could be presented to the House. I certainly believe in affording every opportunity for improving the housing standards of the people in Scotland, but

  1941
  I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the effect which this Bill is going to have. Since 1918 there have been many Housing Acts—
  Sir G. COLLINS: Perhaps the hon. Member will excuse me for intervening, but there was a general understanding, though I do not say a complete understanding, that we would get the Third Reading of the Bill before half-past seven o'clock. The hon. Member knows that we have had a very long Committee stage, and, although I know that he is anxious to speak, I would appeal to him to allow us to get the Bill before half-past seven o'clock, because at that hour our proceedings will be interrupted.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I have made a good many appeals to the right hon. Gentleman which have fallen on deaf ears. I, like him, retain my right as a Member of the House to decide my own course of action. On many occasions, I have attempted to speak but have been denied the opportunity. To-night I desire to assert my right in this House to express my views on this Bill.
  It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  HALIFAX EXTENSION BILL [Lords] (By Order).
  The following Notices of Motion stood upon, the Order Paper:
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to exclude Norwood Green, Coley, and the Hipperholme district from the purview of the Bill."—[Mr. Levy.]
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to exempt the districts of Sowerby, Luddendenfoot, and Midgley from the purview of the Bill."—[Mr. McCorquodale.]
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to add the following words to Clause 19:
  'Section seven of the Halifax Corporation Act, 1882, so far as it provides for inclusion within the limits of the Corporation in relation to gas supply of any part of the urban district of Queensbury is hereby repealed. Provided that the powers conferred upon the Corporation by the said Section shall continue to be exerciseable so
  1942
  far as may be necessary for the purposes of enabling the Corporation to continue any supplies of gas given by them in the said urban district at the passing of this Act.'"—[Mr. Levy.].
  Mr. SPEAKER: With the consent of the House, I propose to allow the discussion on the two Instructions in the name of the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) and on the Instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) to be taken at the same time.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr. LEVY: I beg to move,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to exclude Norwood Green, Coley, and the Hipperholme district from the purview of the Bill."
  This Motion appears on the surface to deal with a small matter, but a matter of vital principle is contained in it. The three areas mentioned in the Motion deal with three parts of the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and the Instruction in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) deals with areas which are within his constituency. I agree that there is no reason why these matters should not be discussed together. In order that we should have a proper understanding of the position, there are two considerations that we ought to take into account, one a matter of detail and the other a matter of principle. I will deal first with the matter of principle, and I will try to give a, proper perspective and to draw a proper picture. Years ago villages and towns sprang up with no co-ordination of planning, and you found that there were uneconomic administration and overlapping of social services. You also found that there were a number of boroughs and larger urban areas which drew into their bowls various other areas, and they always endeavoured to draw into their bowls areas with a high assessment and to leave areas with a low assessment to fend for themselves. In other words, they endeavoured to draw into their bowl the cream and to leave the skimmed milk to fend for itself.
  Time went on, and this House had before it, in 1921, two Bills. One was promoted by Leeds and the other by Bradford, and in each case they were endeavouring to co-operate or to merge with the cream and leave the skimmed milk to fend for itself. The Parliament

  1943
  of the day, in its wisdom, turned those Bills down, and there emerged from that a Royal Commission, which was set to make a full inquiry dealing with the matter of proper co-ordinating and planning and economic local administration. That Royal Commission reported, and its report was considered by the Government of the day. There emerged the Local Government Act of 1929, which imposed a duty upon county councils to prepare schemes and plans for the merging of various areas within their own area, with the object of economic administration and good local government, to prevent overlapping, and to try to see that natural development and expansion took place on proper co-ordinated lines. I will read two paragraphs from a memorial drawn up by the West Riding of Yorkshire County Council on this matter. The first is as follows:
  "The view of the County Council is that the decision of the Lords Committee"—
  This Bill has been before the Lords before it has come to this House—
  "conflicts so markedly with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government and the Parliamentary precedents on which the findings of the Royal Commission were based, that the matter calls for the closest examination by the House of Commons, in order that the counties and county districts of England and Wales shall not be put back into the position in which they were before the Leeds and Bradford Bills of 1921, the rejection of which by the House of Commons led to the appointment of the Royal Commission."
  They go on to say:
  "I should clearly state that the County Council are most strenuously opposed to the Bill, which appears to disregard the main principles upon which the House of Commons has dealt with extension Bills in the past. If the Lords decision remains and comes to be regarded as a precedent, no county in England will be safe from the process of disintegration, which can only lead to the ultimate destruction of the whole system of county government."
  The County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire is the largest county council in the whole of this country, with the exception of the London County Council, and I think it is true to say that there is not a Member of this House who would be prepared to allow some outside authority to take a slice or a piece of London. It is common knowledge that in the rebuilding of this country and the
  1944
  replanning of its various areas, we have to take into consideration the physical geography and the natural development, we have to see that there is no overlapping in the public services, and we have to see whether by the taking away of an area from a county council to a borough council, educational facilities, night institute facilities, and in particular sewerage and drainage facilities are not interfered with.
  If we look at the map, we find that the areas to which I have referred lie by natural geography within the area of the West Riding of Yorkshire. Brighouse has to take the sewage of these three areas; Halifax cannot take it at all. Hipperholme, to which I will refer, does not adjoin Halifax, but is on the other side of a hill, with a large belt of territory intervening. If you went from the town of Brighouse, which is within the scheme of the West Riding of Yorkshire, to Hipperholme, you would not know where one ended and the other commenced, but if you wanted to go from Halifax to Hipperholme, you would have to take a bus and go over some of the roads of the West Riding of Yorkshire to get there. Halifax, which is asking to be merged with Hipperholme, is a fourpenny ride on a bus from Hipperholme.
  Mr. LUNNIt costs 4d. from Brighouse to Hipperholme, single fare.
  Mr. LEVY: And it costs more from Halifax to Hipperholme, single fare. Therefore I contend that if the general trend to-day in this House is for economic planning, the last thing we ought to allow is breaking up the county councils and disintegrating these areas. The natural geography shows that the plan created under the 1929 Act should be allowed to be examined by the Ministry of Health, whose inspector is down there at the present moment endeavouring to look into the plan and to see whether the districts that are suggested to be merged ought to be merged. There is a function of the inspector which is quite capable of dealing with this particular position, if he feels that it is in the best interests of the areas concerned. If he feels that it is desirable to effect any of the changes described, he can order any alteration or definition of the boundaries of any district or borough, the union of any district or parish with another district or parish, and the transfer of any part of any district

  1945
  or parish to another district or parish.
  The proper procedure, I submit, would have been that the inquiry which is now taking place should have included these three areas, and Halifax would still have had the right, if they so desired, after the inquiry had been held, to proceed with this Bill, but they endeavoured, while the scheme was in its embryonic state, to jump a claim on the West Riding of Yorkshire, and they introduced a private Bill asking this House to give them power for this merger, although an inquiry is taking place at the present time by the inspector of the Ministry of Health. It may rightly be asked what advantages Halifax offers to the areas which it is proposed to merge with it. Halifax certainly supplies gas, but the calorific value of that gas is less than that of Sowerby Bridge. It also supplies water. I can claim to have some knowledge of water supplies, and, if the service of water from Halifax to these districts is an indication of the general public services that it proposes to supply, the less we say about it the better. During the drought a large number of factories, which would ordinarily have worked three shifts, could not work them because the water supply was so inefficient. The factories were cut off at various hours, and the workpeople had to cease work because the machinery could not be kept going owing to lack of water. I believe I am right in saying that gas and water are the only two public services which Halifax supplies to these districts. These areas, on the other hand, have their own educational and hospital facilities, and their own night classes, and they are well administered. I might pay a tribute to the West Riding County Council by saying that it is constituted of the three political parties, and that, whatever may be said during elections, when once the elections are over, they sink their political differences and work in accord for the benefit of the area under their administration.
  It has been said that some of the local authorities agreed to this merger. May I examine that statement for a moment. When the councils were elected, this question was not brought forward and when the ratepayers heard that their councils had by a small majority agreed to the merger, they were up in arms.
  1946
  They formed citizens' unions, and when the next election came along the ratepayers sank their political opinions and voted against those councillors who had agreed to the merger. The result was that they were not elected, and some of them did not bother even to stand for election. Polls were taken to decide whether these areas desired to merge with Halifax, and in every case there was a poll of between 80 and 90 per cent. against going to Halifax. We are a democratic country, and we are supposed rightly or wrongly, to put forward in this House the views of the people we have the honour to represent. That applies to all of us, and we all do it to the best of our ability. The three areas to which I am referring are in my constituency. I have received a tremendous amount of correspondence, and every letter without exception has expressed a desire not to merge with Halifax. I have not received a communication from any individual in those areas who desires to go to Halifax. [Laughter.] Those who laugh are thinking of hell and Halifax, and they are right. If they go to Halifax, they will go to the other place too.
  It may be said that this is a Bill which ought to go upstairs to a Committee where evidence can be heard. I am not going to argue at this stage whether it ought or ought not to go to a Committee, but I hope hon. Members will agree that, as a representative of a constituency affected, I am entitled to put forward in the House a case representing the views of my constituents. Therefore, I want to state as strongly as I can that my constituents in those areas do not desire to be merged with Halifax. They can see no advantage in it, and there is no advantage. The rates in those areas are low, and the areas are well administered. The rates in Halifax are high. That would mean that if there were a merger the rates in Halifax would decrease and that the rates in the the other areas would, because of the apportionments, increase. Taking the debt per head of the population, it is £18 in Sowerby Bridge and £45 in Halifax. I am not blaming Halifax for trying to bring into its fold those areas which I may call the "cream" and leaving the area which I may describe as "the skimmed milk" to fend for itself. If the House decides that these areas shall go

  1947
  to Halifax, the Committee must take note of the case that we are putting on the Floor of the House. There may have been exceptions where areas have been forced to merge, disadvantageously to themselves, with other areas because it was felt that it was necessary in view of the natural development and expansion. It is not, however, necessary in this case. Halifax is a declining borough; it's birthrate is declining. It is not as though it wants to expand with a big building scheme and has no land on which to expand. It has a tremendous quantity of unbuilt land all round its area. Therefore, that cannot be the excuse.
  The only reason, I submit, for this merger is a selfish self-interest Halifax desires to bring into its fold the high assessment areas so as to reduce the rates and so that Halifax shall get the benefit of it. I do not think this House will be a party to such an arrangement. I am of opinion that the House feels that the county councils should be allowed to continue to govern within their own areas, and to prepare schemes, to provide for natural development and expansion, to police, to deal with the roads, to have control over education, and to provide necessary public services as they do now. The administration of the county council is a good administration. Is there a Member who would agree that a slice should be cut off London and given to an outside area? Is not the natural trend of the expansion of London to bring other areas into that good local government which is the admiration of the world, irrespective of the party in control? The general trend not only with regard to the West Riding, but with regard to areas throughout the country, is that the districts should be merged into units of large size which can be controlled by a proper and substantial local government without any particular self-interest but for the good of the community at large. You find that spirit in county councils, but you do not always find it in local borough councils. They never mind who sinks as long as they can swim. It is to their interest only to look after the population and the area of their own particular boroughs. In the case of a county council, however, the councillors look after the larger area impartially without any prejudice to any particular district, but for the good of the whole.
  1948
  I have endeavoured to show that the areas which it is proposed to merge have no desire to be merged with Halifax. They have no advantage to gain, but only disadvantage. Their public services are now satisfactory, although they can be improved, but they will not get improved by a merger with Halifax. Hipperholme and the other two areas desire, above all, to retain their own identities. It has been admitted that their local government is economic, efficient and good. It may be that, even within the area of the West Riding, they can make an arrangement whereby they shall retain their identities, but, if they are merged with Halifax, they will lose their identities for all time. I hope that if this question is taken to a Division the House will vote for these areas being sent back so that they can come under the purview of the inspector of the Ministry of Health, who can decide whether they shall be retained within the West Riding or whether they shall go to Halifax. Even if this Bill is destroyed, Halifax will not be precluded from an opportunity of bringing forward another Bill in the near future if the inspector decides against the merger.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. RICKARDS: I beg to second the Motion.
  Having been for years a member of the West Riding County Council, I may look upon this problem from a somewhat different angle to other hon. Members. As a county councillor I view with the greatest concern the action of towns in trying to steal territory from the county council. I have nothing whatever to say against Halifax or any other town; it is the broad principle with which I am concerned. I regard it as a matter of common sense. The West Riding County Council have a vast organisation, an enormous county hall and a numerous and efficient staff, and all that costs a great deal of money—speaking from memory, somewhere about £7,000,000—which is an enormous sum for any provincial county council or any body to have to find. Where does this money come from? Some hon. Members may not know the West Riding, but when the big towns like Leeds and Bradford have been taken out, what is there left to bear this burden? In the southern area of the West Riding there are mining districts. All who know Yorkshire know that the

  1949
  miners are having the greatest struggle to keep body and soul together. They do not live, they exist. In the north end of the West Riding there are chiefly farmers on grass land, who are dependent upon two things, milk and meat, the two branches of farming which are the most depressed. My own constituency is there, and I have lived there all my life, and know very well that the farmers are fighting with their backs to the wall to keep out of the bankruptcy court and in the hope that conditions may improve. Without going into details, but keeping to the broad principle, I feel that it is a very serious thing for this House to support anything which damages the county council. This House has lent the credit of this country to Austria and to Newfoundland, and I do not object to that in the least, but we must remember that there are some 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 Yorkshire people who can ill afford to have their rates increased, and if we decrease the area from which the West Riding County Council draw their revenue the rates are bound to rise.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. GLEDHILL: As the duly elected representative of the county borough of Halifax I am anxious to support this Bill, and, therefore, I am speaking against the Motion so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Levy). He has expressed some doubt as to the benefits of some of his constituents being included with mine for the purposes of local government. Possibly he may be looking ahead and fear that in a few years time the Halifax council may turn Socialist and inject Socialism into some of his constituents. I have no such fear.
  Mr. LEVY: May I at once contradict that? That was not in my mind at all.
  Mr. GLEDHILL: I accept that statement. Joking apart, what is the real issue? The question is the extension of the borough. Apart from the fact that I Am Member for the borough, I should like to put before the House a few reasons why I think this Bill should go to Committee without any restrictions upon it. Without going into a great deal of detail, the object of the Bill is to extend the boundary to include Norwood Green, Coley, Hipperholme, Sowerby Bridge and one or two other smaller districts. Hipperholme has always been within the
  1950
  ecclesiastical parish of Halifax, and until 1929 it was linked with Halifax for Poor Law purposes. There is, I submit, a very strong community of interests between Halifax and Hipperholme. Halifax supplies Hipperholme with gas and water. Hipperholme also depends very largely on Halifax for its hospital services, for the fire brigade, for the ambulance and for much of its technical education. Halifax has provided Hipperholme with transport ever since 1901, and in the opinion of the majority of people Hipperholme is one of the dormitories of Halifax. Many people employed in Halifax live in Hipperholme. They look upon Halifax as the centre for shopping, for commerce generally, for amusements and for social life. With the development of housing in the last few years it is almost correct to say that Halifax and Hipperholme join up. I know that in the past few years some of my own workpeople have lived in Hipperholme.
  The urban district council passed a resolution in favour of joining with Halifax. I agree that they would have preferred to remain as they are, but if they were to be joined up with any place they favoured joining with Halifax. They gave evidence before the Committee in another place, where the Bill occupied 16 days. It was, as my hon. Friend has said, opposed by the county council, but much evidence was taken during that period and every argument was thoroughly examined. The Bill, having passed that Committee, I submit that it is only right that it should be sent on to a Committee of this House for further consideration. I think it was a principle of the Act of 1929 that larger local governing areas should be encouraged, the idea being that more efficiency would be secured in local government. If that idea is to be carried out, obviously some of these smaller areas must link up with the nearest large town or county borough, as is suggested in this Bill. It is a reasonable supposition that a larger area can be worked much more economically than a number of small ones. A review of the county districts is going on at the present time, following on the Commission to which my hon. Friend has referred. The county council proposed that Hipperholme should be added to Brighouse, but that proposal was turned down by the ratepayers of Hipperholme by a majority of 2,418 to 34, which

  1951
  does not sound as though they were particularly keen to go to Brighouse. Brighouse petitioned against this Bill, and their case was heard before the Committee.
  The county council seem to be adopting various methods of opposing this Bill. I understand they have written to the county members stating that they are not opposing the Second Reading. That may be true, but the statement is, in my opinion, merely a play upon words, because they are encouraging the Instruction now before us, and obviously if this Instruction is passed the Bill will be virtually killed. The arguments which I have just put in the case of Hipperholme apply almost equally well to Sowerby Bridge. There is amost a closer relationship between Sowerby Bridge and Halifax. We supply Sowerby Bridge with water and transport, with most of their hospital services and with technical education, and there is a mutual agreement in existence for the disposal of sewage. Sowerby people come to Halifax for county court proceedings and for public assistance. My case is that these districts are getting many advantages from Halifax, and, to be frank, are not paying their full share of the cost. I ask the House to bear that in mind, and I suggest that they should give the Bill the privilege of following the usual course, that is going upstairs to Committee, where all sides can be heard and where the several cases can be put by expert witnesses, but do not let us send it there tied with the restriction proposed.
  8.14 p.m.
  The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Sir Dennis Herbert): If I intervene at this early stage, let it be understood that it is not by any means with the intention of trying to choke off other hon. Members who may wish to address the House on this subject. It is merely done for certain domestic reasons, of which I am sure hon. Members will entirely approve when they discover later what they are. I only want to put to the House what may be described as the official view which I think it my duty to take as Chairman of Ways and Means, and to give that advice to the House on this particular point of the Instruction. It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend the Member for
  1952
  Halifax (Mr. Gledhill) has said, that if this Instruction were carried it would virtually kill the Bill; but I do not know that that is really the point. The real point is that these proposals for the absorption of certain other districts not only raise points of importance, to the inhabitants of those particular localities but points of principle which are proper points of policy to be decided by Parliament. Therefore, I do not complain for one moment of my hon. Friends having put down these Instructions or of their giving their views in support of them. They are putting the case as representatives of their constituencies, and are fully entitled to take this means of expressing their views.
  None the less I express the hope that when they have stated their views to the House they will be satisfied, and on further consideration will withdraw their Motions in order that the matter may go before a Committee in the ordinary way. I appeal to them to do that for the reason that a body like the House of Commons is too large to go into these questions of detail, and obviously it is not so well able to ascertain the true facts as is a small committee of a judicial nature which hears witnesses and perhaps counsel also. I do not wish to limit the Debate or to ask hon. Members to refrain from expressing their views, but I do hope that when they have done so and have threshed the matter out on the Floor of the House, they will be satisfied to await the decision of the Committee, and then, if they think it necessary, they can take further steps at a later stage of the Bill.
  8.16 p.m.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I trust the House will give the attention which they deserve to the words which have just fallen from the Chairman of Ways and Means. I know something about the West Riding of Yorkshire, but although I have lived there all my life I must confess that I do not feel competent to pass an opinion by giving a vote as to the merits or the demerits of this Instruction. I could answer a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) in reference to the Bradford Bill, but I do not want to go into controversial questions at this moment. I must, however, repudiate distinctly the suggestion that Bradford proposed that Bill in order that they might

  1953
  get the cream—I think these were the words which the hon. Member used—and leave the skimmed milk to someone else. There were a good many things in that 1921 Bill which would have been of great advantage to the areas mentioned in it. We have always had a sense of unfairness that we should have spent any amount of money and time in promoting a Bill which hon. Members of this House did not, and could not, fully understand and that hon. Members were persuaded to go into the Lobby to destroy the work of years.
  This House makes a great mistake when it declines to allow a Bill to proceed to a Committee which is adequate to deal with it, and which, as every corporation in the country must recognise with a great sense of fairness, shows no partiality to one authority or another. Corporations get a square deal from the Committee, but when a Bill is thrown out as the result of an Instruction of this description and the Bill is destroyed, there is justification for a corporation feeling that it has not had a square deal. I should like to have made reference to what was said by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Rickards) who is not in his place at the present moment. He mentioned the rates of certain areas, but he forgot to tell the House about Harrogate, Ilkley and so on. The argument of the hon. Member for Elland was not quite sound when he appealed that the area of a county should not be split up. Anybody who knows the West Riding of Yorkshire knows that it is split up all over the place, and that there is no particular area where you can go without saying that you are splitting up any number of boroughs. We are not wise in discussing the administration of the counties or of the boroughs. The West Riding County Council is a very efficient body; if I said otherwise it would be untrue. But the boroughs in the West Riding of Yorkshire are just as efficiently controlled, and the services which are provided are as good and as adequate as are provided by the county council.
  I appeal to the House to allow the Bill to go forward as it is, to be examined by a Committee which is able to take and to listen to evidence in a perfectly impartial manner, and to give a, balanced judgment on the facts as submitted. That is fairer to everybody concerned. I am certain that the hon. Member for Elland would not want to gain anything
  1954
  by unfair methods. If we give an opportunity to borough councils to submit Bills in this House we should give them a fair opportunity of impartial examination of their case, and of a decision based upon the evidence given. I appeal to hon. Members to take notice of the words of the Chairman of Ways and Means that that is the only wise way.
  8.22 p.m.
  Mr. EADY: As representing a division near Halifax, I am pleased to have the opportunity of expressing my opinion. I was very glad, Sir Dennis, to hear you give the advice that you did give.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I hope that the hon. Member will remember that some Members of this House have the disadvantage of a double personality.
  Mr. EADY: Thank you, Sir Dennis. I will put the point rather differently, and say that it was a pleasure to me to know that this Bill is going to a Committee to be considered. That is a most sensible suggestion as to the proper way of dealing with the matter. The House of Commons could not be expected to deal with a matter of this size without knowing the details of the particular case. I have had very great experience in local government work. I have been on council work for many years, and I have seen many changes. I have known many occasions when the increasement of a borough has taken place, and I say, without fear of contradiction, that in every case where a borough has extended its boundaries and has taken in outer districts, the change has been to the advantage of the outer district.
  Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Oh, no.
  Mr. EADY: I grant that in some cases it may have appeared that they had to pay rather more rates, but in most cases they had the great advantage of all the things that had been developed in the boroughs. I know this district very well. Part of my life I lived in Halifax, and I know Hipperholme and the other districts. It is wrong for the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) to say that there is a dividing line between Halifax and Hipperholme, because one practically runs into the other.
  Mr. LEVY: Will the hon. Member excuse me? May I ask him to look at the map?
  Mr. EADY: I have no need to look at the map, because I know every yard of the district. I know there is the dividing line of the railway, but that is the only one. As the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Gledhill) knows, the people intermix with each other. In local government the county borough has greater facilities for providing such services as gas, water, electricity, and even education. The time is coming when there will be no alternative to the taking in by the larger boroughs of the various districts around them, and those districts will thereby get greater advantages. I feel that the proper course is that this Bill should go to a Committee, where the whole question can be gone into, each item being taken on its merits; and I have no doubt that from that procedure a good result will follow.
  8.26 p.m.
  Sir J. LAMB: I am not opposed to the legitimate aspirations of Halifax or any other district in regard to extensions where these are necessary, but I want to protest—and here I must be very careful, because I am speaking against the opinion expressed by the Chairman of Ways and Means—against the custom which is growing up of claiming that a Bill which comes before this House must of necessity be sent to a Committee. In my opinion no Bill should be sent to a Committee unless those who support the Bill have carried out the duty of making a reasonable case for it on the Floor of the House. None of the arguments which have been put forward satisfies me that there is any real reason why this Bill should go to a Committee, and I should like to put forward what is in my opinion a very strong and valid reason why it should not, namely, the expense which will be thrown upon the county council in opposing the Bill in Committee.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must correct the hon. Member with regard to a matter of fact. The Bill has already been read a Second time, and therefore as a matter of course will go to a Committee. All that we are discussing now is whether or not there shall be a certain Instruction to the Committee.
  Sir J. LAMB: With all due respect, I understood that it had been said with very great authority that, if this Instruction were carried, it would prevent the
  1956
  Bill from going to a Committee and it is for that reason that I am supporting the Instruction. Therefore, I hope I am entitled to refer to the question of expense, which to my mind is very important. In such a case as this the county council stands no chance whatever of winning. It either stands to lose the area the transfer of which is applied for, or, if the county council retains the area, it is put to the expense of defending itself in an action in which it cannot possibly gain anything. I have an instance in mind in which a borough lost its case in this House, though the decision was reversed in another place, and the expense to which the county council was put in defending its rights amounted to a rate of no less than 1s. 8d. in the £.
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: They have to get the Bill passed in both Houses. It is of no effect if they get it in one House only.
  Sir J. LAMB: I said that it was granted by a Committee of this House, but that was not supported in another place; but nevertheless they had all the expense of opposing. While I believe that these authorities should have extensions which are necessary, I am of opinion that under the Act of 1929 they have full opportunities of obtaining their rights and needs. We have been told to-day that consideration is now being given in the districts concerned to the question of necessary extensions under the Act of 1929, but I believe that the local authority and the residents in the area should have full opportunities of expressing their views either for or against the proposal. I understand that there is great opposition from those resident in the areas which it is proposed to transfer, but the Act of 1929 gives them the opportunity of appearing and expressing their views, and I think that that is the proper course to pursue. One hon. Member has said that the West Riding was split from top to bottom, but that is hardly an argument for making further splits. Possibly he thinks that some other division, say crosswise, might be of advantage.
  It has been said that Halifax is now providing certain facilities, such as gas, water and transport, for these areas, but it is not providing them free. I have no doubt that the areas availing

  1957
  themselves of these services are being asked to pay adequately for them, and that is no argument for taking in the area. After all, it is an advantage to the undertakings in Halifax to have the custom of these other people, and I do not think that Halifax is justified in wishing to have it both ways. As I have said, I hope that the passing of this Instruction will have the effect of preventing the Bill from going to a Committee, and saving the county council the unnecessary expense of opposition in Committee. I believe that the right thing to do is to proceed under the Act of 1929.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. LYONS: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), I hope that the Instruction will not have the effect of preventing the Bill from going to a Committee. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends who have moved and supported the Instruction put to the House the whole case that they could in its favour, but it appeared to me that the case which they made indicated that it was essential that the Bill should go to a Committee. It often happens in this House that a Bill has to be considered which offers some new departure in local legislation, and I have many times joined with my hon. Friend who moved this Instruction in asking the House to refuse to give facilities for Bills presented by local authorities. One may find that a Bill contains some unusual proposal, some attempt to extend municipal trading or local authority interference in a way which is open to the gravest criticism, and in such a case the House may well say that the matter is not one that should be dealt with by local legislation, but that, if it is dealt with at all, it should be discussed under the microscopic eye of this House as a matter of national application. No such observation can apply to the present Bill, which seems to be an ordinary Measure seeking the ordinary useful objects of municipal extension. It seeks to take in certain urban districts, all of which adjoin the Borough of Halifax, and every one of which, I believe, is within the ecclesiastical parish of Halifax.
  Mr. LEVY: Hipperholme does not adjoin.
  Mr. LYONS: It does not adjoin, but, if there is any dividing line between Hipperholme and Halifax, Hipperholme,
  1958
  just the same as any of the other areas sought to be taken in by Halifax, is within the ecclesiastical parish of Halifax. Some 16 days were occupied in Committee in another place in the consideration of the Bill, and all interested parties were heard. I think the position really is that the administration of the West Riding of Yorkshire is now the subject of review by the county council under the appropriate section of the Local Government Act, 1929, which provides that there shall be amalgamation where possible in, the general interest and, giving full regard to that, I should have thought that in this case it is most imperative that Halifax and the surroundings should be brought within some convenient and permanent local government boundary with some appropriate centre for effecting efficient administration. I should have thought that it is clear that the position of Halifax is one which justifies the closest scrutiny in the proper place upstairs. The Bill, as I read it, seeks to incorporate within the Borough of Halifax a number of communities whose interests seem identical with those of Halifax, who are dependent on and who even to-day share the various services supplied by the borough and who enjoy to the full the whole of the amenities which Halifax has provided.
  I fail to see how in those circumstances the House can say, not that the Bill is right or wrong, but that it is not a matter which should be scrutinised by the proper Committee upstairs. We cannot as a body consider what the amenities are. Those are essentially matters to be considered by the Committee upstairs. I think that is the proper place to consider evidence of the conveniences, the amenities and the advantages, and I hope hon. Members will realise that in Clause 59 there is the usual provision for differential rating. I should have thought that this House is and must be lacking in material on which it can form a view as to the question of differential rating. That is a matter that can only be considered upstairs, where all the interests can be heard and a semi-official body can go closely into the case made by Halifax and the objections, if any, of those who do not want to be amalgamated in the larger body. Since 1929 the general tendency has been to amalgamate where possible and to give a general centralisation and a general

  1959
  larger administration of all public conveniences for the benefit of a larger public generally. It makes for individual betterment and for parochial betterment. I hope the House will do no such thing as to say that this is a Bill which shall not even be considered by the Committee upstairs. We must, of course, be guided by the observations of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I think the House can come to one opinion only, that this is essentially a Bill coming within the scope of the machinery provided by the House previously for the consideration upstairs of Bills seeking the purpose that this Bill seeks.
  8.40 p.m.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: We as a party do not desire to take up any position in favour of one or other of two very excellent local authorities. We feel that it would be wise for the House to follow the advice, with which you, Sir, would also no doubt agree, of the Chairman of Ways and Means. If I may say a word from my own point of view, I have listened to the arguments that have been put forward, and I am certain that I am not in a position to make up my mind as a result of hearing those arguments. As to the 580 members who are not present to listen to those arguments, I hesitate to think what they might do if they approached the portals and had to decide into which Lobby they would go. It really would be impossible if people who had not attended the Debate at all were to be asked to decide now as to whether or not one or other of these local authorities should have certain rights.
  Before I came into the House I had considerable experience before Committees upstairs in dealing with matters of this kind, and I know from my experience what a very patient hearing those Committees give to these matters and what a vast mass of detail has to be gone into before any one can really arrive at a sound and proper decision. I have heard to-day every argument with which I was so thoroughly familiar in those days about the various incidents which weigh on the one side or the other, each one of which is required to be carefully sifted and analysed to see what weight should be given to it in the eventual decision. I am sure we are not in a position
  1960
  this evening to arrive at that just decision on the matter which I know every Member of the House would desire to be given. Therefore, I beg that the House will allow the matter to go to a Committee where the rival merits of the two sides can be thoroughly sifted by a competent body whose decision will eventually come before us for review.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. McCORQUODALE: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that this is the only opportunity that a representative of the electors concerned has to put forward the views of those electors in the matter of a private Bill which is likely, if proceeded with and passed, to affect very greatly their private lives. Therefore, I was especially glad to hear the Chairman of Ways and Means say that he had no quarrel at all—which I understood to mean a blessing—with the idea of raising on the Floor of the House, as we have done, this Instruction to the Committee. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Lyons) said it was a perfectly ordinary Bill brought up in a perfectly ordinary way and should be treated in the perfectly ordinary manner of sending it upstairs. I agree that it is a perfectly ordinary Bill introduced in a perfectly ordinary way, but not at a perfectly ordinary time, because the time has been selected when, under instructions from this House by Act of Parliament, there is at present going on examination of the whole matter on lines which this House has laid down, and the Bill, if passed into law, will materially upset the examination that is going on, and indeed has now held it up. I should like to refer to the statements which the Halifax Corporation put out on behalf of the Bill, because in Clause 4 they have, in my opinion, let the cat out of the bag. They say that the justification for the promotion of this Bill is that local government administration is now subject to review by the county council under the terms of the Local Government Act, 1929, and they go on to say—and I will paraphrase it—that before such review is completed it is imperative that we should grab hold of every bit we can, because after it is settled we shall have no more chance. If those words are read, that is the legitimate conclusion to draw. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is your way of putting it."]

  1961
  I wish to refer more specifically to the views of the constituents in my division of Sowerby. If this Bill passes, at least a quarter to a third of the division will pass under the jurisdiction of Halifax. The two sections which they wish to take may be divided into the Luddenden Foot and Midgley districts on the one hand, and Sowerby, which is largely Sowerby Bridge, on the other. With regard to Luddenden Foot and Midgley, the local councils concerned decided that they did not with to go into Halifax. They decided, on the other hand, that they wished to go into the scheme for making Calder Valley an urban district authority, which was a scheme put forward by the county council. Those urban district councils, not content with making up their own minds, thought it their duty to consult their and my electors.
  I would remind the House that some time ago—I think it was on the Dominions Office Vote—we discussed the future of certain protectorates in South Africa, and an aide memoire was presented to the House by the Dominions Secretary on the subject; and one of the clauses mentioned in the aide memoire which was agreed to by every Member of the House was that before these protectorates were handed over to the jurisdiction of the Union of South Africa the wishes of the natives should be consulted. The wishes of my constituents should also be consulted, and allowed to have weight in this matter. Therefore, because the local council thought the same they carried out a ballot, and the figures of that ballot were to the effect that 92 per cent. of the electors were against going into Halifax, and, on the other hand, over 80 per cent. were in favour of joining up in the scheme put forward by the county council for making an urban district area of the Calder Valley. One of the most urgent needs of our time is that democracy should flourish in this country and should certainly not be thwarted by any act of ours in this House. Here is the democratic wish of these people given in no uncertain terms and it should carry paramount weight over any other argument that might be put up against it.
  I will now turn to the larger area of Sowerby, which is mainly the town of Sowerby Bridge, and two smaller townships round it. The Council of Sowerby Bridge, the late council, felt it their duty
  1962
  without any mandate from the people, because the matter had never been discussed before, to pass a Resolution agreeing to go in to Halifax. The ratepayers and electors were incensed at this and asked for a ballot. The urban district council said that they could not conduct a ballot as their clerk had instructed them that they might be surcharged if they held a ballot, although such ballots have been held in almost every area in Great Britain. So the ratepayers called a meeting—it was largely attended—and elected a committee of their own, upon which Conservatives, Liberals and Labour were represented, to show that there was no political bias, and proceeded to conduct a ballot themselves. It was a postcard ballot carried out under conditions which I have gone into, and which, I think, are accepted by everybody as being perfectly fair. They obtained something like an 80 per cent. return of votes by the electors, and an 82 per cent. majority against going in with Halifax. Eighteen per cent. of the population voted in favour of going into Halifax, and 82 per cent. of those who voted voted against going into Halifax. Moreover, this was remarkably confirmed, more strongly confirmed even than by the ballot, by events which took place shortly afterwards. The local elections took place, and it was found that the electors were prepared to throw over their normal party allegiances and to vote for people and parties for whom they were not in the habit of voting in order to oppose those who had been on the council and had voted for handing Sowerby over to Halifax. In every case a marked change appeared in the figures of the poll of those councillors who were standing again and who had voted either for or against going in with Halifax.
  The conclusion was perfectly obvious. As far as my electors are concerned—and it is the same with regard to the electors of my hon. Friend tire Member for Elland (Mr. Levy)—they do not want to go to Halifax. They would rather stay away. The overwhelming majority voted against going into Halifax, and it would be a negation of the principles of a democratic country if they were forced against their will to go into Halifax. It has never been pretended that my electors will gain anything by going in with Halifax. I am not arguing that Halifax will not gain a great deal by

  1963
  having my area passed over to them. These are low-rated, efficiently run, with a small debt, as against a large debt in the case of Halifax. Notably in respect of sanatoria, clinics and hospital work my area, coming under the West Riding County Council, has much more efficient services than Halifax, a smaller area than the West Riding, can possibly supply. Our education, primary and secondary, with steps and scholarships leading up to the universities, is such that no child in those areas, provided he has the necessary knowledge or the ability to acquire knowledge, is debarred from ascending to the university. There is no possible doubt as to the efficiency of the present system under which those areas live. Therefore, I would respectfully state that to turn them over to Halifax and to go so contrary to the declared wishes of the people would not be the action of the democratic State on which we pride ourselves, but would rather be the action of a unitarian or utilitarian State, such as Italy, Germany or Russia, which we affect or pretend in this House and in this country to despise.
  The advice which the Chairman of Ways and Means gave to us in the early stages will no doubt be listened to with sympathy by my hon. Friend the Member for Elland to whom I owe a debt of gratitude for combining with me in raising on the Floor of the House these important considerations. I have no doubt that if he decides to follow that advice, in the Committee upstairs due weight will be given to the overwhelmingly important considerations that have been put forward to-night, and I hope that my electors and my people in Yorkshire whom I have the honour to represent here will not find their wishes at the end of the proceedings flouted, as they undoubtedly will be if Halifax gets its way.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. LEVY: I am sure that the Committee upstairs if we withdraw this Motion, which course appears to be the sense of the House, will give due consideration to the speeches that have been made. I sincerely hope that we shall get a fair and square deal, and that unless the weight of evidence is overwhelming in favour of Halifax, these areas will
  1964
  be allowed to stay where they are and where they want to be, for local government purposes, and that is in the West Riding of Yorkshire. In view of what was said by the Chairman of Ways and Means, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. McCorquodale) desire to move his Instruction?
  Mr. McCORQUODALE: No, Sir.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is another Instruction on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy). It is my duty to inform the hon. Member that that Instruction is out of order, the reason being that the adoption of the course suggested in the Instruction would result in a non-compliance with the Standing Orders of the House.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Question again proposed.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. McGOVERN: The Debate on the Scottish Housing Bill was adjourned in order that we could discuss the affairs of Halifax and the surrounding districts. I was proceeding to say that since 1918 both inside and outside the House we have heard of the reports of many Housing Committees, and every Secretary of State for Scotland who has presented a Housing Bill has always expressed the hope that that particular contribution would in a large measure solve the housing problems of Scotland. Unfortunately, we know that after all these years we have still a tremendous overcrowding and housing problem to solve. I do not say that the contributions that have been made by various Governments have not contributed in some small degree towards alleviating the problem. I should be delighted if this Bill was going to do all that has been said by it sponsors. To me it is not a perfect Bill. Nothing is perfect in this world. The Measure does not go as far as we would desire.

  1965
  Housing, as the Under-Secretary of State said yesterday, is largely an economic problem. An individual who has the material resources can get a house provided for him. Therefore, it becomes mainly a poverty problem. The provision of houses for the large mass of our people is a poverty problem. I should not be concerned with the particular colour of the Government if they could secure the objects that the right hon. Gentleman says are going to be accomplished by this Bill. I would pay them every credit, and in the country I should be prepared to admit what they had done towards solving the problem, if they were successful. One knows the tragedies of overcrowding, and they are particularly well known to those who are intimate with working-class lives. I stated in the Committee on the Bill, and I say again, that during the 27 years that I was connected with the building trade as a tradesman I went in and out of working-class houses, sometimes as many as 14 in a day, and I heard the sad stories and the tragedies and saw how the people lived. Those tragedies are desperate in the extreme.
  The public conscience has been galvanised into action. The minds of the people are more alert to this problem than they were 20 or 30 years ago, and the provision of decent housing has been the object of various Bills. We find, however, in this Measure as in other Measures that human considerations are not always the considerations that are of paramount importance to certain hon. Members. During the passage of this Bill we have had a deluge of circulars, letters and articles, and we have had pressure from every angle, with the object of trying to get concessions which would have destroyed even any good that there was in the Bill. To the credit of the Secretary of State I must admit that he has refused to be coerced in certain directions. He has taken a line in Committee and in the House that was not altogether pleasing to some property interests. He has not gone as far as we would have wished him to go, but he has in a measure rebuffed those who were unreasonable and who were only concerned with their material interests. Overcrowding must be overcome. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers were loth to insert periods of time that would have speeded up the
  1966
  building of houses, and we were not satisfied with the reasons which were given for the non-adoption of that course.
  I should like, with the permission of the Chair and of the House, to quote a letter with regard to a case of overcrowding:
  "Dear Sir,—I should be very pleased if I could see you on Saturday when you Dome home. It is in regard to a new house. There are eight of us in a single end"—
  That is a single apartment—
  "My eldest girl is 18 years, John is 15, George 13 years, Walter 12 years, Margaret 9 years, and Isabella 3 years. I filled in a form two years ago. I wrote to John Street, and they sent my letter to the Housing Department, so I do not think they are treating my case right. Some nights I have to stay up all night, so I do not think it is a right. I am a discharged soldier with a bad wound. It is rest I need at nights. I shall be pleased if you will write by return and let me know if it is possible for me to see you on Saturday, and oblige, yours faithfully, W. Lovatt."
  That is the case where eight members of a household, from 19 years to three years of age, with father and mother, are confined to a single-apartment house. Will anyone say that that is the environment in which children should be brought up? I know that those who have attempted to prevent this Bill reaching the Statute Book would in individual cases agree, but in the industrial areas a case like that can be multiplied in every single tenement block. I am afraid that we are not going to get a drive from the Bill which will overcome these tragic difficulties in working-class homes. It has been said at various stages of the Bill that ample provision should be made for sport and recreation in order that the young people who have to live in these areas shall have an opportunity of developing. I represent an industrial division in Glasgow, and I put a question to-day to the Secretary of State as to the number of young people under 16 years who have been prosecuted for house-breaking and theft. This is the answer I got. In 1930, 509 were charged with theft and 181 with house-breaking. In 1931, 566 were charged with theft and 263 with house-breaking, a total of 690 in 1930 and 829 in 1931. In 1932, 742 were charged with theft and 321 with house-breaking, a total of 1,063. In 1933, 758 were charged with theft and 430 with house-breaking, a total of 1,188. In 1934, 1,052 were charged with theft and 552 with house-breaking, a total of

  1967
  1,604. The number has gone up from 690 in 1930 to 1,604 in a period of five years. That is an appalling state of affairs. It is not due to lack of decency or training in the home, but to the overcrowding conditions under which they live, and the lack of proper facilities for sport and recreation.
  A fortnight ago I went down to the courts to deal with some of these cases and I was amazed to find the corridors packed with children from nine to 16 years of age, all charged with house breaking or theft. I went to represent one of the boys who was mentally deficient. We have no right to say that there is any criminal intent, it is the effect of bad environment and lack of opportunity. Sometimes we say, "God protect us from the criminal," but I think that in many of these cases the criminal has a right to say, "God protect us from society," because society sometimes makes the criminal. I welcome every effort which will raise the standard of living and give an opportunity for people to develop. It has been said time and again that while it may be the right type of house it is the wrong type of rent, and that a man and wife and five children should have a house with three or four apartments at a fixed rental. It is said that there is no additional cost when there are extra rooms, but there is the extra cost of fire and heat and furniture and, therefore, it all comes back to the question that while you may provide a house yet, owing to their poverty, people cannot pay the rent and find themselves again on the streets.
  From the experience I have had in connection with the housing problem I say that it is the housing interests on the councils which will attempt to sabotage this Bill, as they have attempted to sabotage every Act in the past. When you have owners of property on local authorities their ideas are dominated by their own material interests, and if the Secretary of State is to make a tremendous advance in his time he will require to grapple with this problem in a drastic way and must not be overawed or blackmailed by the housing interests of the country. We have seen these interests trying to baulk the operation of this Bill. I know what they can do. I was driven out of the building
  1968
  trade because I dared to hold ideas which did not conform to the ideas of property owners and factors in Glasgow. I know the methods they can employ, and I say that if we are to go ahead we must free ourselves from the advice of false friends. I have seen this in connection with this Bill, and I have discussed it with property owners and have heard the harsh words they are prepared to say not only of us but of the Government, whom they feel were not paying proper attention to guarding the interests of property owners in Scotland. Human interests are the only interests which should be considered in this matter. Time after time we have had to ride roughshod over private interests in order to make progress. This Bill, while it does not go all the way or deal so drastically with the problem as we would desire, it does not fix rents on a basis which the unemployed can pay, the subsidies in many cases are not big enough, yet at the same time, so far as it makes any contribution at all to the housing and slum clearance problem, we wish it Godspeed and hope that it will overcome many of the difficulties connected with our housing problem in Scotland.
  9.14 p.m.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to assure the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that we are all at one in desiring to put an end to conditions such as he has described. The difference between us is as to which is the best, fairest and most expeditious way of getting rid of these evil conditions. I submit that the surest way of getting rid of the very bad cases in the towns, which we all deplore, is by pursuing the slum clearance programme which has already been put in hand. The Government two years ago set before themselves a very great programme of slum clearance, namely, the aim of getting rid of all the slums in this country within five years. If the Government do that, or anything like it, they will have done a very great deal for housing, and in achieving that task they will have got rid of conditions such as the hon. Member for Shettleston described. I would like to say also that I think there can be none of us who fails to realise that the conditions of our slums may well lead to a great deal of juvenile crime, or as I prefer to call it, juvenile misdemeanour. From that point of view also and from the point of view of building

  1969
  up character, and enabling the young to make the best of their lives, we all want to do what we can.
  My speech to-night will be mainly devoted to an examination of how the Bill is likely to work out in the rural arena of Scotland. I would begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for amendments which will relieve the owner of house property, particularly the rural owner, from the invidious position in which the Bill originally placed him. I refer to Clause 7 as it originally was, which would have laid on him the onus of informing the local authority of any overcrowding that he found in his houses. That would have caused a considerable amount of friction between many owners and their tenants, and I am extremely glad that the Clause has been removed from the Bill. Clause 3 as originally drafted would have placed on the owner the even more invidious task of having to turn out his tenant in a case where the house was overcrowded and the tenant had refused an offer of suitable alternative accommodation. I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for having removed that part of Clause 3.
  Then I am pleased, of course, that Clause 3 contains another concession, in that it will allow overcrowding in a house for a period of not more than 16 days in the year, provided that no money passes. That will enable the elder son or slaughter of the family who has gone out to work to come home for the annual fortnight's holiday. But it will not enable the son or daughter who has gone to a university to come home for the university holidays without applying to the local authority for a licence. The Clause dealing with licences empowers the local authority to give them in exceptional circumstances, but it might well be that the officer of a local authority who wished to stick at trifles would say that a holiday of a fixed period, as prescribed by the university, was not an exceptional circumstance for a student attending that university, and it seems to me to be a distinct interference with family life that it should be necessary for a parent to apply to a local authority for a licence to enable a son or daughter studying at the university to come home for his summer holiday or for any period longer than 16 days. Of course it would only be in cases where the return of the son
  1970
  or daughter would cause the limit of persons in the house to be exceeded. But, as I have pointed out before, I am afraid that one result of fixing these definite standards will inevitably be that if a family is a large one the elder children will tend to leave home sooner than they otherwise might, in order to prevent a house being overcrowded according to the Bill.
  Clause 16, or the amendment of it relating to the 16 days, allows only one extra person to be accommodated in the house for that period. That will allow a married sister to come and pay a visit but will not allow the married sister to bring her bairn if the bairn is over 12 months old. A child of that age cannot possibly be left by a mother who cannot afford a nurse to look after it, and that may well make it very difficult for married brothers and sisters, sisters particularly, to pay each other occasional visits as they are wont to do. It may mean that it will be easier for the married sister to come on a visit before her baby is a year old, because up to that age a baby will not count as a half unit and after that age it will. It is not advantageous to the health of small children that they should be taken about on these visits and have to undergo changes of food, of milk and surroundings. Any mother would much prefer to take her child to see her sister after it was a year old rather than before.
  I cannot help thinking that this restriction of family intercourse may seem to many people too great an interference with family life. These are days when, so far as I can judge from what I see around me when I am in Scotland, people visit each other much more than they used to do. Travel is cheaper, and on the whole people's incomes are distinctly better than they were formerly. This Bill is going to cause many difficulties in the reciprocal visits which form so happy a feature of family life amongst persons often of quite small means. It may be that people who live in the country receive more visits of that kind than people who live in towns. I can only say that very often when I go to visit a small house in my neighbourhood I find that the house is fuller than usual, because such and such relations have come for the week-end or week or whatever it may be. One rejoices to think of the family intercourse that this means, and that

  1971
  people who cannot see each other very often are able to make these occasional visits. Another point is that this concession is to be allowed only if no money passes. I cannot dogmatise, but I have been told, and I can quite understand, that when persons whose means are not large pay visits to their relations some money does pass in a way in which it would not pass in the case of wealthier people. I do not think that this point has been discussed on the Bill.
  Then I recognise, of course, that in what is now Clause 6 my right hon. Friend has made concessions which will enable those who live largely by letting rooms in the summer or in some holiday season to continue that practice, provided they have the good will of the local authority in doing so. But it seems to me inevitable that that practice will be restricted, because as I read the Clause the local authority will have to fix for each house the additional number of persons that it may hold under licence or during the period of the year which is exempt. That may well prove serious in individual cases. When people live in an isolated house in a rural area and do not have many opportunities of advertising or knowing about and hearing of people who want houses, it may be that they will get only one offer of a tenancy in a year, and if that offer comes from a family with one child too many for the house, according to the standards laid down, it may not prove possible for the occupier or owner of that house to let the rooms at all during that season. Unquestionably the restriction of the lodger industry by the Bill must mean some restriction of the income which that industry has brought into many parts of Scotland, particularly to the Highlands.
  Then I come to the question of the inclusion in the Bill of the houses of ploughmen, and of shepherds and gamekeepers and other estate workers whose work obliges thorn to live in a particular house. On the Committee stage we were given figures of the investigation of upwards of 1,000 houses, chiefly of ploughmen, which showed that 38 per cent. consisted of only two rooms. But I am told that in Kinross and Perthshire the great majority of ploughmens' houses have only two rooms, as a third is too small to be counted under the Bill, and the two-
  1972
  roomed house can accommodate only three persons. But the work of a ploughman, in particular, is a very hard one and demands a man in the prime of life, and a man in the prime of life usually has a young family round him. I know that the occupiers of houses at the time that the Act comes into force are to be exempt, but ploughmen in Scotland change their situations very often, and it will be inevitable that within a short time after the appointed day there must be many ploughmen who will come under the operation of this Measure. I know that no one will commit an offence who has not refused an offer of suitable alternative accommodation, but it seems inevitable that farmers will tend to be chary of engaging ploughmen with families if they have not got a large ploughman's house on their farms, because they know there is not another house available, and it will take years to bring the ploughmen's houses up to the standard which we would all wish to see. It can only be done by the proprietor, and in these days of heavy taxation, particularly death duties, it is made very difficult for proprietors of estates to do all that they might wish. Even with subsidies the improvement of a house means a considerable expenditure by the owner.
  This Bill is going to be very difficult to work in regard to the houses of ploughmen, shepherds and those whose employment requires them to occupy a particular house. When we began to discuss these questions in Committee we were given to understand that the right hon. Gentleman had not yet arrived at a decision. He told us that this question of ploughmens' houses was still being investigated and that some exemptions might be made under Clause 4. We were promised more figures. I asked that the inquiry should include not only the houses of ploughmen, but the houses of estate workers. When we came to Clause 4 nothing was said and the question did not arise until we came to Clause 11, when we were told that tied houses would be included. I tried to get the question raised, but was told that that was impossible. The Bill has thus gone through without adequate discussion of what is a most important subject to the ploughmen and other workers, the farmers of Scotland, and the agricultural industry in general.

  1973
  To-day the right hon. Gentleman tells us that there is another Bill in prospect for the rural areas of Scotland. I am very sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. He did say that we were not at the end of our legislation for rural Scotland. I understood that was housing legislation. If it is the case that further housing legislation is in prospect, why was it necessary to include the rural areas in this Bill? Why did he not leave the matter alone until he had considered it more, instead of bringing the rural areas into a Bill which would seem to have been framed more for the houses in towns? I dare say that my right hon. Friend was surprised to see that I had put down an Amendment to omit rural areas from the Bill. I should not have dreamt of putting it down if it had not been pressed on me by burgh representatives in my constituency, who said the Bill was entirely unsuited to rural areas. However, it was called neither on the Committee stage nor on the Report stage, and we have heard very little about it. I am glad if the right hon. Gentleman does not consider this as the last word in legislation for the rural areas of Scotland, and I earnestly hope that before he commits himself to further legislation on this matter, he will take counsel with more people who are cognisant of the needs in the rural areas.
  Mr. SKELTON: Unless you included the rural areas, numberless villages which do not consist of tied cottages could not have been dealt with. The argument as to whatever difficulties there may be about farm cottages, is no argument for general exclusion.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: I recognise at once that the tied-house problem is only part of the rural problem, and I regard it as the most acute part. If I did not make it clear that the tied-house problem is only part of the problem, I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but the exclusion of rural areas was suggested to me informally by burgh representatives. I recognise that there are villages in rural areas where a great deal of improvement in housing is needed but it ought to be possible to deal with them by existing means, such as grants under the Rural Housing Act or by the Slum Clearance procedure if necessary. I do not think
  1974
  it is necessary, to apply this further Measure to them.
  I wish to add a word to what has been said on the question of compensation to owners of houses which have been declared unfit for human habitation. Last night I ventured to reply to the argument of the Under-Secretary that a house condemned as unfit for human habitation had no value. I pointed out that such a house might have a value for another and less important purpose—for a garage, a furniture store, or an office for instance. I mentioned that I had been told in my own constituency of various cases in which houses which had been condemned as unfit for human habitation, were being used for such purposes. So long as a building is being used for some purpose for which people are prepared to pay rent, that building has a value and its owner is entitled to compensation in respect of it. Only this morning I received a letter from the owner of a house in a Scottish town telling me that a house on which she had recently spent £125 in installing every convenience had been condemned as unfit for human habitation for reasons which she could not understand. She went on to say that the local authority in condemning the house suggested that she should put it to another use, such as storage or something of that kind, for which she considered it unsuitable. That is an interesting instance of how a local authority, in the very act of condemning a house as unfit for human habitation recognised that it had a value for another purpose. That is a matter to which the Government might well bend their minds. They ought to consider whether equity does not demand that the owners of houses, even houses condemned as unfit for human habitation, should be given compensation representing the value which the houses are shown to have or which they may potentially have, for another purpose. It has always been a cardinal principle of the party to which I belong that we should try to achieve social reforms with the minimum of injustice and soreness to other people. I do not feel that the compensation proposals in this Bill can be applied without leaving a feeling of soreness in the minds of many individuals, and I should like to feel that my right hon. Friend was considering the possibility of giving fair compensation to many owners of house pro-

  1975
  perty whose property is going to be destroyed under this Bill.
  While anxious to see everything possible done for the improvement of housing; while anxious to see the Rural Housing Act extended beyond 1938—because it will be impossible in that period to make all the necessary improvements—and while anxious that all these reforms should be carried out at a speed which can be managed without hardship to owners, I feel that this Bill is going to cause much interference with family life in many small homes and that it will be resented accordingly. I feel that it is going to cause injustice to many owners and I am afraid that in these days of shifting population, of greater travel facilities, of changing social and family conditions, it is really impracticable to try to fix the exact number of persons who at any time may sleep in a particular house. I think the Government would have been wiser and would have been more certain of achieving the end of preventing such overcrowding as is injurious to health, if they had stuck to that great campaign for slum clearance which they inaugurated two years ago and in which I wish them every success.
  9.40 p.m.
  Major JAMES MacANDREW: Most of the points raised by this Bill have been thoroughly threshed out already, and I will not detain the House long but I would like to express the hope that the Bill when it becomes law will fulfil the expectations of the Government. Unfortunately, in dealing with the housing question we are confronted by great difficulties and complications and throughout history it has always been the same. The gradual change in industry, the growth of new industries and the movement of certain industries from one place to another, mean that new houses are required in different areas from time to time. I understand that on Tuesday next we are to discuss the position in the depressed areas and, in connection with this Debate, it is necessary that we should bear in mind the fact that areas which are depressed to-day were prosperous areas but a short time ago and that areas which are prosperous to-day may have been depressed areas in the past. Naturally no one wants to see people in the depressed areas poorly housed but at the
  1976
  same time we have to be prepared to build new houses in those district to which the industries have moved and that can only be done in the light of the situation as it arises. Nobody not even a superman can foretell what sort of industries are going to be wanted in the future or where they are going to be.
  Another problem arises from the fact that as a result of the great advance in private enterprise a great many more motor cars exist now than existed previously. Only a short time ago, the motor car was looked upon as the monopoly of the rich. Nowadays many people own cars who a few years ago would have regarded a motor car as beyond their means. If that increase in the number of motor cars continues, it is only a matter of time before the people for whom houses are being provided will require houses with garages and we shall then be presented with a further difficulty. While on that point may I draw attention to another aspect of the situation with regard to overcrowding. The new roads which have been built and the money which has been spent on existing roads have made the roads generally more satisfactory for bicycles as we must all have noticed, and have also made them much better for motor omnibuses and other forms of transport. People find it easier nowadays to get out into the country and if there happens to be a football match or a race meeting in a particular district far more people are able to attend it. The problem of overcrowding is going to arise again and again in various areas. We discussed for a long time in Committee the question of holiday periods in different districts but it appears to me that the holiday period which is now stereotyped, will tend eventually to spread out over the whole year, as it becomes easier for people to leave the towns and go out into the country and attend race meetings, football matches and so forth.
  Those difficulties about houses being built in the various districts in the past have been governed almost entirely by the law of supply and demand. In the past all things were expensive, and consequently political influences endeavoured to reduce the rents of houses for the people, with the result that now the freedom of private enterprise in house building is restricted, and I hope the Government will not put any

  1977
  unnecessary burdens in the way of private enterprise in house building. Undoubtedly private enterprise in this matter is practicable and, where profits are thought to be likely, private enterprise is always willing to undertake house building. It seems to me that nowadays there is a tremendous reduction in the cost of building, and the erection of houses is not such a problem as it was in the past. Food and clothing and most other things were expensive in the past, but nowadays more people can take advantage of all these things. The question of building is rapidly becoming the same now, in consequence of the great drop in the cost of building, and consequently I ask the Government to use what influence they can in placing as few obstacles as possible in the way of private enterprise in the building industry, because I am certain that a great service not only has been performed in the past, but can be performed in the future by this great industry. I wish in conclusion to express the hope that when the Bill becomes law the results will be of benefit to the country as a whole.
  9.48 p.m.
  Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: Like many other speakers in this Debate, I am delighted to find myself in support of this particular Measure, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has brought to this stage. I think it is one of the most desirable Bills that have been brought forward in this House for many years. It is in fact a public health Measure. It is really for the amelioration of the public health of our fellow countrymen, because the prevention of overcrowding is for the purpose of promoting public health, and for that reason I find myself strongly in support of it. At an earlier stage I heard the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) say that he thought the Bill was in error in that it did not compensate sufficiently those whose houses would be declared unfit under it. I do not at all agree with that sentiment. I think it wrong. I think that every step forward necessitates reducing the value of the property of somebody who happens to be affected. Under all the Factory Acts great improvements were introduced at large cost, not to the general public, but
  1978
  to the particular people to whom those Acts applied. The manufacturers who had buildings had so to arrange them, protect them, and make dispositions in regard to them that it cost them a good deal of money, but they did not come to the Government and say, "Because you are imposing these Acts and improving the health of the people, therefore you ought to compensate us." I think that while, as far as I am aware, this Bill seems to give adequate compensation where compensation is due, it is yet true that when a house is really in an unfit condition for the standard which we are now setting up, it is those who happen to own those houses who ought to suffer, and not necessarily the general public in paying for them.
  I would have been better pleased had the Bill been brought in in two parts, and had one part applied to urban areas, to the cities and towns in Scotland, and the other part wholly to the rural areas. I am very much afraid that in the area in which I happen to live the Bill will largely remain a dead letter, for the simple reason that the burden laid upon the local ratepayers will be so great that they will be unable to meet that burden and as a consequence will be unable so to arrange matters that the appointed day on which the Act can come into force cannot be settled. It seems to me that unless the sub-committee to which the Secretary of State referred earlier is appointed and reports quickly, and whatever the report may be, the right hon. Gentleman is able to persuade the Treasury to find money to help the rural areas, and particularly the areas in the Highlands of Scotland, which I think I know so well, this Bill will not really be applicable in the way that it probably will be in the larger towns and the more densely populated areas in the middle belt of the country. I therefore hope the Secretary of State will keep strongly in mind that the rural part of the country is not necessarily for many a long day going to benefit under this Bill, unless further financial provision is made for the rural councils which will have to administer it.
  9.52 p.m.
  Sir JOHN WALLACE: I should like to say how much I am in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Major MacAndrew)

  1979
  when he expressed the hope that the Government would do everything possible to encourage private enterprise in the building of houses. We know how successful private enterprise has been in England, and I feel sure there is still a great work for private enterprise in Scotland in providing the houses that are required there at the present time. I always think long speeches in Third Reading Debates are not particularly helpful, and do not fulfil any useful purpose, and accordingly my own observations will be of the briefest possible character.
  The only reason I venture to intervene is that the other day I read the Second Reading speech on this Bill delivered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who in that speech gave some very startling facts regarding housing conditions in Scotland. He told us that nearly half of all the houses in Scotland contained only one or two apartments, and he added that only one-third of the total population, or nearly 1,750,000 people, are living more than two in a room, and nearly 750,000 are living more than three in a room. I think that that has only to be stated in plain language for us all to realise the housing problem in Scotland, and to accept at once the desirability of a Bill of this nature. I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon having reached this stage of the Bill, and also upon having obtained a measure of financial support from the Treasury which reflects credit, not only on himself, but also on the Treasury. The Treasury has contributed in the most generous manner to the financial provisions of the Bill, and although some of us remain dissatisfied with the subsidies which refer to houses built in 1930, we must agree that, upon the whole, the Secretary of State has done his best in the interest of all concerned.
  I suggest now that everything in this Measure depends upon the ability of the Scottish Office. I happened to attend a meeting yesterday not far from this House, where a distinguished Member, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) addressed a great convention. He stated in that explicit language of which he is
  1980
  such a master, that he was willing to enter upon a campaign provided that those associated with him meant business. I suggest that the Scottish Office might take that particular point of view to heart in the application and administration of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has devoted a long time, and all the energies of his Department, to producing this Measure, which has been subjected to considerable criticism and improvement in Committee. Now everything remains with the administration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) made a speech which has been criticised in various quarters, but I do not intend to go into the merits of the various points which he raised. I suggest, however, that, with whatever enthusiasm this Bill may be administered, the various questions put by the right hon. Gentleman demand a certain amount of attention and a definite answer from the Scottish Office. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced the Bill, he stated that five years ahead from that date slums should cease to exist in Scotland. I do not know whether that was only a pious hope—
  Sir G. COLLINS: No.
  Sir J. WALLACE: If it were something more, if it were a definite promise on the part of my right hon. Friend, I can only assure him that this House and the whole of Scotland will be solidly behind him in getting rid of the slums, which for so long have been a disgrace to and a blemish on the fair name and fame of that country to which we are all so proud to belong.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten o'Clock.