Commons Sitting of 17 February 1938

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Lee Conservancy Catchment Board Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
London and North Eastern Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Southern Railway Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION.
  Mr. Silvermanasked the Minister of Labour whether His Majesty's Government will be represented at the forthcoming meeting of experts on the question of international migration which has been summoned by the International Labour Office; whether he can give any information on the proposed scope of their discussion; and what preliminary inquiries, if any, have been made by His Majesty's Government in preparation for this conference?
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Bassetlaw Division of Nottinghamshire (Mr. Bellenger) on 10th February of this year. In reply to the second part of the question, the subject to be considered at the forthcoming meeting will be that of technical and financial international co-operation with regard to migration for settlement. As regards preliminary inquiries, a comprehensive memorandum has been prepared by the International Labour Office.
  Mr. Silverman: Is that memorandum available?
  Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, and I will have a copy sent to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Bellenger: Are arrangements being made under this discussion for immigration into British Dominions, and, if so, should we not be represented?
  Mr. Brown: No, Sir. As I understand it, it is mainly concerned with South America.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour whether he will inquire into the growing practice among Unemployment Assistance Board officers of making deductions on account of the wages of sons and daughters who have left home and can no longer be considered as members of the household within the meaning of the Act; and whether he will draw the attention of all such officers to the undesirability of this practice?
    Mr. E. Brown: Cases of this type are exceptional, and the Board inform me that they have no evidence that their number is increasing. As the hon. Member is aware, it is open to an aggrieved applicant to exercise his right of appeal under the Act if in any instance the facts on which the officer has proceeded are in doubt or dispute.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this practice is going on, that young men and young women who are living quite a distance away from home and who have to maintain themselves are being pursued by officials and being forced to take on a responsibility which should not be theirs?
    Mr. Brown: These are quite exceptional cases and are such as happen occasionally under the ordinary Poor Law.
    Mr. Lawson: Is it the practice to take into calculation moneys earned by sons and daughters?
    Mr. Brown: These are cases, which have have been debated in the House, where there is ground for believing that there is collusive action.
    Mr. Lawson: By what right under the law does this practice continue?
    Mr. Brown: It is a legal practice. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Then there is a difference of opinion. I am asked for my view, and I am giving it. It is a legal practice, and, as a matter of fact, though very exceptional, such cases happen under the ordinary Poor Law.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot have a Debate on this question.
    Mr. Lawson: On a point of Order. This touches a very important point in the administration of unemployment allowances. May I ask whether it is not permissible to ask the Minister under what Section of the Act the Government representatives are acting in this matter?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will put that question down, I shall be glad to answer it.
    Mr. Gallacher rose——
    Mr. Speaker: If we treat every question in this manner, we shall have to consider some other method of dealing with Questions.
    Mr. Gallacher: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer, I will raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment.
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Labour the number of applications for assistance received by the Unemployment Assistance Board at Blaenavon, Pontypool and Pontnewydd from persons in receipt of unemployment benefit during the months of November, December and January last, and the number of applications granted?
    Mr. Brown: In the board's administrative area of Pontypool, which includes Blaenavon and Pontnewydd, the number of applications for unemployment allowances in supplementation of payments of unemployment benefit during the months of November, December and January last was 114, in 86 of which an allowance was authorised.
    Mr. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Labour the number of applications for additional assistance made at Blaenavon,
    2038
    Pontypool, and Pontnewydd under the Circular issued by the Unemployment Assistance Board, and the number of applications granted?
    Mr. Brown: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the Circular regarding special consideration in view of the rise in price of some commodities and the coming of the winter months. In the Board's administrative area of Pontypool which includes Blaenavon and Pontnewydd, there were on 17th January, 2,354 additions to current assessments on account of the special circumstances dealt with in the Board's Circular. This figure excludes cases in which the assessment already contained an equal or greater addition under the stand-still arrangements. As regards applications, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 18th November last.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he will inquire into the reason why assistance was refused by the Arbroath Unemployment Assistance Board to Robert Doyle, of 45, John Street, Arbroath, on 29th January, 1938, when the latter had returned from five days at sea as member of a fishing crew, but was unable to draw any wages owing to the non-success of the fishing; whether he is aware that the child of Robert Doyle was ill and receiving medical attention and that there was no food in the house; and that the applicant, a fully-insured fisherman, was compelled to go to the public assistance committee for immediate aid;
    (2) whether he will inquire into the circumstances in which Archibald Smith, of 50, Marketgate, Arbroath, was refused assistance by the Arbroath Unemployment Assistance Board, on 29th January, 1938, when the latter had returned from five days at sea but had drawn no wages owing to the non-success of the fishing; whether he is aware that Mrs. Smith was within a few days of confinement, and that even on 31st January, 1938, assistance was refused again; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the emergency needs of fishermen are promptly attended to?
    Mr. Brown: I am having inquiry made in each of these cases, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very harsh treatment of the officials in the north of Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman give his most careful attention to it?
    Mr. Brown: I made inquiries at once.
    Mr. Mainwaringasked the Minister of Labour whether the procedure adopted in the Rhondda area whereby, when claims for extra nourishment allowances are made, the invalids are requested to travel many miles for the purpose of being examined by the regional medical officer is to become general; why this change of procedure was decided upon; and whether there is any reason to be dissatisfied with the views expressed by the claimants' own medical advisers?
    Mr. Brown: I am informed by the Board that the arrangements under which certain cases are referred to regional medical officers have been operative without alteration since 1935. The procedure is used in exceptional cases only and if the hon. Member will furnish particulars of any case in which he thinks hardship may have been caused, the Board will be prepared to make full inquiry into it.
    Mr. Mainwaring: Does the Minister intend the House to understand that the procedure referred to in the question has been in operation since 1935?
    Mr. Brown: That is my information from the Board.
    Mr. Mainwaring: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept it from me that these are the first instances in the whole of the South Wales area?
    Mr. Brown: I should doubt that, but if the hon. Member thinks that is so, I will make another inquiry and inform the House.
    Mr. Pearsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that two claimants for unemployment assistance at the Pontyclun area office having earned 25s. 11d. and 25s. 8d., respectively, upon intermittent work were granted allowances of 1d. and 4d., respectively; and will he inquire as to the reasons for these decisions?
    Mr. Brown: I am having inquiry made and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Labour whether he can now give any information in connection with a girl's bonus of 24s. paid to her by Messrs. Zan, Limited, of Wheelock, Sandbach, for good work in the past year, which led to her father's unemployment pay being reduced by 5s. a week for four weeks; whether he has received any information from the chief officer of the Unemployment Assistance Board at Crewe about the matter; whether the girls' bonus was assessed as part of the family income; and what he intends doing about the case?
    Mr. E. Brown: It is the normal practice of the board to allow such a bonus in full for the personal requirements of the recipient. In the case cited the bonus was not immediately identified as such, with the result that it was included in the calculation of the average wages of the daughter. As soon as the attention of the area officer was drawn to the fact that the payment of 24s. was a bonus payment he reassessed the father's allowance and restored the deduction of 4s. which had been made. Only one payment took place under the reduced assessment, and the shortage of 4s. for that week, due to the inclusion of the bonus in the calculation of the daughter's average wages, was made up in the course of the following week.
    Mr. Thorne: Can the Minister say why the officer did not know about this regulation?
    Mr. Brown: I suppose an error was made here.

    ELDERLY PEOPLE.
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now completed his investigations into the problem of providing work for the elderly unemployed; and whether he can indicate what steps he proposes to take to deal with the problem?
    Mr. E. Brown: I completed two days ago my visits to the divisional areas of the Ministry. In the course of these visits a great number of figures and suggestions were brought to my notice, all of which will need to be carefully sifted and examined before I can be in a position to come to any conclusions.
    Mr. Griffiths: In view of the fact that it is now over nine months since the right

    2041
    hon. Gentleman made the public statement on his visit to South Wales that plans will soon be put forward, how long have we to wait?
    Mr. Brown: I started my tour of the nine Ministry divisions on 1st September.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Was the last place that the Minister visited Ipswich?

    SITE COMPANIES.
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour how many applications have been received for the certification of areas under Section 5 of the Special Areas Act, 1937; what areas have made such applications; how many site companies have already been formed or are in process of being formed; and whether he is satisfied that the provisions of the Act of 1937 can be of assistance to those areas?
    Mr. E. Brown: A total of 36 applications, all of which are from local authorities in Lancashire or in the adjacent parts of neighbouring counties, have been made for the certification of areas under Section 5 of the Special Areas Act, 1937. One site company has been formed—under the aegis of the Lancashire Industrial Development Council. I have no information as to the formation of other site companies, but the matter is, I understand, under consideration in other areas. With regard to the last part of the question, I am confident that the provisions of this Section can be of assistance to areas in which there is sufficient local initiative to profit by the advantages which they offer.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the establishment of one site factory in 12 months as satisfactory progress under the scheme? Does it not indicate that the scheme is totally inadequate to deal with the problem?
    Mr. Brown: It means that some local people are not busy enough.

    SCOTLAND.
    Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour the total number of registered unemployed in Scotland for the years ending January, 1935, and 1938, respectively?
    Mr. E. Brown: The average numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Scotland for the years ended January, 1935, and
    2042
    January, 1938, were 330,341 and 243,217, respectively.
    Mr. Davidson: Can the Minister say what number or percentage of that decrease are now in employment and what number are on Poor Law relief?
    Mr. Brown: This number covers all who are on Poor Law relief, with the exception of such workmen as are outside the Insurance Act—a small number; I believe about 3,000 over the whole country. Otherwise all those who receive Poor Law relief are covered.
    Mr. Davidson: The Minister has indicated a decrease. Can he give figures showing the number of men in that decrease who are actually now in employment?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put that question on the Paper, and I will do my best to give him an answer.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour the total amount paid in unemployment benefit for the whole of Scotland, excepting Leith, for the years ended January, 1935 and 1938, respectively?
    Mr. Brown: The approximate amounts paid in unemployment benefit for the area specified in the question during the years ended January, 1935 and 1938 respectively, were £4,400,000 and £4,100,000, the latter including £79,000 for agricultural benefit. The figures exclude payments made through associations, for which a geographical analysis is not available.
    Mr. Davidson: If any Member of the House desires it, will the right hon. Gentleman issue a confidential report with regard to the part of Scotland that is carefully avoided in this question, on which the right hon. Gentleman is very well informed, and so are his constituents?

    DURHAM COUNTY.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the percentage of unemployment is increasing among the insured workers in County Durham; and what steps he is taking to deal with the situation?
    Mr. E. Brown: The percentage rate of unemployment in County Durham increased between November and December, 1937, from 17.9 to 20.6, but fell to

    2043
    19.4 at January, 1938, which was over three points below the rate at the corresponding date late year. As regards the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member of the advantages which the county derives from the Special Areas Acts, from the reopening of a Government factory in the area and from the preference given in placing Government contracts.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been an increased percentage of unemployment in the administrative county and that the figures are alarming in the county boroughs; and what is he prepared to do to meet the situation?
    Mr. Brown: The answer I have given does not bear out the hon. Member's use of the word "alarming."
    Mr. Shinwell: Do not the unemployment figures in the County of Durham indicate that the steps already taken by the Government are inadequate, and does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the need for taking further steps?
    Mr. Brown: The highest point was in January, 1933, when it was 41.2, and it is now 19.4. That is sufficient commentary.

    TRADING ESTATES (PUBLICITY).
    Mr. Mainwaringasked the Minister of Labour the total amount paid to publicity agents and for advertising purposes for the trading estates established by the Ministry, separately for each estate and for each year to date?
    Mr. E. Brown: No trading estates have been established by the Ministry of Labour. The Team Valley Estate and the Treforest Estate have been established by North Eastern Trading Estates, Limited, and South Wales and Monmouthshire Trading Estates, Limited, respectively. These companies are financed by means of loans provided from the Special Areas Fund under agreements between the companies and the Commissioner. The agreements cover the general basis of development and provide for payment of interest on the loans but do not extend to such details as the amount which may be spent on publicity. This is left to the discretion of the boards of directors of the companies.
    Mr. Mainwaring: Are we to understand that the Minister has no information about the amount spent in this connection?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot add anything to the answer. If the hon. Member desires any information I am sure the company will be glad to let him have it.
    Mr. Mainwaring: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the amount spent on publicity and consider whether that amount is satisfactory, having regard to the meagre results?
    Mr. Brown: I should say, as far as I have observed, that the publicity has been extremely well done, and I should have thought that hon. Members in South Wales would have welcomed it.
    Mr. Mainwaring: What about results?

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (BENEFIT).
    Mr. Maxwellasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that considerable inequity is caused by the provision that agricultural workers who have exhausted their benefit rights in a particular benefit year are ineligible for benefit until 10 fresh contributions have been made; that this provision is leading to the anomaly that certain agricultural workers are unable to claim any benefit whatever in respect of as much as 38 good contributions; and what steps he is taking to remedy this grievance?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am aware that in certain types of cases an anomalous position may arise owing to this rule and consideration is being given to the matter at this moment.
    Mr. T. Williams: Is not the right hon. Gentleman willing to tell the House that, if this anomaly does exist whereby the agricultural worker is put under pains and penalties under his Act, he will find a remedy?
    Mr. Brown: I have said that it is under consideration at this moment. I expect a recommendation in the report which is due in a fortnight.
    Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman depending on the Statutory Committee to make a recommendation?
    Mr. Brown: I have asked the Committee to consider its implications. The structure of the Agricultural Fund is a difficult one, and we have tried to see how we can remedy the anomalies.
    Mr. Maxwellasked the Minister of Labour whether he will attempt to find a method whereby a worker's contributions in respect of general unemployment insurance and of agricultural unemployment insurance can be added together in such a manner as to render a contributor eligible for benefit under one scheme or the other in cases where he has not made sufficient contributions to either separate scheme to enable him to obtain benefit?
    Mr. Brown: I am afraid that I cannot add to my reply on this subject last Thursday to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton),
    Mr. Maxwell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is bad for insurance principles in general that a man can contribute as many as 48 good contributions without getting any benefit?
    Mr. Brown: That is another point. I am not proposing to deal with the general question but to that referred to in the previous question.

    TRANSFERENCE.
    Mr. Roland Robinsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the complaints from South Wales that young workers transferred from the South Wales area are depressing the standards and wages of the ordinary working people of other areas; whether he has received any complaints from other areas; and whether his Department has any information as to the way in which the conditions of transferred labour compare with ordinary labour conditions?
    Mr. E. Brown: No such complaints have been made to me, and I feel assured that they could not be made with any justification in fact. Under the Department's transference scheme, juveniles and others are assisted to transfer only to openings for which suitable workpeople are not available locally, and for which the wages offered are not lower than those normally paid in the district in the occupation concerned.
    Mr. David Grenfell: What kind of machinery has the Department for keeping in touch with these young people?
    Mr. Brown: We have a most elaborate system.

    CARMARTHENSHIRE.
    Mr. Hopkinasked the Minister of Labour what the prospects are for the
    2046
    formation of a site company in Carmarthenshire; and, in case of failure to form such a site company, what steps he proposes to take to deal with the serious unemployment in the Gwendraeth Valley?
    Mr. E. Brown: The formation of site companies under Section 5 of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, is a matter primarily for local initiative, and I have no information as to the prospects of such action in Carmarthenshire. I believe that the question of forming a site company to operate anywhere in Wales or Monmouthshire to which Section 5 of the Act might be applied is under consideration by the National Industrial Development Council for Wales and Monmouthshire.
    Mr. Hopkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that four men out of five are unemployed and has he no kind of plan for dealing with them?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member did not ask me a general question; he asked me a particular one. I suggest that he gets into touch with the Development Council and see whether his area is being considered.
    Mr. Mainwaring: Is not the Minister of the opinion, having regard to the slow rate of progress in finding work, that the whole country should be sited as one site?

    BENEFIT.
    Mr. Whiteleyasked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared, owing to the increased cost of living, to recommend additional benefit to the unemployed?
    Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the surplus in the Unemployment Fund, he is now prepared to recommend an increase in unemployment benefit to meet the rise in the cost of living?
    Mr. E. Brown: I must ask the hon. Members to await the forthcoming report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee which will show the amount, if any, of the disposable surplus in the Unemployment Fund and make recommendations with regard thereto.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that recipients of the Unemployment Assistance Board in special circumstances have increases to

    2047
    meet the cost of living? Will he recommend an increase for those receiving ordinary standard benefit?
    Mr. Brown: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the report which will be produced at the end of the month.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make the necessary arrangements so that unemployment and Poor Law relief figures shall be issued simultaneously for the purpose of giving Members of the House and the general public a complete conspectus of the unemployment problem in the country?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that it is not practicable to compile Poor Law figures in respect of persons relieved on account of unemployment in time for publication with the unemployment figures for the same date. The statistics of unemployment compiled by my Department give a complete conspectus of the unemployment problem and include practically all able-bodied persons who are in receipt of Poor Law relief on account of unemployment. Consequently any assumption that the Poor Law figures must be added to the official unemployment figures for this purpose is erroneous.

    NORMANTON, CASTLEFORD AND PONTEFRACT.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Minister of Labour whether he can make a statement on the age distribution of the wholly unemployed registered at Normanton, Castleford, and Pontefract, respectively, at the latest convenient date?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Smith: How many of the men out of work would be over 50 years of age?
    Mr. Brown: The table sub-divides them into ages.
    Following is the statement:
    Table giving an analysis by age of persons, aged 18 years and over, registered as wholly unemployed at the Normanton, Castleford and Pontefract Employment Exchanges at 1st November, 1937, the latest date for which such an analysis is available:
    2048

    Age Group.

    Normanton.

    Castleford.

    Pontefract.

    18–20 years

    14

    46

    41

    21–24 years

    30

    122

    70

    25–34 years

    83

    352

    156

    35–44 years

    112

    391

    136

    45–54 years

    126

    478

    169

    55–59 years

    88

    295

    97

    60–64 years

    94

    334

    78

    65 years and over

    —

    —

    2

    Total aged 18 and over.

    547

    2,018

    749

    Corresponding statistics for juveniles under 18 years of age are not available for 1st November, but at 15th November, 1937, the numbers, aged 14 and under 16 years, and aged 16 and under 18 years, registered as wholly unemployed were as follow:

    Age Group.

    Nor manton.

    Castleford.

    Pontefract.

    14 and under 16 years.

    25

    16

    25

    16 and under 18 years.

    12

    28

    24

    Total, aged 14 and under 18 years.

    37

    44

    49

    DOMESTIC SERVICE.
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Minister of Labour whether he has completed his scheme for making domestic service more attractive; whether he proposes to publish it for general information; how many applications were in 1937 made to the Employment Exchanges for maids of all sorts; and whether his scheme will embrace the consideration of how to make the Employment Exchanges more useful for the purpose?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have noted for consideration certain proposals made in various quarters for the formulation of a scheme of this kind but have not as yet come to any conclusion as to whether such action would be a substantial contribution to the solution of the problem or to what extent it may be a matter for the Government rather than for private initiation. The number of vacancies for women and girls in private domestic service notified to the Employment Exchanges in 1937 was 124,863.
    Mr. R. Robinsonasked the Minister of Labour whether, in investigating the

    2049
    shortage of hotel and other domestic workers during the summer season, his Department has made allowance for the deterring effect of the present seasonal workers' regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Acts; and whether he has any information which would show what would be the effect on the supply of such labour of a mitigation or cancellation of those regulations?
    Mr. Brown: I have no information which suggests that the Regulations referred to have had any effect in deterring persons from undertaking hotel and other domestic work during the summer season at holiday resorts.
    Mr. Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend not well aware of the shortage of workers in that industry in the summer season, and is it not obvious that it will always be difficult to get new entrants into an industry if it is not covered by unemployment insurance?
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that better wages and better conditions are provided?

  LICENSED TRADES (WAGES).
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that male and female assistants in the licensed trades are often employed up to 70 hours per week; that the wages of married men thus employed range between 50s. and 55s. per week and of single adult men between 30s. and 50s., and that barmaids seldom receive more than 30s. per week wages; and will he take steps to remedy this state of affairs?
  Mr. E. Brown: I have no recent information with regard to conditions in these trades. If the hon. Member has particular cases in mind and can furnish me with details, I shall be glad to look into the matter.
  Mr. Davies: In view of the many allegations that are made and of the information that must be known to the right hon. Gentleman, will he not go into this problem with a view to remedying this state of affairs?
  Mr. Brown: I will consider whether I can get both sides together to discuss the matter at an early opportunity.
  Mr. Duncan: If the hours of licensed premises were more uniform in the country, would it not be easier for the trade to arrange better hours for the workpeople?

  CINEMA EMPLOYES (HOURS OF WORK).
  Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now had the replies from the cinematograph trade to his inquiries with reference to the hours of labour employés engaged at cinematograph theatres are expected to work; and what action he now proposes to take?
  Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on 3rd and 10th February, to the hon. Members for Doncaster (Mr. Short) and East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White).
  Mr. Day: Has the right hon. Gentleman now received the supplementary details for which he said he was asking from several hundred of the cinematograph and theatrical proprietors over two months ago?
  Mr. Brown: In the reply to which I have referred it was stated that there were about 500 outstanding. I have received over 100 of those, and I am hopeful of getting the remainder very shortly.
  Mr. Day: Considering there are now about 400 outstanding and that this inquiry has been going on for some months, what action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take?
  Mr. Brown: Personal visits.

  WASHINGTON TEXTILE CONFERENCE.
  Mr. Silvermanasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give any information on the decision of the governing body of the International Labour Office to set up an inquiry into the measures necessary to prosperity and social justice in the textile trades; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to be represented on this inquiry?
  Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) on 10th February, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. Silverman: In view of the conditions of many factory workers, will the Minister reverse the somewhat inactive policy he has adopted at the International Labour Office with regard to the improvement of conditions by international action?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is under a complete misapprehension in this matter. This inquiry was set up under a proposal by His Majesty's Government and we are co-operating fully.

  SHOPS ACTS.
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to state what steps he proposes to take to secure the better enforcement of the Shops Acts by local authorities?
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) on 3rd February.

  JUVENILE DELINQUENTS.
  Mr. Gardnerasked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information on the general behaviour of 16-year-old lads in remand homes; whether their detention in association with more juvenile delinquents is now considered to be helpful or harmful to younger inmates; how many lads of this age absconded during the year ended December, 1937; and what percentage those who absconded represent of 16-year-old male delinquents for that year?

  Year.

  Persons found guilty of indictable offences.

  Males.

  Females.

  E.

  W.

  E.

  W.

  1930

  …

  …

  …

  14,276

  1,140

  1,543

  102

  1936

  …

  …

  …

  18,744

  1,018

  1,852

  67

  There is no relation between these figures and the committals to Borstal institutions, as the Borstal age was 16 to
  Sir S. Hoare: The reception of boys of 16 in remand homes has not given rise to special difficulty. Arrangements are made as far as possible to separate them at work and at night from boys under 14. In reply to the latter parts of the hon. Member's question, I regret that exact information is not available, but it is estimated that about 80 boys of 16 absconded from remand homes during 1937, and that the number found guilty of indictable offences during that year is about 3,600, of whom about one-quarter would be remanded in custody.
  Sir William Jenkinsasked the Home Secretary (1) what number of boys and what number of girls under the ages of 14 years came before the courts in England and Wales in 1930, 1936, and 1937, respectively; how many were committed to institutions; and whether he can state the kind of institutions they were sent to, and for what periods, giving figures for England and Wales separately, and what is the average cost per child;
  (2) what number of boys and what number of girls between the ages of 14 and 21 years came before the courts in England and Wales in 1930, 1936, and 1937; how many were committed to Borstal or any other institution, and for what period; and will he give the average cost per child and give separate figures for England and Wales?
  Sir S. Hoare: As the answer includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The numbers of persons aged 14 to 21 found guilty in 1930 and 1936 of indictable offences are as follow. The figures for 1937 are not available:
  21 till August, 1936, and was then raised as regards offenders convicted on indictment to 23.

  2053
  Figures showing the number of persons between 16 and 21 sentenced both to imprisonment and to Borstal institutions are published in the annual reports of the Prison Commissioners, and I am sending the hon. Member the figures for 1930 and 1936.
  The average period of detention in Borstal institutions is about two years, and the periods of imprisonment vary from a week to a year or more.
  The average cost for the year ended 31st March, 1936, of a Borstal inmate was £140 per year, and of a prisoner £104 per year.
  The numbers of boys and girls under age 14 found guilty of indictable offences

  Year.

  Institutions.

  Reformatory or Industrial Schools or Approved Schools.

  Institutions for Defectives.

  Place of Detention or Remand Home.

  E.

  W.

  E.

  W.

  E.

  W.

  1930

  …

  …

  …

  …

  1,386

  52

  43

  3

  3

  1

  1936

  …

  …

  …

  …

  3,805

  120

  108

  4

  36

  1

  As regards the period of detention, detention in a place of detention or remand home does not usually exceed a month, detention in an institution for defectives may be for many years and detention in approved schools is usually for two or three years.
  The average cost of maintenance in approved schools was approximately 28s. a week both in 1930 and 1936. Separate figures for Welsh schools are not available but there was no appreciable difference between the costs of maintenance in English schools and Welsh schools, respectively.
  Figures for 1937 are not yet available.

  SPECIAL CONSTABULARY STAFF INSPECTORS.
  Captain Conantasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the recent additional responsibilities of special constabulary staff inspectors, it is proposed to increase the pay of these officers?
  Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir. The remuneration of the Metropolitan Special Constabulary staff inspectors has been examined
  in England and Wales in 1930 and 1936 were as follow:

  —

  1930.

  1936.

  England—

  Males

  6,087

  12,885

  Females

  336

  721

  Wales—

  Males

  403

  819

  Females

  37

  34

  As regards committals to institutions the only figures available are the numbers of those under 16 committed to institutions in 1930, and of those under 17 in 1936.
  by a committee, and after consideration of their recommendations, I have approved proposals (a) for increasing the basic salary of the Grade III inspectors by transferring them and the existing Grade II inspectors to a new Grade II, and (b) for the payment, under certain conditions, of additional pensionable allowances in suitable cases up to a maximum of £2 a week.
  Mr. Kelly: Is consideration being given to the men who are not paid so much as inspectors?
  Sir S. Hoare: Yes, I feel sure that is the case.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Mr. Tinkerasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in January two deaths took place in Leigh through accidents in the mine; that in both cases a certain number of weekly payments of compensation had been made, and because of this the amount paid to each widow for the loss of her husband was £200; and will he consider amending the Workmen's Compensation Acts so that the weekly payments shall not be taken into account when death occurs?
  Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member has been good enough to send me particulars of the cases referred to. The point raised, however, is a controversial point which was discussed when the Bill of 1923 was before the House, the result being the somewhat elaborate compromise contained in the present law. It could not very well be reconsidered apart from a general review of the rates of benefit payable in fatal cases.
  Mr. Tinker: The right hon. Gentleman is setting to work to improve many things which come under his Department, and surely this is one that might engage his attention, because of the great hardship involved?
  Sir S. Hoare: I certainly think that this is a question which will have to be taken into account if and when there is new workmen's compensation legislation.
  Mr. T. Williams: As the compromise was instituted in 1923, and we have now had 15 years' experience of it, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the value of the life of any person killed in a mine or elsewhere should now be put at a higher figure than £200?
  Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member raises a wider question than that which is in the original question. I have said that the point raised in the original question will have to be taken into account when there is new legislation.
  Mr. T. Smith: Will the Home Secretary, when considering workmens' compensation, inquire into some of the Acts in operation in the Dominions, which are far in advance of those in this country?
  Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir. I will certainly take them into account.
  Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the general provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts, by which dependants can claim compensation in cases where death is primarily due to some disease but is accelerated by an accident during the course of employment, he will give consideration to the amending of the various silicosis schemes so as to permit the medical board to grant certificates in cases where they are satisfied that death was accelerated by silicosis so as to enable the dependants in such cases to claim compensation?
  Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member would appear to be under some misapprehension. The question for decision, both as regards silicosis and as regards the industrial diseases scheduled under the ordinary provisions of the Act, is whether death was caused by the disease, and I am advised that, in conformity with the principles laid down in decisions of the Courts in cases of accident or scheduled disease, the board can, and often do, give a certificate to that effect where the silicosis is not the primary cause of death but is a secondary and accelerating cause.
  Mr. Griffiths: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the board certifies that silicosis is only a secondary cause of death no compensation is payable, and what I am asking is whether he will consider, with the Medical Board, the alteration of the regulations so that where they are satisfied that silicosis has accelerated a death, the dependants will be able to get compensation?
  Sir S. Hoare: This is a very complicated question, as the hon. Member knows. I should be glad, if he so wishes, if he would have some further discussions with me or my Department.

  RATING SYSTEM.
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the need for the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the unsatisfactory nature of the existing rating system, the unfair incidence of local taxation, and the anomalous situation created through the effect of the present system of rating?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I am not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for the appointment of a Royal Commission as suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that derating and the Government's financial policy are throwing more and more financial responsibilities on to local authorities, and are strangling local authorities, and will he reconsider his reply?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can add to the answer which I have given.
  Mr. Thorne: Will the Prime Minister, between now and Budget Day, consider the advisability of giving the local authorities a bigger contribution under the block grant?
  The Prime Minister: That appears to be a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  CONSCRIPTION.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he is able to give an assurance that the pledge given by the late Prime Minister that conscription would not be introduced in peace time by his Government applies equally to the present administration?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Mander: Does that answer apply to all forms of compulsory service?
  The Prime Minister: It applies to what is asked in the question.
  Mr. Mander: That is both military and civil. Do I understand that the answer applies to both military and civil service?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Mander: In that case would the Prime Minister be good enough to see that that answer is conveyed to some of his supporters?
  Viscountess Astor: Will the Prime Minister see that in case of war there will be some sort of national service, so that the best will not all be killed first?

  DIRECTOR OF CIVIL AVIATION (STAFF).
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the complaints laid before him of unfair treatment meted out to officers of the staff serving at the Air Ministry under the Director of Civil Aviation; and will he make a statement?
  The Prime Minister: I have received no such complaints. In any case the appropriate person to whom to appeal would be the Secretary of State for Air.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard nothing of the complaints, which are becoming common property and which are impairing the efficiency of the Department concerned,
  2058
  and will he make inquiries of the Secretary of State for Air as to these complaints, which call for the exercise of his authority to settle?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Member asked me about complaints which had been laid before me and I have told him that I have not had them.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries from the Secretary of State for Air?
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Did the Prime Minister not get a complaint yesterday from Ipswich?

  COUNCIL OF FOREIGN BONDHOLDERS.
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister whether he can now find time to consider the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Evesham relating to the Council of Foreign Bondholders?
  [That this House is of opinion that, in view of the enormous losses sustained by the British public for the past 25 years in lending to Foreign Powers, it is desirable to reconstitute the Council of Foreign Bondholders (which was incorporated under the Corporation of Foreign Bond-holders Act, 1898), and that the existing Council should be dissolved and a new Council established, and that the objects and scope of the Council should be enlarged.]
  The Prime Minister: I fear I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on 15th December last, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is the Prime Minister aware of the masterly state of inactivity of the Council of Foreign Bondholders, and why it is that they have succumbed to the blandishments or dragooning of the Foreign Office, Treasury——
  Hon. Members: And the B.B.C.

  FOREIGN POLICY.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Foreign Secretary at Birmingham as regards the foreign policy of this country represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

  COAL (PRICES).
  Mr. Grenfellasked the Prime Minister whether he will move for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the conditions of supply and sale of coal with regard to the expenses of selling and to the prices charged to the consumer of all classes of coal?
  The Prime Minister: I am fully aware of the anxiety of the public that the interests of the consumer should be safeguarded in any arrangements affecting the price or conditions of sale of coal. The matter is receiving my consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement.
  Mr. Attlee: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the expression of opinion on all sides of the House with regard to the impossibility under the present Coal Bill of dealing with intermediate prices, and will he consider, in the interests of the miners and consumers, whether there should not be a committee or other body set up to inquire into the

  Proceedings and convictions for drunkenness of males and females in the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London during the years 1936 and 1937.

  Year.

  Number of Proceedings.

  Number of Convictions.

  Males.

  Females.

  Total.

  1936

  …

  …

  …

  …

  20,306

  13,571

  4,049

  17,620

  1937 (provisional figures)

  …

  20,808

  14,226

  3,755

  17,981

  JURY SERVICE.
  Mr. Dayasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider amending the Juries Act, so as to exempt from jury service those elected representatives serving as borough, county, or district councillors?
  Sir S. Hoare: Whatever may be the arguments for or against extending the existing exemptions from jury service, I am not in a position to hold out hopes of legislation on this subject in the near future.
  Mr. Day: In view of the fact that these representatives give so much of their time to serving on local government bodies, will the Minister consider whether this exemption can be made?
  matter, with power to get full information?
  The Prime Minister: I have said that the matter is under my consideration.
  Mr. Grenfell: How soon will the Prime Minister be able to give a definite answer?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot answer that question. I have said that the matter is under my consideration.

  DRUNKENNESS (PROSECUTIONS, LONDON).
  Mr. C. Wilsonasked the Home Secretary the number of proceedings and convictions for drunkenness of males and females, respectively, in the Metropolitan Police area, including the City of London, for the calendar years 1936 and 1937?
  Sir S. Hoare: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  Sir S. Hoare: Even though that be the case I am not in a position to contemplate legislation in the near future.

  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyleasked the Home Secretary whether, in connection with air-raid precautions, he will issue a card of simple instructions to each household capable of being displayed on a wall of a room in the house?
  Sir S. Hoare: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 3rd instant to a question by the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest). The form of the printed advice to be given to each householder will be considered

  2061
  in the light of the experience gained by the issue to local authorities of the book which has already been prepared.

  ALIENS.

    SUPERVISION.
    Sir Charles Cayzerasked the Home Secretary whether, when aliens are sentenced to deportation but no country will take them, the police compel them to report regularly so as to keep some measure of control over them; and, if so, how often these men have to report?
    Sir S. Hoare: It is a general requirement of the Aliens Order that every alien who has been in the country for three months must register with the police and report every change of residence. An alien may also be required by order of the Secretary of State to report to the police at stated intervals. This power is exercised when it is deemed necessary, but its use is now usually confined to cases where it is desired to keep an alien under special supervision pending investigation of identity and nationality with a view to deportation.
    Sir C. Cayzer: In the case of aliens whose nationality is not positively proved, is it not possible to return them to the country whence they came to this country?
    Sir S. Hoare: The trouble is that they have no country to which we can return them.
    Sir C. Cayzerasked the Home Secretary whether, in order to prevent the smuggling into this country of aliens by the crews of foreign vessels, it is the practice of the police in the dockland areas in London and other parts to check the passports of all known aliens from time to time; and, if not, will he take steps to have this done?
    Sir S. Hoare: To check the passports of persons who are known to be aliens would not assist in the discovery of individuals who enter the country surreptitiously and succeed for a time in concealing their foreign nationality. In addition to the careful steps taken at the ports to prevent such surreptitious entries, the police pursue active inquiries whenever there is ground for suspecting the bona fides of a person who represents himself to be a British subject.
    Mr. T. Williams: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the higher ranks of Transatlantic criminals can get through?
    Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, certainly not.

    FOREIGN CRIMINALS.
    Sir C. Cayzerasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the practice of his Department not to permit the entrance into this country of aliens with known criminal records, he can state how it was that the man, James Hynes, sentenced to 12 years' penal servitude for the Park Lane jewel robbery came to be admitted into this country in April, 1928, when he had been convicted of serious crimes in the United States of America on 10 previous occasions?
    Sir S. Hoare: Though this man has stated that he landed from the steamship "Olympic" in May, 1928, no record could be traced of his arrival and, despite inquiries, it could not be ascertained how he entered the country.

  SENTENCE (BOY, JARROW).
  Miss Wilkinsonasked the Home Secretary whether he will review the case of William Haley, aged 16, of 67, Cobden Street, Jarrow, who was sentenced to three months' hard labour for the theft of a bicycle on 30th December, with a view, on account of the boy's extreme youth, to taking him away from prison hard-labour conditions and giving him more suitable and kindly treatment?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am in full sympathy with the objections to the use of imprisonment as a method of dealing with young offenders of this type, but I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no action I can properly take in this case. I have no power to substitute another method of treatment for the sentence which was lawfully imposed by the court. The only course open to me would be to recommend the use of the Prerogative for the purpose of terminating the sentence of imprisonment. The result would be to give the boy the impression that his criminal conduct has been condoned, and I cannot think this course would be right in his own interest.
  Miss Wilkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman look further into this case in

  2063
  view of the fact that this is an excessively hard sentence on such a very young boy, the excuse for it being that there were two previous convictions, but one of them was only for stealing sweets when at school? He is a somewhat backward child. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is fair to leave this boy in prison in circumstances which may lead to his becoming a criminal for life?
  Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Lady is under some misunderstanding. I have no power to change the method of treatment and I cannot, therefore, impose a sentence of Borstal treatment in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment. I have no power.
  Miss Wilkinson: In view of the circumstances, if we in the area gave a promise that the boy will be thoroughly well looked after, could not the right hon. Gentleman exercise the Prerogative and will he not look into the matter again? I know that he cannot give an answer now.
  Sir S. Hoare: I will certainly look into it, but I hope that the hon. Lady will not think from that fact that I can see at present why I should change my decision.
  Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to put himself into communication with the stipendiary about this case?
  Sir S. Hoare: I do not think the hon. Member is in full possession of the facts. We have already been in full communication with the stipendiary magistrate in regard to this case.

  CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES (REPORT).
  Mr. Manderasked the Home Secretary whether he will arrange that the report of the Chief Inspector of Factories is published before the Home Office Vote is discussed in this House?
  Sir S. Hoare: This is an important report, the preparation of which necessarily takes some time, but there will be no avoidable delay in its publication. As the hon. Member is aware, it does not rest with me to settle the date on which the Home Office Vote is discussed.
  Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that experience shows how inconvenient it is for us to have to discuss the Home Office
  2064
  Vote without having seen this valuable report, will the right hon. Gentleman instruct his officials to speed up publication of the report this year?
  Sir S. Hoare: As I say, it is difficult, because this is such a very complicated report. We shall print it as soon as we can.

  ABANDONED INFANTS, LONDON.
  Mr. Thorneasked the Home Secretary how many babies were abandoned in different parts of London during the past 12 months; to what institutions they were sent; how long they are kept in the institutions; how they are educated after five years of age; and where are they sent after school-leaving age?
  Sir S. Hoare: As regards the first part of the question, I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that during 1937 the number of children under six years of age reported abandoned in the Metropolitan Police District was 46 boys and 14 girls. Of these, 36 of the boys and 13 of the girls were under the age of two. As regards the second, third and last parts of the question, the hon. Member should address his inquiry to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and as regards the fourth part to my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Education.
  Mr. Leach: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to induce the Minister of Health to abandon the baby which he introduced on Tuesday of this week?

  FOOTBALL POOLS.
  Mr. Vyvyan Adamsasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the large and unregulated profits which have lately attached to the promoters of betting on football pools; and whether, to protect the public, he proposes to ask Parliament for powers to enable him to regulate the trade?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am aware of the estimates which have recently been given in the Press regarding the profits made by the promoters of these pools; but I would remind my hon. Friend that, as stated by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a question on 15th February by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Western Division

  2065
  of Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston), these profits are already subject to the full rigours of our taxation system. I am not satisfied that it is necesary, in the national interest, to establish special machinery by which the operation of these pools would be regulated by the State.
  Mr. Adams: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand how peculiarly scandalous this racket is? Not only do the promoters rake off 5 per cent. in profits free of all risk, but anything between 15 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the receipts is also taken for expenses which are free from any kind of scrutiny?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am not satisfied that it is necessary in the national interest to establish special machinery for the regulation of these transactions.
  Mr. T. Smith: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "national interest" in this case?
  Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that about 9,000,000 of our fellow citizens are being steadily mulcted in this way?
  Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that none of these pools infringe the Lottery Acts, irrespective of the Act of 1934?
  Sir S. Hoare: If there is any question of transgression of the law, it is obviously a case for prosecution.
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever known anybody ruined through one of these pools?
  Viscountess Astor: Is it not a fact that control of these pools has already been considered by the Cabinet?

  CLERKS TO JUSTICES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Mr. Silvermanasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Francis Charles Haggard, recently heard by the Gloucester City Quarter Sessions, where during the committal proceedings the prosecution was conducted by the justices' clerk, who subsequently, during the hearing, advised the court on disputed questions as to the admissibility of evidence
  2066
  tendered by himself and then accompanied the justices when they retired to consider their decision; will he inquire in how many other courts the clerk is permitted to appear as an advocate in his own court and at the same time advise that court; and what steps he will take to bring these irregularities to an end?
  Sir S. Hoare: I apologise for the length of this answer. Though I am not responsible for the conduct of clerks to justices, who are the servants of the justices by whom they are appointed, I have made inquiry and am informed by the clerk that it is erroneous to say the prosecution was conducted by him. The prosecutor was a police constable who was present in court. The defendant, as was his right, elected to be tried by jury, and it then became the duty of the examining justices to take the depositions. For this purpose the clerk states that, by direction of the court, he examined in chief the witnesses called by the police informant. If, by the reference to evidence "tendered" by the clerk, the hon. Member has in mind evidence elicited by the clerk, I am informed that the statement on which the question of the admissibility of evidence arose was a statement made in reply to a question asked by the defending solicitor. It is, of course, one of the duties of clerks to advise the justices as to the admissibility of evidence. At the close of the case the justices retired with the clerk in order to consider whether a prima facie case had been made out to commit the defendant for trial.
  It would, of course, be quite improper for a clerk to act as advocate before his justices; such conduct would conflict with the rule that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The clerk, however, informs me that he did not so act. On the question whether it is right that when taking depositions the clerk should base his questions on statements taken by the police from witnesses for the prosecution, I understand that the practice differs in different courts, and that the practice followed in this case is criticised in several quarters. It is a matter for consideration whether any advice could properly be given to courts on this question, but this is only one of several questions relating to the work of clerks to justices which require consideration. I had already decided to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into

  2067
  the methods of appointment and conditions of service of clerks to justices, and certain questions of principle raised by this case will fall within the terms of reference of that committee.
  Mr. Silverman: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his very full and careful answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that this clerk, besides examining witnesses, also, when the case was committed for trial, was the solicitor who instructed counsel for the prosecution; whether in that case it is not true that the clerk would have a financial interest of his own in advising the court to commit for trial; whether it is not a fact that, when the case came on for trial, the jury acquitted the accused without calling upon him for any defence whatever; and whether the Recorder, who conducted the trial at the quarter sessions, did not describe the whole proceedings in the court below as full of serious irregularities?
  Sir S. Hoare: It is a fact that the clerk concerned did instruct counsel in the case before the quarter sessions. There is a difference of practice, so I am informed, between petty sessions in the county districts and petty sessions in towns, and that is one of the questions which I hope will be considered by the Departmental Committee to which I have referred. The hon. Gentleman is also correct in saying that the defendant at quarter sessions was acquitted, and that the Recorder made some critical comments upon the earlier proceedings.

  EDUCATION.

    FREE MEALS, SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
    Mr. G. Griffithsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can now supply the information on school meals in secondary schools to which he referred in reply to a similar question on 29th July, 1937?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The returns mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member's question of 26th July last have now been summarised, and show that all except nine of the 133 local education authorities for higher education which provide secondary schools make some provision for school meals, and that in two of the remaining
    2068
    cases the matter is under consideration. In all the grant-earning secondary schools in England and Wales, including schools provided or aided by local education authorities, and some schools which are not aided, the number of pupils (other than boarders) who normally take dinner at school is returned as 85,855. Of these, 11,770 receive free dinners for which no cash payment is made, but in addition the parents of many pupils receive maintenance allowances which are intended to cover the whole or part of the cost of school dinners.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GRANT REGULATIONS).
    Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (1) whether his attention has been called to the serious effect upon local education authorities of the decline in the school population with its consequent effect upon average attendance; and will he consider the advisability of revising the grant regulations with a view to easing the burden upon hard-pressed local authorities;
    (2) whether the formula upon which grants are made to local education authorities has been revised since 1914; whether he has received any representations from local authorities as to its inequitable working; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in order to meet those representations?
    Mr. Lindsay: My Noble Friend is aware of the effect upon the finances of local education authorities of the decrease in the school population, and representations have been made to him that the present grant formula is inequitable in its working. The practical difficulties of the present situation are under discussion by representatives of local education authorities and officers of the Board of Education. The grant system in 1914 was on an entirely different basis from that which now obtains.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give particular consideration to the point that at the present time those authorities which are being hardest hit by declining population are being called upon to pay, through the regulations, a higher figure? May I ask him also whether the formula is not still based on the 36s. which was the cost in 1914?
    Mr. Lindsay: I think the hon. Member will find that my original answer covers both his supplementary questions.
    Mr. Lipson: When does the Parliamentary Secretary expect that the committee of inquiry will be in a position to report?
    Mr. Lindsay: I think it will take some little time; the matter is very complicated.

    Number of State Scholarships awarded in the years 1931 to 1937 (inclusive).

    —

    1931.

    1932.

    1933.

    1934.

    1935.

    1936.

    1937.

    Boys

    …

    …

    185

    184

    186

    185

    185

    235

    235

    Girls

    …

    …

    115

    116

    114

    115

    115

    128

    125

    Total

    …

    300

    300

    300

    300

    300

    363

    360

    CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY TRAINING DEPARTMENT (WOMEN STUDENTS).
    Miss Rathboneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education why women students at Newnham and Girton are not eligible for the four-year training department grants, whereas women at the Oxford colleges receive them?
    Mr. Lindsay: Women students at Newnham and Girton are not admitted to the training department of Cambridge University, and are therefore not eligible for the four-year training grants available for students of that department.
    Viscountess Astor: Is it right that the Government should give a grant to a university which will not admit women?
    Miss Rathbone: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether, by some change in the regulations, it would not be possible to put the Cambridge women students in a position in which they could take advantage of these grants?
    Mr. Lindsay: That is a matter, first, for the University, and then it would be a question for us.

    SIZE OF CLASSES.
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what measures have been taken by the board to secure the reduction of the size of classes in elementary schools containing over 40 pupils in cases where structural conditions do not afford a serious obstacle?

    STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.
    Miss Rathboneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many State scholarships have been awarded to boys and girls, respectively, for each of the years 1931 to 1937?
    Mr. Lindsay: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    Mr. Lindsay: The board's present policy is to secure the reduction of the size of all classes for older children to a maximum of 40 on the books, and of all classes for juniors and infants to a maximum of 50. My Noble Friend does not consider that the time has yet arrived for the reduction of the size of all classes to 40, but, as regards classes for older children, the board are actively encouraging authorities to reduce classes to this size.
    Mr. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman instruct his inspectors to report all cases where there are classes over 40 and where there is no structural obstacle in the way of reducing the size of the classes?
    Mr. Lindsay: The matter is not quite as simple as that. There are cases on new estates where there are new schools in which there are large classes but there are also cases in older schools where the classes are well under 40 and sometimes as low as 20.
    Sir Percy Harris: Should not the classes for smaller children be of the same size as the classes for older children? Does the hon. Gentleman seriously contend that it is easier to teach 50 small children than it is to teach 50 older children?
    Mr. Lindsay: No, I do not.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (HEATING).
    Mr. Dayasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education in how many cases His Majesty's inspectors have reported that elementary schools in

    2071
    receipt of grants are still inefficiently heated in cold weather; and whether, in view of the suffering caused to schoolchildren by the lack of heating provision in severe weather, he will consider the placing of all such schools on the black list or requiring an immediate remedy for the defect?
    Mr. Lindsay: I have no tabulated record of cases in which His Majesty's inspectors have reported inadequacy of heating arrangements. When a report of this kind is sent to the Board, the attention of the school authorities is at once called to it, and a request made that immediate steps be taken to remedy the defect.
    Mr. Day: Has the Minister any statistics to show how many schools are subject to extraordinary variations of temperature?
    Mr. Lindsay: I do not think that that arises out of the question.
    Mr. Day: Does the Minister not think that, when children are sent to school without sufficient food, they should not be allowed to sit almost freezing at school?
    Mr. Lindsay: I cannot agree with the facts as stated by the hon. Member. This is not a matter which is of widespread incidence.
    Mr. Maxton: Has the Minister any inspectors who definitely go around inquiring as to the physical condition of the children, as apart from the ordinary educational attainments?
    Mr. Lindsay: The local education authorities and school managers are constantly looking after that.
    Mr. Maxton: Yes, but these are the people we are criticising. Are the Government keeping any check on them?
    Mr. Lindsay: Yes, there is a constant check. I should like to repeat that there are a great many more important matters than this requiring attention.

    SPECIAL SCHOOLS.
    Viscountess Astorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will state, separately, how many physically and mentally defective children there are in special schools in this country?
    Mr. Lindsay: On 31st March, 1937, the latest date for which figures are available, 29,385 physically defective children and 13,815 mentaly defective children were on the registers of certified special schools in England and Wales.
    Viscountess Astorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the cost per head per annum of keeping a child in a special school and in a nursery school, respectively?
    Mr. Lindsay: The cost of maintenance of nursery schools varies considerably, according to the size and character of the school, but the average is about £16 per annum for each child on the registers. An average figure for the cost of maintenance of all special schools would be of little value, as some are day schools and others residential schools, and the cost per head of some types of schools is much higher than that of others. The average annual cost of a day school for mentally defective children is about £24 per head, whereas the cost of an orthopaedic hospital school is about £120 per head.
    Viscountes Astor: Would the Minister remember that if these children are put into open-air schools at a proper age it will not only save the country thousands of pounds but will prevent our being a C3 nation?
    Mr. Lindsay: The provision for children who are born blind or deaf or suffering from mental defects would not be particularly affected. Where the physical defect could be prevented, I agree that constant medical supervision between the ages of two and five would help. That is one of the reasons why the Board of Education have been encouraging the establishment of such schools in suitable areas.
    Viscountess Astor: It is not a question of medical supervision. Nobody wants that.

  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  Lieut.-Commander Tufnellasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that several weeks elapse before the payment of a pension to a widow applicant; and whether he will take steps, in view of the hardship caused by delay to many poorer applicants, to accelerate the proceedings in regard to the granting of such pensions where the conditions are found at once to be complied with?
  The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): As my hon. Friend will appreciate, such a pension cannot be awarded until it has been ascertained that all the statutory conditions are fulfilled. Inquiries necessary to establish title are completed with as little delay as possible, and, as soon as it is clear that the statutory conditions are fulfilled, immediate steps are taken to enable the widow to obtain payment of her pension.
  Mr. Messer: Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding that fact, there is a big gap between the last inquiry and the payment of a pension?
  Sir K. Wood: If the hon. Gentleman will give me any particulars, I will look into them.
  Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is often a delay of as much as six weeks?
  Sir K. Wood: That is because there has sometimes to be prolonged investigation. If the hon. and gallant Member can give me any case, I will inquire into it.
  Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the gap can possibly be shortened?
  Sir K. Wood: My Department are always trying to do this.

  AUSTRIA.
  Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make regarding the situation in Austria?
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. I have received certain information in regard to the new Austro-German Agreement. As, however, the terms of this Agreement have not yet been made public by the parties to it, I am unable at this moment to give any detailed information to the House. I hope, however, to be in a position to make a statement at an early date, perhaps to-morrow. In the meanwhile, in view of statements in the Press, I should perhaps add that His Majesty's Minister in Vienna was informed of the proposed meeting between the Austrian Chancellor and Herr Hitler on 11th February; that is to say, on the eve of the meeting itself. The views or advice of His Majesty's Government were not invited in connection
  2074
  with that meeting. While, at the present moment, I am not in a position to estimate the exact effect of this Agreement, His Majesty's Government are following developments with close attention, and His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin has already been instructed to indicate to the German Government the interest which His Majesty's Government take, and have always taken, in the Austrian question.
  Mr. Attlee: Can the right hon. Gentleman make more clear the reply which he gave to a question on this subject yesterday, relative to the attitude of His Majesty's Government to the integrity and independence of Austria, as based on the Declaration of 1934?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. That Declaration as the House will recollect, was reaffirmed by the Stresa Conference, where machinery was agreed upon for consultation. Perhaps I should make it clear to the House that, so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, they have been, and are still, prepared for such consultation.
  Mr. Attlee: In view of the methods which have been apparently employed with regard to Austria, can the right hon. Gentleman state the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to the position of Czechoslovakia?
  Mr. Eden: I think that it is perhaps desirable that I should have notice of that; but, straightaway, I would like to assure the House that this country has always had the friendliest feelings towards the Czechoslovakian nation, and is fully aware of the treaties which bind Czechoslovakia to other Powers.
  Mr. Churchill: Apart from any national commitments or expressions which may have been used, has not the League of Nations at Geneva certain duties and responsibilities lying upon it in respect of the independence and integrity of Austria?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is perfectly justified in his conclusion. At the same time, it is our view, in view of the particular circumstances of the Stresa Declaration, that we are willing to act with others as provided for in that declaration, but we do not think it lies with us to take the initiative.
  Mr. Mander: Did the Austrian Government at any stage in the events of the

  2075
  last few days ask the British Government what measures of support, if any, would be granted to them if they resisted?
  Mr. Eden: I thought my answer made that quite clear. No such suggestion was ever made to His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Bellenger: In view of the declared policy of His Majesty's Government towards Austria, is the right hon. Gentleman in consultation with any of the other signatories to the Stresa agreement?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I am in consultation with the French Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: Will the Prime Minister state the business for next week, and will he also tell the House how far it is proposed to go to-night in the event of the suspension of the 11 o'Clock Rule being carried?
The Prime Minister: Monday.—Consideration of Supplementary Estimates in Committee, beginning with Diplomatic and Consular Services, Foreign Office, and League of Nations.
Tuesday and Wednesday.—Report and Third Reading of the Cinematograph Films Bill.
Thursday—Committee stage of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill.
Friday.—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
We are suspending the 11 o'Clock Rule to-night in order to obtain the business up to and including the fourth Order no the Paper.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in regard to Monday's business and the very important matters raised on the Supplementary Estimates, he expects to get all these Supplementary Estimates on that day?
The Prime Minister: "Hope springs eternal in the human breast."
Mr. Wedgwood Benn: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to give the House the Indian White Paper which he was good enough to promise yesterday?
The Prime Minister: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that a White Paper was not definitely promised in that form, but the detailed information for which he asked is being obtained from India, and I can assure him, and the House generally, that the information will be given to the House, in whatever form it may be, at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Benn: I take it that it will cover information giving the point of view of the Ministers who resigned?
The Prime Minister: I think it is that for which the right hon. Gentleman asked.
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, 263; Noes, 140.

Division No. 102.]

AYES.

[3.54 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J

Boulton, W. W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Albery, Sir Irving

Bracken, B.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Bran, Sir W.

Colman, N. C. D.

Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

Brisese, Capt. R. G.

Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Brooklebank, Sir Edmund

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Assheton, R.

Brown, Col. O. C. (Hexham)

Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Bull, B. B.

Cranborne, Viscount

Balniel, Lord

Bullock, Capt. M.

Crooke, Sir J. S.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Cross, R. H.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Butler, R. A.

Crossley, A. C.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Cartland, J. R H.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Beechman, N. A.

Carver, Major W. H.

Culverwell, C. T.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

Davidson, Viscountess

Bernays, R. H.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Blair, Sir R.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

De Chair, S. S.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

De la Bare, R.

Bossom, A. C.

Chapman, A. (Ruthergton)

Denman, Hon. R D.

Denville, Alfred

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Doland, G. F.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Ducworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Salmon, Sir I.

Duggan, H. J.

Leech, Sir J. W.

Salt, E. W.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Lees-Jones, J.

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Dunglass, Lord

Leigh, Sir J.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Eckersley, P. T.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Sandys, E. D.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Levy, T.

Savery, Sir Servington

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Lewis, O.

Scott, Lord William

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Liddall, W. S.

Selley, H. R.

Ellis, Sir G.

Lindsay, K. M.

Shakespeare, G. H

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Lipson, D. L.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Elmley, Viscount

Lloyd, G. W.

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O S.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Loftus, P. C.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Everard, W. L.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Findlay, Sir E.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Fleming, E. L.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

McKie, J. H.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Furness, S. N.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Storey, S.

Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

Magnay, T.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Maitland, A.

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

Gledhill, G.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

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

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Grant-Ferris, R.

Marsden, Commander A.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Granville E. L.

Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

Sutcliffe, H.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Tasker, Sir R. I

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Mayhew, Lt,-Col. J.

Tate, Mavis C.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Grimston, R. V.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Thomas, J. P. L.

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

Morgan, R. H.

Touche, G. C.

Hambro, A. V.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Train, Sir J.

Hannah, I. C.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Harvey, Sir G.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Turton, R. H.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.

Wakefield, W. W-

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Walker-Smith, Sir J-

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Patrick, C. M.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

Peal, C. U.

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

Hepworth, J.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Pilkington, R.

Warrender, Sir V.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

Waterhouse. Captain C.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Porritt, R. W.

Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

Holdsworth, H.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Holmes, J. S.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Hopkinson, A.

Ramsbotham, H.

Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Rankin, Sir R.

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Hulbert, N. J

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Wise, A. R.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Withers, Sir J. J.

Hunter, T.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Hutchinson, G. C.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Keeling, E. H.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Kimball, L.

Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.

NOES.

Adame, D. (Consett)

Buchanan, G.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Burke, W. A.

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Adamson, W. M.

Cape, T.

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

Charleton, H. C.

Frankel, D.

Ammon, C. G.

Chater, D.

Gallacher, W.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Cluse, W. S.

Gardner, B. W.

Banfield, J. W.

Cocks, F. S.

Garro Jones, G. M.

Barnes, A. J.

Cove, W. G.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Barr, J.

Daggar, G.

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Batey, J.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Graham D. M. (Hamilton)

Bellenger, F. J.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Davies, S. J. (Merthyr)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Benson, G.

Day, H.

Grenfell, D. R.

Bevan, A.

Dobbie, W.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Broad, F. A.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Bromfield, W.

Ede, J. C.

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

2078

2079

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

MacLaren, A.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Hardie, Agnes

Mainwaring, W. H.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Harris, Sir P. A.

Mander, G. le M.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Hayday, A.

Marshall, F.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Maxton, J.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Messer, F.

Stephen, C.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Milner, Major J.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Montague, F.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Hollins, A.

Morrison, R. G. (Tottenham, N.)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Hopkin, D.

Naylor, T. E.

Thorne, W.

Jagger, J.

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Thurtle, E.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Parker, J.

Tinker, J. J.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Parkinson, J. A.

Tomlinson, G.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Pearson, A.

Viant, S. P.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Walkden, A. G.

Kelly, W. T.

Price, M. P.

Watkins, F. C.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Pritt, D. N.

Watson, W. McL.

Kirby, B. V.

Quibell, J. J. K.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Kirkwood, D.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Westwood, J.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Ridley, G.

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

Lathan, G

Ritson, J.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Lawson, J. J.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

Leach, W.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Lee, F.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Leonard, W.

Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Logan, D. G.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Lunn, W.

Sexton, T. M.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Shinwell, E.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

McEntee, V. La T.

Silverman, S. S.

McGhee, H. G.

Simpson, F. B.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. R. C. Morrison; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Ritson.
  Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Superannuation (Various Services) Bill): Sir Robert Aske, Captain Balfour, Rear-Admiral Beamish, Sir Reginald Blaker, Mr. Broad, Lieut.-Colonel Colville, Mr. Denman, Captain Dugdale, Mr. James Hall, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Mander, Major Neven-Spence, Captain Plugge, The Solicitor-General, and Mr. Walkden.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Street Playgrounds Bill): Mr. Cluse, Mr. Crossley, Mr. Denville, Mr. Ernest Evans, Sir Arnold Gridley, Dr. Haden Guest, Mr. Holmes, Captain Austin Hudson, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Lyons, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Price, Mr. Salt, Mr. Wakefield, and Wing-Commander Wright.
  Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Bill): Captain Sir William Brass, Sir Smedley Crooke, Captain Arthur Evans, Sir Edward Grigg, Mr. Hely-Hutchinson, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Palmer, Mr. W. Roberts, Mr. R. J. Russell, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Benjamin Smith, Mr. Ellis Smith, The Solicitor-General, Mr. Tomlinson, and Sir Arnold Wilson.
  Reports to lie upon the Table

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
First Report from the Committee on Public Accounts brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 54.]

COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS.
The Chairman of Ways and Means reported, That, in pursuance of the Order of the House of Thursday, 16th December, 1937, he had selected Mr. Boulton to act as Chairman at every meeting of a Committee on Unopposed Bills at which neither the Chairman of Ways and Means nor the Deputy Chairman is present.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills,—That they propose that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills do meet in Committee Room C, House of Lords, on Wednesday the 23rd instant, at Eleven o'clock.
Lords Message considered.
Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Mr. James Stuart.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD.

Grants from the Totalisator Fund approved by the Home Secretary under Section 3 (6) of the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, and Section 18 (5) of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, and grants made by the Board to charities.

From Surplus arising from operations for year.

For purposes conducive to improvements of the Sport of Horse Racing.

For purposes conducive to improvements of the Breeds of Horses.

For purposes conducive to the advancement and encouragement of Veterinary Science and Education.

Charities.

Total.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1929

…

…

1,001

4

2

—

—

—

1,001

4

2

1930

…

…

2,497

15

4

—

—

—

2,497

15

4

1931

…

…

2,925

1

9

—

—

—

2,925

1

9

1932

…

…

3,086

15

1

—

—

—

3,086

15

1

1933

…

…

7,841

2

8

2,000

0

0

—

—

9,841

2

8

1934

…

…

22,872

8

7

5,000

0

0

—

—

27,872

8

7

1935

…

…

72,438

2

8

5,300

0

0

1,1000

0

0

855

0

0

79,693

2

8

1936

…

…

107,964

10

0

7,350

0

0

3,500

0

0

1,540

10

0

120,355

0

0

Total

…

220,627

0

3

19,650

0

0

4,600

0

0

2,395

10

0

247,272

10

3

The Board have under consideration the allocation of a further sum of £151,500 from the surplus arising from the Board's operations in 1937, details of which will be published in the Board's Ninth Annual Report and Accounts.

HOME OFFICE (ALIENS DEPARTMENT).
Mr. Parker Mr. Parker asked the Home Secretary what were the circumstances in which Mr. Briggs was recently dismissed from the Aliens Department of the Home Office; in the case of how many aliens is he known to have abused his official position; whether legal proceedings are being taken against him; and whether the Department is prepared to pay compensation for the abuse by its servant of his official position?
Sir S. Hoare Sir S. Hoare: I am informed that Mr. Briggs has been charged with a criminal offence, and has been remanded on bail

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY].
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to the making of contributions out of the Exchequer and by local authorities in respect of housing accommodation provided for the working classes, and with respect to arrangements between local authorities and other persons for the provision of housing accommodation, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—
A. of such expenses as may be incurred by the Minister of Health (hereinafter referred to as the Minister) in making to any local authority—
(1) in respect of each new house or new Hat completed after the beginning of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine which, with the approval of the Minister, is provided by that authority by way of housing accommodation—

(a) rendered necessary by displacements occurring in connection with any action taken by that authority under the Housing Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) for the demolition of insanitary houses, for dealing with clearance or improvement areas, or for closing parts of buildings, or

(b) rendered necessary by displacements occurring in the carrying out of redevelopment under the principal Act, or

(c) required for the abatement of overcrowding,

an annual contribution for forty years of the following amount, that is to say:—

(i) five pounds ten shillings or (in a case in which there are fulfilled the conditions laid down by the said Act of the present Session with reference both to the low level of the rents obtainable from working-class housing accommodation in the area of the local authority and to the inadequacy of the financial resources of that area) six pounds ten shillings; or

(ii) in the case of a fiat provided in a block of flats on a site the cost of which, as developed, exceeds one thousand five hundred pounds per acre, an amount not exceeding twenty-six pounds, determined in accordance with the Table appended to this Resolution; and

2116
(2) in respect of each new house or new flat completed after the beginning of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine which, with the approval of the Minister, is provided by the local authority by way of housing accommodation required for the agricultural population (as defined by the principal Act) of the area of the local authority, an annual contribution for a period of forty years of ten pounds or, in the special circumstances mentioned in the said Act of the present Session, a greater amount not exceeding twelve pounds; and
(3) in respect of each new house or new flat which, in pursuance of arrangements with the local authority, is provided by some other person, with the approval of the Minister, by way of housing accommodation required for the agricultural population (as defined by the principal Act) of the area of the local authority, an annual contribution for a period of forty years of an amount not exceeding ten pounds; and
B. of such sums as may become payable by the Minister by virtue of any provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(1) amending the provisions of Subsections (1) and (3) of Section one hundred and nine of the principal Act, and directing that Sub-section (2) of that Section shall be deemed not to have come into operation until the date of the passing of the said Act of the present Session; or

(2) directing——

(a) that, in the circumstances mentioned in the said Act of the present Session, houses and flats are to be treated as having been completed after the beginning of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, notwithstanding that they were in fact completed before the beginning of that year; or

(b) that, in the circumstances so mentioned, two or more buildings containing flats shall be treated as if the several buildings were one building on a single site; or

(3) amending the provisions of Subsection (1) of Section ninety-four of the principal Act; or

(4) enabling the Minister to continue to make payments by way of a contribution under Section one of the Housing, etc. Act, 1923, in respect of any house or flat which, with the assistance of a local authority, has been provided by some other person, notwithstanding that it has become vested in the local authority:

Provided that this resolution shall not, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph A, thereof, authorise the payment of any expenses the payment of which is authorised by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph.

TABLE.

£

s.

d.

Where the cost per acre of the site as developed—

exceeds £1,500 but does not exceed £4,000

11

0

0

exceeds £4,000 but does not exceed £5,000

12

0

0

exceeds £5,000 but does not exceed £6,000

13

0

0

exceeds £6,000 but does not exceed £8,000

14

0

0

exceeds £8,000 but does not exceed £10,000

15

0

0

exceeds £10,000 but does not exceed £12,000

17

0

0

exceeds £12,000

17

0

0*

* Increased by £1 for each additional £2,000, or part of £2,000, in the cost per acre of the site as developed.—[King's Recommendation signified,]—[Sir K. Wood.]

4.5 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to commend this Resolution to the Committee. I do not propose to occupy very long, because I feel that I trespassed on the House perhaps unduly on the Second Reading of the Bill; but there are one or two observations which I think the Committee would expect me to make. First I will deal with the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) during the Second Reading Debate, about the terms of the Financial Resolution itself, and I hope I may be able to satisfy him with regard to the particular matter that he raised. Naturally I was glad to observe that in the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to express the opinion that in drafting the Resolution we had endeavoured to conform to the spirit of the new Standing Orders. But the right hon. Gentleman had a criticism to make with regard to one paragraph in the Resolution and to it I shall refer. He pointed out that in the case of the additional subsidy payable to certain rural district councils the Financial Resolution merely stated that the increase would be allowed in such circumstances as are mentioned in the Bill, and he suggested that the same procedure might be adopted in respect of the additional subsidy for non-county boroughs and urban districts.
Leaving out of consideration the subsidy for flats, which is not relevant in this connection, the position is this: The main subsidies authorised by the Bill are £5 10s. per house for slum clearance and overcrowding generally and £10 for housing of the agricultural population.
2118
The £10 subsidy is itself a special extension of the £5 10s. subsidy and is limited by the Resolution to housing for the agricultural population. We thus have a general subsidy of £5 10s. and in a particular case of £10, the range of the latter being limited by the Financial Resolution. But on the top of these subsidies it is proposed to allow additional sums in special cases. The £5 10s. may become £6 10s. and the £10 may become £12. I think the right hon. Member for Wakefield will agree that an increase of housing subsidies, apart from the merits under discussion, is a matter of real financial moment. Perhaps I am not putting it too high if I say that it would be generally agreed to be unreasonable to ask the Government to leave open in the Resolution the question whether the subsidies should be one amount or a greater amount when the Government had already determined what the amount of the subsidy is to be. I think the Committee will recognise that the amount of the subsidy is a matter properly to be restricted by the Resolution. Therefore, if in certain cases the Government are prepared to allow higher amounts of subsidy, they must, in order to discharge their responsibilities, define in the Resolution the sort of cases in which the additional subsidies may be paid.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the subsidy of £10 is already restricted to the agricultural workers, and it is not necessary to restrict it further, except to provide that there must be some special circumstances to ustify the increase of £10 to £12. But of course the position is entirely different on the subsidy of £5 10s. which is not restricted to what is relatively a narrow range. Consequently, there must be some restriction imposed on the power to increase it. That is the restriction which appears in the Resolution. I suggest, therefore, that there is really no inconsistency between the two cases. I also want the Committee to realise that there is real financial substance in the point. If the Committee will turn to the Financial Memorandum on the Bill they will see in paragraph 11 that estimates of cost are worked out on the assumption that there are 270,000 houses or flats earning the subsidy, and of course if an extra £I could be paid to each of these the cost would be £270,000 a year for 40 years, which even in these days is a considerable sum. It is in

2119
fact equivalent to a capital sum of about £6,000,000. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the explanation that I have given, and that the Committee will agree that the Government have endeavoured to do what is right in this Resolution and are not misusing their powers when they define in the Resolution the sort of conditions they have in mind which would justify an increase of subsidies within the wide field of cottage subsidy. It is rather a technical matter to raise, but I was anxious to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.
Lieut.-Colonel Acland Troyte: My right hon. Friend has said that the £10 subsidy is to be given to the agricultural population only. That is quite all right, and I agree with it. But in the Bill it is confined to people who live in rural district council areas.
Sir K. Wood: That raises another issue which, with the definition of "agricultural worker" will be discussed later.
Mr. Georg Griffiths: I do not pose as an expert. In a rural area which spreads almost entirely over my division we have low paid workers who are not agricultural workers and presumably they cannot have the assistance of this subsidy?
Sir K. Wood: As I have just explained, that is a matter which we shall be able to discuss when we come to the question of the definition of "agricultural worker" within the meaning of the Bill. That issue does not arise on the point I am now trying to discuss so far as the scope of the Financial Resolution is concerned; it is a different point altogether. Let me say a few words upon the Financial Resolution generally, in view of the suggestions which were made on the Second Reading of the Bill. I think it can be stated without exaggeration that this Financial Resolution, with the explanatory Memorandum which accompanies it, on fair examination disposes of the rather ludicrous suggestion that there is to be a slowing down in housing or any sort of economy campaign. If the provision to review the slum clearance subsidy and to take into account the expenses which are to be incurred and have been incurred by local authorities is to be the subject of criticism, then the right hon. Member for Wakefield is the
2120
leader of the economy campaign, because he, of course, was responsible for imposing a statutory review. As was stated on Second Reading, it was pointed out to the local authorities that an Order might provide for reduction of the grant, and the right hon. Gentleman warned them, quite rightly, that the grant would not be permanent. I do not blame him in any way for having so dealt with these things.
What is the position under this Financial Resolution? On the basis of 60,000 flats on expensive sites, 270,000 houses or flats on other sites and 30,000 houses for the needs of the agricultural population, there will be an annual charge on the Exchequer of £2,710,000. To do justice to the Government's proposals, you must take the subsidies together, the amount of assistance that the Government are giving in regard to slum clearance and with regard to overcrowding, in order fairly to measure what these financial proposals really mean. Having surveyed the needs of the situation both so far as slum clearance and overcrowding are concerned and what is generally the programme of the local authorities—I speak only in general terms, for it may be that a local authority here or there may have a larger slum clearance scheme, but I, as Minister, have to deal with the general situation—it can be said that, generally, the local authorities will during the next few years attack the problem of slum clearance and overcrowding with equal energy. Therefore, in completing the present programme on that assumption there will be paid to the local authorities £11 from the Exchequer for each two cottages, one for slum clearance and one for overcrowding.
Whereupon the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, having returned—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1938.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY].
Again considered in Committee.
[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
Question again proposed.
4.30 p.m.
Sir K. Wood: I was referring to the financial implications of the programme outlined in the Bill and observing that there are good grounds for assuming that local authorities will put forward their programmes in equal proportions so far as slum clearance and overcrowding are concerned, and that in the completion of the programme there will be a payment of £11 by the Exchequer for each two cottages instead of about £9, and for each two flats completed there will similarly be paid into the pool, instead of about £26, a sum of about £28 where the average cost of the land is between £6,000 and £8,000 per acre, so that, excluding houses to be built for the needs of the agricultural population, the additional Exchequer subsidies to be paid into the pool will be £1 per dwelling—a total of about £330,000. If you add to this the cost of providing houses for the needs of the agricultural population, the increase will be in excess of £500,000 per annum. I should like to say a word about costs, because the statements which have been made in connection with the financial commitments of local authorities are somewhat misleading. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), who is associated with housing in London, referred to the reduction in the rates of interest since 1930 as being mentioned by me as a justification for a revision of the subsidy and went on to say:
"That, however, is not the only factor to be considered. There is also the increased cost of building which I submit more than outbalances the reduction in the rate of interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 193S; col. 1789, Vol. 331.]
I have had this matter examined, and that is not a correct statement of the case. Hon. Members opposite must understand that a comparison has to be made with the rate when the subsidy was originally fixed and the new provisions of to-day. The increase, as a matter of fact, in building costs in 1937 as compared with 1930 is only about £25 per cottage or flat, and the increase in loan charges is only about £1 per annum, whereas the decrease due to interest rates in the case of a
2122
cottage is about £4 15s. per annum and in the case of a flat about £8 per annum. Therefore, on the total cost of building a cottage, including the land, there is a net decrease in loan charges on a 60-year basis of about £3 15s. and in the case of a flat (allowing about £1 for an increase in loan charges on the higher cost of land) a net decrease of about £5 15s. per annum.
I should also like to answer some criticisms which have been directed against myself and my Department in connection with the class of buildings which local authorities have been able to erect with financial assistance and which they will be able to build under the financial provisions of the Resolution. The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) has had considerable experience in building operations, and the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) speaks with an almost unrivalled knowledge of certain aspects of the building trade. They complain, not very severely, of pressure to secure cheapness, the cutting out of amenities. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Peckham delivered a considerable indictment against me, and complained of the additional expenditure which I was imposing on local authorities by requiring that they should improve their standards. He said that I had actually suggested improvements in housing which would mean an increased cost of about £200 per flat. I am, therefore, confronted with criticisms from two quarters, one which complains that I am extravagant and the other which complains of my meanness. I think really the answer lies between the two. What I have endeavoured to do, and what my predecessors have endeavoured to do much better, is to secure a proper but not too extravagant a standard of housing. It may be that I have made local authorities withdraw certain tenders and obtain others, but that has been done because I am anxious that local authorities should get proper value for their money. That is the object why on some occasions, with success, I have turned down tenders.
I should like to make this declaration, that with the exception of pruning down what may be called extravagances I have no intention or desire to cut down the specifications of local authorities, and my answer to the indictment is to draw the attention of hon. Members to the recent circular I have issued to local authorities

2123
where they will see statements regarding the unfortunate tendency to have a sort of minimum standard of building in this country. If they will look at the circulars which I have issued during my administration, they will see that I have constantly urged local authorities to make provision of houses of a more mixed type. Quite recently I made special reference to the need for a larger proportion of larger houses, and I am glad to say that the tendency of local authorities is to make greater provision for the variety of needs of the people for whom they are providing houses. I have emphasised this matter just as much as I have emphasised the need of houses for larger families, and I have also endeavoured to urge the need of houses for old people.
Let me say a word on the overcrowding standard. The present standard is, in my judgment, a beginning. I have said that before, and I adhere to it. I also adhere to what I have said, that it represents the minimum amount of accommodation that can be enforced. It must be remembered that it is a penal standard, and certain steps have to be taken if this penal standard is not complied with. As far as the housing programme envisaged by the Financial Resolution is concerned, I emphasised on the Second Reading of the Bill and I repeat it to-day, when people say that I am not showing the vigour which they expect from me in not improving on the overcrowding standard already on the Statute Book, that there is a simple and an effective answer. It does not mean that there is any lack of desire on my part to improve on that standard, but, as a matter of fact, the programme envisaged in the proposals represents the amount of building which is immediately practicable. It will, in fact, engage all the efforts of local authorities, and probably all the available labour for that purpose, a point which, sometimes, hon. Members opposite are apt to forget. The hon. Member for East Woolwich emphasised this point, because he has considerable knowledge of the situation and realises that we have to face, regrettable as it is, a Defence programme for the country, which has necessarily made inroads into the supply of building material and the supply of labour. That is really the answer.
The programme will give steady work for local authorities for some years ahead
2124
and is the maximum overcrowding standard that is practicable in the present circumstances. My answer as a practical administrator is that in this programme you have, subject to the limitations I mentioned on the Second Reading, a planned programme which local authorities will be able to carry out for some little time ahead, and if we attempted to do any more the hon. Member for East Woolwich would be the first to deprecate it. He indicated in his speech the consequence of trying to force matters. When this programme has been completed we can consider as a practical matter the improvement of the overcrowding standard in this country.
Mr. E. J. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman any figures at all to arrive at the price of building materials?
Sir K. Wood: I have given them once or twice in the House, but, as I said on the Second Reading, the position has eased during the last few months and in certain parts of the country tenders are coming in much more freely. There was some criticism about the proposal, which I think is desirable, to give assistance to private enterprise in regard to agricultural housebuilding. It has been described as a proposal to give another subsidy to rural landlords. I can assure hon. Members that as far as I am concerned there is no such sinister intention. I have followed the recommendations of my Rural Housing Advisory Committee, the members of which are experts holding different political views. They advised me to take this course. It does not mean that there will be an extensive amount of this sort of building, but the Advisory Committee thought that in certain parts of the country it would be an advantage if this provision were inserted in the Bill and financial arrangements made for it.
The proposal provides for cases where a private person is prepared to build a house on terms which provide for the payment of rents at an agricultural level, and the local authorities must be satisfied that, owing to special circumstances, housing accommodation for the agricultural population can be most conveniently provided in this way. If hon. Members will look at the Clause in the Bill, they will see that those two conditions are very definitely laid down. I hope it will be of some assistance to hon. Members

2125
opposite who object to the proposal to know that the provision by private persons of houses to let at restrictive rents was authorised by the 1924 Act. It is true that only 2,062 houses were provided in that way in agricultural parishes, but I think it can be safely assumed that the Government at that time, when including the provision, hoped that it would be more widely used for the benefit of the agricultural population. I would point out to hon. Members opposite that, except for the rental condition in the present Bill being somewhat stricter and the subsidies being available only for the agricultural population and not indiscrimately, there is no material distinction between the conditions imposed in the 1924 Act and those to be imposed in this Bill. I think that in this matter I have followed faithfully what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield laid down in his recent speech, as being one of the first principles of housing.
Mr. De Chair: Why is it necessary to make the grant conditional upon the council's sanction, since the council will not contribute anything to it? It is conceivable that because of sheer prejudice against private enterprise, some member of a council might try to obstruct the building of houses in this way. Would it not be possible to make it a question purely for the Ministry?
Sir K. Wood: That can be considered when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. One of the reasons which has actuated us in including the provision concerning the sanction of the council is that the local authorities are responsible for the housing conditions in their areas, and therefore they should be in a position to survey the needs of their areas and to see what is required. Hon. Members opposite will perhaps be able to tell us whether local authorities would adopt an attitude of that kind and, simply because they object to private enterprise, ignore the needs of the people. If they did so, it would be very unfair. The question whether, Parliament having passed this proposal, local authorities might endeavour to avoid the law and say that because they do not like private enterprise they will not give active co-operation, is one that I shall have to consider, but it can be dealt with when we reach the Committee stage.
2126
The suggestion has been made that the operation of these financial provisions should be entrusted to the parish councils. Now, the parish councils have no power to build houses, and I think it would be undesirable to have more than one authority engaged in the provision of houses in a district. From the outset. Parliament has made the rural district council the responsible authority. There is, of course, no reason why the rural district council should not build houses for pensioners in the agricultural industry. When a parish council knows that there is need for such houses, I think the best course, in order to avoid duplication of authorities in the district, would be for it to bring the matter to the notice of the rural district council. I assure the Committee that I shall do my best to see that local authorities are encouraged to do all they can for old people. I have constantly emphasised that in the course of different Debates, and I am glad to say that an increasing number of houses-suitable for old people are being included in the normal housing schemes of local authorities.
Mr. G. Griffiths: If we build houses in the urban districts, shall we get £2 15s. and £5 10s. for them?
Sir K. Wood: I think we had better discuss that when we come to the Committee stage. A suggestion has been made that there should be the payment of a lump sum grant in certain cases. I would point out to the hon. Members who made that proposal that the whole basis of grants both to local authorities and to other persons is annual payments. Why we have done that, and why I do not think it is possible to give a lump sum grant in respect of building a house under these proposals, is that these grants to private persons are payable subject to certain conditions which must be observed in order to obtain payment of grantsannually. They are laid down in the Bill. If we gave a lump sum beforehand, I do not see how there would be any practical means of enforcing the conditions of the Bill. While I want to help' people who build in this way, I am equally not prepared to assent to granting: public money unless these provisions are observed and unless in a reasonable way it can be seen that they are observed. I would remind hon. Members who are interested in this question that, as I dare

2127
say they know, local authorities already have wide powers to make advances, as distinct from grants, and I think that the exercise of these powers would meet the difficulty.
I had intended to deal separately with the question of London, but I feel that I have already trespassed too long on the time of the Committee, and I hope therefore that those interested in the question of London will not feel that I intend any discourtesy in not saying anything on that subject. Perhaps in the course of the Debate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could, if necessary, deal with that matter.
Mr. Logan: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me what will be the position with regard to obligations that have been entered into already between the Ministry and a local authority? We have a slum clearance programme extending over a period of eight years and covering 15,000 or 20,000 houses. The subsidy will end on 31st December, 1938. How will the loss be made good?
Sir K. Wood: I do not think I can go as far as seven years ahead. I have gone as far as I can in the proposals in the Bill. I would remind the hon. Member that in the City of Liverpool, while on the one hand there may be a reduction in connection with slum clearance, there will, on the other hand, be considerable assistance for their overcrowding programme. I have no doubt that Liverpool will be able to adjust the two programmes as other authorities are doing. As a matter of fact, from the point of view of the needs of the people, there is no difference in the social and economic position of those who unfortunately have to live in slums and those who are living in badly overcrowded conditions.
In conclusion, I am encouraged on the whole by the speeches that were made in the Second Reading Debate. I am not too seriously concerned by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield said that the Bill betrays the nation and the local authorities. I am accustomed to hearing the right hon. Gentleman say such things. I remember that when the great Local Government Act, 1929, was brought before the House, he moved the rejection of it. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman
2128
has moved the rejection of more beneficent Measures than any other hon. Member. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was born in sin and conceived in iniquity. He said it was the offspring of a demoralised and reckless father and a reluctant mother. When he came to administer that Act, with great success, as Minister of Health, I am sure he looked upon it with a certain measure of satisfaction. I also remember that when the Widows' Pensions Scheme—a Measure which has done so much for so many people—was introduced, when I was Parliamentary Secretary, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Minister of Health, the right hon. Gentleman had the duty of moving the rejection of it; no doubt he could not help it, but was asked by his party to do so. He described that beneficent scheme as a travesty of a scheme. The fact is that some 2,000,000 widows, orphans and children are receiving benefits under it to-day. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman describes this scheme as the betrayal of the nation and the local authorities, I am not discouraged. I know that I shall live to see the day when he will probably claim that he had some share in framing it. I feel that we can look forward to a continuous and steady programme on the part of local authorities under the proposals of the Bill, and I suggest that on the whole we have given the local authorities adequate financial assistance by the proposals which we are considering this afternoon.
The Chairman: Before calling upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), perhaps I had better refer to the fact that he has his name down to two Amendments on the Order Paper. I do not propose to call those Amendments now, and perhaps I might take the opportunity to tell him what I think, it will not surprise him, that the first Amendment is out of order.
4.59 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: The first Amendment was placed on the Order Paper with a view to raising a point as to the Money Resolution, and I did not regard it as being in order. We shall have the general discussion, and we shall be satisfied with a Division on the other Amendment.

2129
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health always likes to have his little joke. I feel flattered to think that he should have remembered since 1929 those gems of oratory of mine, and I hope they have been of some advantage to him. I imagine this is not the last occasion on which he will quote my speeches against me. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the question which I raised in the Second Reading Debate concerning the amendment of the Money Resolution because of the discrepancy between rural housing and urban housing. I understood the right hon. Gentleman's point very well; I think I understood it on Tuesday night. I realised that where he was dealing with a problem of 30,000 houses the latitude was reasonable, but that where he was dealing with 260,000 other houses, with a possible increase of nearly 20 per cent., it would be very substantial, and that is as satisfactory an answer as I ever expected to get. But I must make my protest against the Parliamentary Secretary's treatment of this question on Tuesday evening. I may say that I regarded his statement as discourteous, and my hon. Friends on this side regarded it as grossly impertinent. It only showed that the hon. Gentleman really did not know what the question was about. I may remind the Committee of the words which the hon. Gentleman used:
"I am advised that a limitation to show the fundamental conditions under which grant is to be payable is something which is regarded by the Government as essential, and must be included in the Financial Resolution. The fundamental condition as regards the £6 10s. grant is that it should be restricted to certain cases only, as defined. To leave out those conditions would open the door to the payment of this extra £1 generally. The similarly fundamental condition in regard to the second grant, the agricultural subsidy, is satisfied by the inclusion of the words agricultural population in the Resolution."
Hon. Members on this side, quite naturally, said that that was no answer, and then we have this gratuitiously impertinent statement from the hon. Gentleman:
"It is the only answer which the right hon. Gentleman will get."
I am glad that the Minister had the courtesy this afternoon to give us a fuller and clearer answer. Then I have to complain, in connection with a very important part of this Money Resolution, of another statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary on Tuesday when he misled the House, either in ignorance or deliberately.
2130
Hon. Members who were present will recall the occasion. This was in reference to the question of grants to private enterprise in rural areas, and the hon. Gentleman said:
"I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney, who was so indignant, that similar provisions were inserted in the Wheatley Act in 1924. I would call his attention to Section 2, paragraph (1) of the Wheatley Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield said, Get back to the Wheatley Act. We have got back to the Wheatley Act in this connection."
Then my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) said, "The tied house," and the Parliamentary Secretary said:
"I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as I have not time to read it out, to study what I have said, and he will find that it is substantially accurate."
At that point I asked the hon. Gentleman whether he would tell the House the number of private enterprise houses that were built under the 1924 Act and the hon. Gentleman said:
"Certainly, but not without notice."
And he went on to say:
"This Bill has been assailed by right hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition by every weapon of insult and indignity."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 15th February, 1938; cols. 1826–34, Vol. 331.]
I regard that statement as offensive.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): May I say when I have the opportunity that the word which I actually used—and I think I shall be in the recollection of hon. Members—was not "indignity," but "invective."
Mr. E. J. Williams: You meant it to be offensive.
Mr. Greenwood: I am not concerned about the hon. Gentleman's invective. My shoulders are broad enough to stand all he can give. But as regards the substance of what he said, I have taken the trouble to look up the figures. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the conditions which he proposes to operate this Measure are much the same as the conditions in the Act of 1924. I do not want to quarrel with him on that point now. We shall have that out on Clause 3. Provision was made in Clause 2 of the Act of 1925 that houses might be built by a local authority or by a society or body of trustees or company within the meaning

2131
of Section 3 of that Act, and Section 3, which is far more elaborate in its protection of the tenant than anything in this Bill, makes it clear that we had in mind something very limited. The real spate of houses built by societies of one kind and another came under the 1923 Act.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not like the "lump sum down," because he could not control the cottages afterwards. Quite right, but the terms of the 1923 Act—£6 for 20 years which would be capitalised in terms of £75—provided a company with State capital to build houses, either as a colliery company would, or to sell, as the case may be. Under the 1924 Act there were built over 520,000 houses, the biggest contribution ever made by one Act of Parliament to the housing of the people of this country. In town and country alike private enterprise built fewer than 16,000. That is not the position under this Bill, and I cannot help feeling some indignation that the Parliamentary Secretary should have chosen to compare the Act of 1924 with this miserable Measure. The hon. Gentleman, I say, misled the House on Tuesday as to the purposes of the 1924 Act. Quite wrongly he made a comparison between it and the present Bill, and on that point I think he ought to apologise to the Committee. There is another point on which it may be that I have misunderstood the Bill and the Financial Resolution. He said:
"It (the subsidy) rises as high as £39 on a flat costing more than £28,000 an acre."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1938; cols. 1826–34, Vol. 331.]
In the terms of the Memorandum the maximum is £26. I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman was adding the London County Council's £13 in order to make it £39, but the point is not clear, and perhaps it will be made clear later. Then both the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary on Tuesday tried to defend their 2 to 1 basis. On the proportion of 2 to 1 as between the State and the local authorities, com pared with what operates to-day, the local authorities are losers. The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary talked about the need for low rents. This financial aspect of the problem is worth analysis. The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman is very substantially reducing the slum clearance subsidies.
2132
He is, in a measure, increasing the overcrowding subsidies. His idea of generosity to local authorities is to bring the slum clearance subsidy down to the level of the overcrowding subsidy. I cannot see how that is going to do what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. He gave us some figures—all hypothetical. Actually his figures never work out right. He has assumed slum clearance and relief of overcrowding in equal proportions. He said he was told that that might be the case. I am not so sure that it is so. The slum clearance programme in many towns is in arrears and the authorities will be badly penalised, because in no circumstances can they complete their existing commitments before the end of this year.
The insistence of local authorities in the past few years has been on the slum programme, and the natural emphasis must lie there, because, as I pointed out on Tuesday, overcrowding is a grave enough problem, but when you get overcrowding with the other evil conditions which make the slums, then, obviously, that is the problem which ought to be dealt with first. This new grant, therefore, is going to penalise local authorities who feel that it is their duty to continue with slum clearance. It will encourage them to deal with the problem of overcrowding which is much simpler, and in many cases much cheaper. I am satisfied that if you were to analyse the housing needs of our local authorities to-day they would work out at the rate of one slum clearance house to one overcrowded house. I think it is pretty certain that local authorities will be faced with increased expenditure if they are to carry out the Minister's five-year programme.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about "prices steadying for a fall." I think it is probably true at the present time that the price level is fairly stationary, that there are no violent fluctuations, but what guarantee has the right hon. Gentleman that there will not be fluctuations during the five years of his programme? There is no guarantee at all. When we were discussing the Rearmament White Paper I said the £1,500,000,000 was not the end of the expenditure and that the cost would be found partly by new imposts upon the masses of the people. I said that one inevitable result of the rearmament programme would be a rise in building costs, and therefore higher rents,

2133
and if we take the three years from March, 1934, to March, 1937, it will be found that non-parlour houses rose in price from £286 to £342. Those are not my figures, but the right hon. Gentleman's. The cost of flats between March, 1934, and March, 1937, rose from £400 to £501, an increase of 25 per cent.
It is true that that increase has slackened up now, partly because of a diminished demand for houses, partly because of the difficulty on the part of local authorities in getting supplies. What does the right hon. Gentleman know about the possible course of building costs in the next five years? Nothing; and he is basing his proposals now, and trying to prove his generosity, on the assumption that building costs will remain fairly stable. If building costs rise, further burdens will fall upon local authorities if they are to carry out their programmes, and we are entitled to ask, Will local authorities be prepared to face that burden? They are very heavily pressed as it is, and they are now being asked to enter into commitments on a basis which will not be to their financial advantage and may be seriously to their disadvantage.
What is to be the effect on rents? The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary made a great song and dance about rents. I want to bring the Committee back to the case of Bristol that I quoted on Tuesday. The hon. Member was good enough to get up and say that my constituency would benefit. Time will prove that. I want to take him back to Bristol. This was not the letter of an irresponsible person, but the letter of the Town Clerk of the City of Bristol, who presumably sent it under the advice of his experts. Their case is that they have 500 slum cottages in their proposals for this year which they cannot possibly complete before 31st December, 1938. They have in immediate prospect an additional 600 slum-clearance houses. The first lot will not get the present rate of subsidy, which operated when the tender was made, because it will be beyond the time, and certainly neither will the second lot. Therefore, they have to face the building of at least 1,100 houses on the lower rate of subsidy, and they calculate that that will involve them in a loss for 40 years of £6,325 per year. Their statement goes on to say:
2134
"If the rate contribution is limited to an annual contribution of £2 15s. per house for 40 years, as proposed by the Bill, it will be necessary to increase weekly rents by 2s. 3d. per week, making 9s. 9d. instead of 7s. 6d. as at present. Even if the rate contribution be maintained at £3 15s. as at present, rents must advance by 1s. 8d. a week or the additional loss be borne by the rates, as there is no pool in the Housing Account upon which to draw."
That is a very serious situation, and there ought to be a reply to it. In the "Manchester Guardian" to-day we have the official views of the Manchester authorities on housing:
"Mr. Leonard Heywood, the city housing director, complained not long ago that by substituting a subsidy of £5 10s. per house for its present slum-clearance subsidy, calculated on the number of persons rehoused, the Government would be giving Manchester a bad bargain."
Alderman Sir Miles Mitchell, whom the right hon. Gentleman knows very well as the chairman of the housing sub-committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations, a man of great experience and knowledge, which he is ever ready to put at the disposal of the Minister for the time being,
"disagreed definitely, so far as it concerned Manchester, with the contention of Mr. Bernays (Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health) in the House of Commons on Tuesday that houses built under this Bill could be let at an average of sixpence or nine-pence a week less than existing houses."
Sir Miles Mitchell has been building houses under every Housing Act since the War. He is, perhaps, the most experienced local administrator on this Subject, and he disagrees flatly. Well, he knows. This is not theory from inside the Department; this is a statement of fact by a man who is in touch with these matters:
"'In the big towns at least, he said, the probabilities are that the rents will have to be increased, not reduced. It would become difficult also for the local authority to allow the present rebates to poor tenants.
While the proposed change in the slum-clearance subsidy would throw a heavier burden on the rates, it was also designed, he pointed out, to provide increased grants for building on expensive sites; this would be an incentive to landowners to charge more for their land.
Mr. Leonard Heywood said he did not see how Mr. Bernay's claim that it would mean cheaper rents could possibly be made to fit in with the facts. In the case of a family of four the present subsidy of /9 (45s. for each person) would be replaced by a subsidy of £5 10s. The housing authority and the tenant would lose. Tuesday's Debate did not seem to have altered these facts."

2135
We need an answer to these things. It is no good trying to hocus-pocus about lower rents and advantage to the local authorities when people who are concerned with this problem do not believe it.
The right hon. Gentleman made great play with the fall in interest. When the rates were higher, local authorities had to charge higher rents; when they fell, local authorities passed on the advantage to the tenants in lower rents. That was done in the City of Bristol, where rents of 9s. and 10s. a week were brought down to 7s. 6d., and they did that because they realised that they were dealing in slum-clearance cases with people very limited resources. They realised that in the average provincial town they were putting them on the outskirts, and that, therefore, transport charges, going to and from, were in effect an addition to the rents which they paid. Therefore, taking advantage of this improved financial situation, local authorities have been passing it back to the tenants, which I believe to be the right thing to do, because the houses were built for the tenants. Now the Government propose to capitalise the fall in the rate of interest for the advantage of the Treasury instead of for the advantage of the tenants. This is not an act of generosity on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to the local authorities. Under the Money Resolution both the local authorities and the badly housed section of the people will suffer.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to overcrowding and repeated the formula which he had used on at least two occasions in the House before. It was the beginning of the present housing standard, and it was the minimum amount of accommodation capable of early enforcement, and he quoted words to the effect that his five-years' programme represented the building immediately practicable. That entirely misses the point. I am not arguing whether you can or cannot build more houses in the next five years, which is the right hon. Gentleman's programme; all that I am saying is that you might build better houses, because, remember, these houses, fulfilling the right hon. Gentleman's standard as to what is not overcrowding, will be there for two generations, and before a generation is over this community will look upon them with disgust. There is no reason why, even if he cannot build
2136
more houses, at least his overcrowding standard should not be put at a level consonant with what recent opinion in the country requires.
The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of his rural provisions. He has tried again to make his point of view clear to us, but I am not so sure that he has done it with any very conspicuous success. He falls back on his Housing Advisory Committee, which states:
"Ina comparatively small number of cases it may be necessary to build new houses on isolated farms for the accommodation of. stockmen, etc."
There is nothing in the Bill confining it to "stockmen, etc." In fact, it is chiefly "etceteras." It is not what the Minister says, it is what the Bill permits that matters, and this is not a case of a company, a body of trustees, or a society building houses under the strictest of conditions. This is where anybody can blow in and build them. My hon. Friends on this side of the Committee can only come to the conclusion that this does open the door to landlords and farmers building tied cottages, largely at the public expense, and if the Minister desires to keep it to the lonely cottage of the stockman, he really ought to put provisions in his Money Resolution and in the Bill to that effect. I said that his conditions and ours do not quite square. There are practically no housing standards left now, and under this Money Resolution the right hon. Gentleman can allow pretty nearly what kind of houses he likes in these rural areas. We are bound to come to the conclusion, it seems obvious to us on this side, that this is still another subsidy to rural landlords and to farmers and a further attempt to perpetuate the evil of the tied-cottage system, which is ceasing to be necessary in these days of modern locomotion, even for stockmen.
The evidence, I think, goes to show that the local authorities, upon whom rest very heavy responsibilities for the housing of the people, regard this Bill with something approaching consternation. I have never read anything in any paper which showed that any local authority felt that it was going to get anything out of this Bill, and I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman could have quoted cases of local authorities which had passed a vote of thanks to him for his Bill, he would have done it. What is perturbing the local authorities is that

2137
they do not see how they can fulfil their responsibilities. They are very harassed, as I have said, financially, they have more and more duties crowding in upon them, they live among people who are miserably housed, many of them, of all political parties, are desirous to do something to improve housing conditions, and they are feeling to-day crippled by this new move on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The local authorities, moreover, fear—quite rightly, it seems to me—that the rents will rise, in which case, if my prophecy comes true, the poor will pay a heavy price for this so-called prosperity boom and for the rearmament programme.
The Minister has been more unconvincing than usual and the Parliamentary Secretary far more unconvincing than him. We have had this kind of struggle in the House repeatedly, the right hon. Gentleman claiming that his Measures are beneficent and in the great interests of the nation, and so on, and we have had to criticise them severely. This Measure is no exception. I do not think it will add to the glories of the right hon. Gentleman. I think it will be added to that long list of Tory Measures which have satisfied the taxpayer at the expense of the poorest people of the land.
5.31 p.m.
Mr. W. Roberts: I would like to add another point to those which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has made with regard to the provisions of this Financial Resolution which will reduce the subsidy for slum clearance. I want to refer to the position of some of the smaller authorities. I welcome many of the provisions of the Bill as they affect rural and agricultural districts, but there is also a problem of slum clearance and overcrowding in the areas of rural district councils. This will be made much more difficult to deal with by the present Bill unless the interpretation of an agricultural worker is so wide that it will be possible to build new houses for people who are not strictly agricultural workers and who will be able to come under that part of the Bill which deals with the subsidy for agricultural workers rather than that which deals with slum clearance and overcrowding.
I would like to give as one instance a group of 95 houses for which tenders have been accepted in a rural district
2138
in a Special Area in the north of England. In spite of the fact that the Commissioner for the Special Area is meeting the contribution which should be provided from the rural district and in spite of the assistance under the existing legislation, the rents which will have to be charged for these houses are much higher than the existing rents. Although this has been announced only a few days it has already created something of an outcry locally. If the same programme had been carried out under this Bill the position would indeed have been difficult. It is not only in the large towns that the new provisions will be difficult. In the slum clearance schemes in rural districts in the north with which I am familiar it was possible to let houses at rents within the capacity of people to pay, but the rise in building costs has made a considerable difference, and we have noticed it very severely in the last year or 18 months.
Many of us welcome the new proposals for dealing with houses for agricultural workers, and the only criticism I would make is that some action of this sort is long overdue. Hitherto the only work which has been effectively done for the agricultural worker has been done under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. The amounts spent under those Acts, however, when compared with the enormous sums which have been spent under the Housing Acts for urban dwellers, is seen to be a trivial amount. Figures supplied to me by the Minister in the autumn showed that the total amount promised but not spent then was short of £1,000,000. He told us that 14,000 houses were to be reconstructed. The present Bill proposes to spend another £310,000 to build 30,000 houses. We welcome that, but it is a provision which is long overdue.
I would like the Minister to throw some light on what the position will be in rural districts where houses are built partly under the slum-clearance provision of the Bill and partly under the £10 subsidy. It will create a very anamolous position. There will be rural workers who are not earning more than agricultural workers in many instances, and, unless the definition of rural worker is wide enough to include them, there will be created a sense of jealousy and hardship among the people who are excluded from these cheaper houses. The striking thing about the Rural Workers Housing Acts is the patchy way in which they have been

2139
used. Taking at random some of the figures with which I have been supplied, I find that Devon has spent £167,000, Dorset £24,000, East Suffolk £68,000, West Suffolk £5,000, part of East Yorkshire £3,000, North Yorkshire £28,000. I submit that it is possible that this Bill will be used in rural districts as patchily as the present facilities.
I notice that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has an Amendment which suggests that parish councils should be given power to build houses. The Minister has already indicated that he would not welcome such a suggestion, and I agree with him. There ought to be more power given to parish councils or to substantial numbers of individual ratepayers to make representations directly to the county council, or, failing that, to the Ministry; and the machinery should exist by which the Ministry can direct that houses should be built if a clear case is made out for the need of them. Such powers may exist, but I do not see them in the Bill. Many small rural district councils are not energetic in carrying out their responsibilities. They have been very negligent in the past in applying the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, and in condemning insanitary housing. They have not been active in providing water supplies and sewerage. The administration in rural districts of these essential services has been exceedingly patchy, and I would ask the Government whether they would not consider using some means by which the rather somnolent councils should be brought up to the standard of efficiency equal to the best.
I would like an assurance from the Government that the facilities in the rural houses which it is hoped will be let at reasonable rents shall not be sacrificed. It is essential that new houses built in rural districts should be supplied with bathrooms, water supply and proper sewerage arrangements. There is a tendency to suggest that such amenities, although they may be necessary in the towns, are not necessary in country districts, but that is a complete fallacy. The damp and insanitary room in a country cottage leads as much to tuberculosis and rheumatics as a similar room in the town, and the standard of houses and the services supplied to them should be kept as high as that which exists in the towns. With regard to the question of grants to
2140
private persons and the problem of the tied cottage, I believe that the real solution is that there should be an adequate number of cottages in the country districts. In some instances an isolated cottage is needful, but if there is an adequate supply of cottages, so that if a man loses his job he will willingly go to another house, it would be a way of meeting a real difficulty. Whether the right way to meet that need is to lend money to private owners or not may be a moot point. I do not believe the principle is necessarily wrong, but I think that under this Bill some rural workers will be enabled to build their own cottages.
As the Minister has pointed out, powers exist already for local authorities to lend money to people who have not sufficient capital; and the district council of which I have the honour to be a member has in one or two cases used those powers under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899. There is no reason why the stockman or a retired agricultural worker should not build his own house, and in many instances they do own their own houses. That is a development which might well be encouraged. I hope that the Ministry in granting these facilities will keep a tight watch on the local authorities to see that they are not shirking their responsibility and shelving it on to other people. It is no use having a low-rented house if the rates are too high. I would ask whether the Minister would consider issuing some direction as to how these low-rented houses are to be assessed by the local assessment committee. At present a house in a rural area may have a rent of as much as 2s.
The Chairman: The hon. Member may, perhaps, have an opportunity of dealing with that point in the Committee stage of the Bill, but it goes beyond this Financial Resolution.
Mr. Roberts: I am sorry that I was led away on that point. It only arises in considering what the general cost to the tenant of living in one of those houses will be. I would only add that while it is a little difficult to estimate what will be the full result of this Bill, and while we deprecate as strongly as possible the reduction in the assistance given to slum clearance, I shall not be exaggerating in saying that the main principle of the rural subsidy is welcomed in many parts of the House.
5.47 p.m.
Major Sir George Davies: To many of us who were in the House 13 or 14 years ago, when the subject of housing so frequently came up and so many tempers were lost, and it was a matter of such party strife, it is, indeed, pleasant to think of the atmosphere in which the Second Reading of the Bill was debated and into which this Financial Resolution has come. I think it is true to say that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) and the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) did their best to inject a certain amount of party feeling. I could not help feeling a little amused at the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent when he said that all life was a matter of party strife—a gloomy outlook for one of his youth and promise. Of course, we do not connect the right hon. Member for Wakefield so much with youth and promise as with age and promises, and he, naturally, has attacked this Bill in a way which shows the real fundamental difference between us on housing. We on these benches are anxious, of course under common-sense limitations, that as many houses as possible should be built. The tendency opposite seems to be to agree with that on condition that the houses are provided through certain channels, and preferably under the direction and aegis of the right hon. Member for Wakefield. I do not pretend to know too much about the question of housing in our concentrated areas of population. That is a matter with which hon. Members opposite are more closely connected, and, may behave greater experience, but I should like to say a word about housing in the rural areas, with which one of the most important parts of this Bill is concerned, a part which I was glad to hear the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) welcome in his speech.
In all the efforts for re-housing made since I have been in the House we have managed to deal, to some extent, anyhow, with great portions of the problem, but primarily the urban part. We have dealt with considerable success with slums and overcrowding, but one thing which has never been successfully tackled has been the provision of houses for rural workers. An effort to fill that gap was made by the Rural Workers Act, but that has been a great disappointment to many of us, and I should like to put
2142
forward a suggestion, which perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will pass on to his right hon. Friend, as to one reason why it has not been the success we had hoped. I know of so many cases where local authorities have said, "We feel that this is an assistance by us to landlords, and we are not going to give that assistance unless we are sure that houses will not be built without that assistance." I do not believe it was ever intended that the Measure should be interpreted in that way. It seems to me that where there were buildings which could be reconstructed to provide cottages, or cottages which could be brought up to date, and the need was there, that under the terms of that Act it was the duty of the local authorities to do what they could to assist.
The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member is making something in the nature of a Second Reading speech. I was hoping to hear him relate his remarks specially to the financial provisions of this Resolution.
Sir G. Davies: Perhaps I have been rather long in getting to the point I wished to make, which was the encouragement to be given towards providing houses for those in the countryside. Naturally this increased subsidy is a great step forward in that direction. Hon. Members have expressed a fear of the misuse of tied cottages under the provisions of this subsidy. There is a good deal of misapprehension and, if I may respectfully say so, nonsense talked about the danger of the subsidy becoming an encouragement to tied cottages. We are told that it is wrong that when a man loses his job he should lose his house, but when a man gets a job it is an advantage to him to get a house with it, looking at it from the other point of view, and so developments which may conceivably be assisted by the financial provisions of this Resolution may, in the end, work both ways. The tied cottage grew up partly in the interests of the farmer or landowner, but largely in the interests of those who were to occupy it. Stockmen's cottages are not necessarily confined to vacant and lonely areas. They are often found in an area where there are residents already, near farm buildings, near cowsheds and stables, and not necessarily out in the wilds where the sheep may be under semi-ranching conditions. While there may be something in the objections

2143
against subsidising private enterprise, the limitations under this Financial Resolution are such that undesirable features are avoided, and we should concentrate upon every means which will enable houses to be built for those who need them.
It is my own view it is desirable that the houses should be built as much as possible in occupied areas of villages, because it is less lonely if amenities are available, particularly water supply. I know that is outside the immediate scope of this Financial Resolution, though it materially affects the cost and location of such cottages. There are many other considerations about which I should like to speak, but I will confine myself to saying that the one part of our housing problem which has not been dealt with has been that of providing houses for rural workers at rents which they can pay, and that consideration outweighs all the others. What every decent landowner or employer has at heart is the provision of housing facilities up to modern standards at reasonable rates. If, as I think, the Financial Resolution and the Bill facilitate that, then I say that in spite of the Cassandralike warnings of the right hon. Member for Wakefield and some other hon. Members, we shall feel that we have done a good piece of work by passing this Bill.
6.55 p.m.
Mr. Price: In his opening remarks the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Sir G. Davies) said there seemed to be much less difference now between hon. Members on this side of the House and on his side than was the case 12 to 15 years ago, and he instanced only two hon. Members on these benches who, he thought, still regarded this question from a purely party standpoint. If there is less difference now than there was 12 years ago it is largely due to the efforts of my hon. Friends on these benches, whereby hon. Members opposite have been brought nearer to the point of view that only by public activity in housebuilding shall we ever really solve this problem.
The Chairman: I hope the hon. Member will also remember that I called the hon. and gallant Member's attention to the fact that he was rather outside this Money Resolution.
Mr. Price: I was only answering the hon. and gallant Member, and I will not pursue that point any further, but come back directly to paragraphs A (2 and 3) of the Financial Resolution, which refer to rural houses. I will admit that the provisions for rural housing are certainly more generous than those provided in the Act of 1935, which was the last Act dealing with rural houses, but having admitted that I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will regard my criticism as the more reasonable when I say that the present Measure is much less good than the Act of 1931. The comparison is rather between this Measure and the Act of 1931 than with the Act of 1935. The Minister has told us that even in the Act of 1931 there was a provision for the review of the subsidies. That may have been so, but I think he is only quibbling there. It is true that it was possible to review the subsidies from time to time under the Act of 1931, but there was no evidence that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) if he had been in charge some years after the Act was put on the Statute Book, would have reviewed them downwards, which was what actually happened; because it was the murder of that Act by the economy measures of 1931 which led to the grave failure to deal with the rural housing problem.
In the Act of 1931 the principle was first established that the contribution by the State towards rural slum clearance should be on the basis of so many persons rehoused rather than on the basis of so much per house. Moreover, the contributions were such as would take the financial conditions of each rural district council into consideration, those less able financially to deal with the problem receiving greater assistance than those who were not. In other words, the contribution was of such an amount as might be deemed appropriate for each particular council; and in fact a capital sum of £2,000,000 was laid down for the construction of 40,000 houses. If they had all been constructed the contribution would have been at the average rate of £50 a house, an extraordinarily generous contribution, and we should certainly have made a big hole in the rural housing problems. This is some advance on the Act of 1935, and I am glad to see also that it will enable a rural district council not merely to deal with slum clearance

2145
but with the problem of overcrowding in rural areas. It will also enable them to provide new houses for a possibly expanding population. It was felt that the old Measure was very much confined in its operations because it allowed rehousing only for people who live in condemned houses and would not permit local authorities to construct houses to meet the needs of an expanding population, as is essential if we are to make it possible for agricultural labourers to stay on the land.
Standards of living are rising. The younger generation will not marry and live in houses in which their fathers and grandfathers lived. They demand modern standards, in the countryside as well as in the towns. I know of young people who would have stayed upon the land if better facilities had been offered to them, but they have taken the opportunity to go into the town. I do not say that they could not get accommodation in the country, but the accommodation was not decent enough to meet modern standards. I know, and I daresay that other hon. Members know, of cases in various parts of the country, in which people who live in towns bought country cottages as an investment, very small people, and have put the rents up to 3s., 5s., and even 7s. a week, which is too much for an agricultural labourer. I recall a case in point in which the labourer had to leave the district and go five or six miles away from the farm where he works and bicycle to the farm every day.
That is the kind of thing which is going on, and making a problem which rural district councils cannot meet. They have not been able to build houses under any Act in order to meet demands of that kind. They can build houses only in order to rehouse people who are living in places condemned by the sanitary authorities. It is essential that we should have an Act upon the Statute Book at an early date to make it possible for agricultural labourers who are not living in condemned cottages but in houses which are over-rented and a long way from their farms to be supplied by the action of the rural district councils, aided by the State, with satisfactory houses near their work at rents which are within their capacity to pay.
In the opening speech which he made on the Second Reading, the Minister of Health referred to building costs and re
2146
marked that building prices were steadying for a fall. I am a little anxious about what he seemed to be aiming at. He did not say so in so many words, but the implication was that because interest rates have come down and because there was a prospect in future of building costs coming down, it was possible for him to revise in a downward direction the subsidies and grants for slum clearance. I do not think there is any evidence that building costs are likely to come down yet in such a way as to make a revision of the subsidy desirable. The Financial Resolution will have the effect of making local authorities of towns dependent upon a grant per house rather than upon a grant per person, which will seriously interfere with and hit local authorities in their slum clearance programmes.
There has been a fall in building prices in the last four or five months, but the prices of building materials are still very much above those of 1935, which was the date of the last Act dealing with rural housing, and 1936, the date of the last consolidating Act dealing with housing in general. The rearmament programme, moreover, and the considerable building which is in progress in this connection, will surely mitigate any large weakening in building costs. It would be good, of course, if they were to come down, but the actual fact seems to be as I have stated. I have looked at some of the figures. Copper has come down a bit, but it is still £12 per ton above the 1935 price, and lead £8 a ton above the 1935 price. Taking Baltic timber of the standard sizes, the price of 7-inch battens has come down about £1 a standard in the last four months, since last Autumn. The price rose however about £3 a standard between 1935 and the Autumn of last year and it is still £2 a standard above the price of 1935.
There have been considerable falls in the prices of certain classes of timber, particularly Columbian pine and imports from Canada and Western America, largely due to conditions prevailing there. Owing to unsound financial conditions, some of the companies exporting from those districts are inclined to unload their stocks on the market very suddenly. That is no criterion as to what the timber market is likely to be in the near future. I suggest that there is need for considerable caution. We ought not to assume because of a prospective fall in building

2147
prices that we should be more economical with our assistance.
I would turn to that part of the Financial Resolution which deals with tied cottages and with assistance to private individuals who build houses in the country. I recognise that it is not easy to get rid of the tied-cottage system—the service house, in other words—attached to the farm. On the Second Reading Debate an hon. Member argued that the tied-cottage system was reasonable and ought to remain, like the laws of the Medes and Persians. The police, he said, lived in tied houses, so why should not the agricultural labourers? My reply to that is that the police have a very different status from agricultural labourers. The police are guaranteed their jobs and are granted a pension. The agricultural labourer is not guaranteed his job and has no certainty of the same kind of pension as that of the police. He has the old age pension and nothing more. One cannot argue that because the police are living in tied houses the man working in an industry which is subject to such fluctuations as agriculture can therefore be put into the same category.
I agree with the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) that there is clearly a case for increasing activity by the public authorities to provide alternatives to the tied cottage. That is the only way to do it. I know that hon. Members opposite are still coquetting with the idea of assisting private enterprise. Up to a point the Act to recondition country cottages had something to be said for it, and in my own constituency there is a district council confronting very peculiar conditions owing to the fact that many miners of the Forest of Dean own their own houses, in many cases, and have been able, under that Act, to recondition their houses. Many of them are now living in much better conditions than they were 10 or 15 years ago. In those special conditions, the reconditioning Act of some years ago——
The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member is making a speech more fitted to the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. Price: I quite understand, Captain Bourne, but I am really only replying to speeches which have been made in this Debate. However, I will not pursue that
2148
line of argument any further. I will merely say that it is an altogether dangerous provision to give public assistance for an extension of private building. Tied houses may be necessary up to a point, but one hopes they will be eliminated.
My final point concerns the preservation of rural amenities, which has been referred to. I would like to see provision made in this Financial Resolution whereby it should be an obligation upon the Rural District Council to consult such bodies as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and others concerned with the preservation of rural amenities, in the construction of houses in the countryside. A few years ago I sold some land to a rural district council for the purpose of building rural houses and I put into the agreement that the rural district council should consult with the local representative of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England in order to ensure that the proper kind of material suitable to the district should be used in the construction of those houses. I hope very strongly that we can do something as this Financial Resolution passes through Committee to strengthen that obligation on the rural district council to deal with such a matter, along the lines I suggest.
I do not condemn this Financial Resolution root and branch. I admit that it shows a distinct advance over the Act of 1935 dealing with this subject, but I maintain that it contains dangerous provisions and that my hon. Friends are fully justified in moving an Amendment to it, particularly where it relates to assistance to private enterprise for houses which ought to be built by public authorities.
6.14 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I agree with much that was said by the last speaker, and particularly his closing remark that we should do all we can to ensure that the amenities of the countryside are preserved. I doubt if it will be practicable to put into the Bill an Amendment to enforce consultation with any particular body. I congratulate the Minister upon bringing forward a Bill which will be of very great use in improving houses in rural districts. We know that the condition of housing in those districts is not as good as it should be and has not kept

2149
pace with the improvement in urban areas. It is true that much has been done under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, and I was glad to hear the Minister on the Second Reading refer to that Act, and say he means to extend it, and I hope amend it. I should be out of order if I discussed it now but I hope to communicate with him on the subject.
I would very strongly urge my right hon. Friend to make an alteration in the definition of agricultural workers. It is now the same as in the Act of 1934, but I think a better definition is that which is given in the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. I understand that under the Bill the £10 grant is only to be given to rural district councils in respect of people within the rural district council area, but surely the question whether the grant should be given should be decided on the basis of the employment of the man who lives in the cottage, or the wages that he earns, and not on whether he is on one side or another of an imaginary line which means nothing to-day, though it may have meant something 1,000 years ago, when the parish boundaries were formed. Take the case of the Tiverton Borough Council, which rules over some 17,600 acres. Of that area, about 1,000 acres are town, and over 16,000 are agricultural land; and a great part of that agricultural land is much more isolated and out of the way than a great part of the land which is ruled over by the Tiverton Rural District Council. But the Tiverton Rural District Council will get this grant, and the Tiverton Borough Council will not.
Moreover, the Bill will operate very unfairly as between property owners. A property owner within the area of the rural district council will get the grant, but a property owner within the area of the borough council will get none; and it is quite possible that even one owner of property, while he may get the grant if he builds a house on one part of his property, if he builds another house on the same property just over the boundary line will get no grant, although the people who live in that house will pay the same rent and be doing the same work and getting the same wages as those who live in the other house. That seems to me to be an absurd provision, and I hope the Minister will be able to alter it so that borough and urban district councils may
2150
get the grant, and so make a great improvement in the Bill.
I had hoped that the Government would have found it possible to carry out the recommendations of the Housing Committee in full, and put private individuals and district councils on the same footing. Under the Bill the district council is certain of the £10 grant and may get £12, whereas the private owner can get only £10 as a maximum and may get less. Obviously, the houses which will be built by private enterprise will be those in isolated positions, and, therefore, the most expensive to build. I do not think that the landowner is going to get any financial advantage from the Measure. It will not put anything in his pocket, because the rent is fixed. His only advantage will be that he will have the satisfaction of knowing that the workers, men on his estate are well and comfortably housed
Personally I have no objection to any restrictions in that direction. I should like to see it made quite certain that houses built by private enterprise with Government assistance are used for the purpose for which that assistance is given. Hon. Members opposite object to the tied cottage, but I have never been able to understand that objection. I think that the tied cottage is just as much to the advantage of the worker as of the employer. If a farm worker wants to change his employment and cannot get a cottage on the new farm, he cannot change his employment, and, therefore, I think the tied cottage really increases his freedom.
The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot, on this Resolution, pursue the question of policy with regard to the tied cottage, he question whether any money should be granted to private individuals for the purpose of building cottages is in order, but the general question of policy as to whether money should be granted or not is beyond the scope of the Resolution.
Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I apologise. A great deal has been said on that subject in one way and another, but I will not pursue it further. I hope that the Minister will be able to see his way to make an alteration in the Bill with regard to the councils to which the subsidy can be paid. If he can, I think he will make a good Bill a very much better one.
6.23 p.m.
Mr. Dunn: I desire to express my personal regret that some hon. Members from rural districts have complained of the inactivity of the rural district councils in dealing with these housing problems in their districts, and to say that my experience in my part of the country is that the rural district councils, having regard to their limited resources, have approached the housing problem just as vigorously as the urban districts, or even the municipalities. The two district councils in my constituency have both approached this housing problem with real vigour, and have done all that they possibly could with their limited resources.
I want to deal with the problem from two aspects, fully realising the limitations to which we are subject in discussing the Financial Resolution. To my mind there are really two problems, the one that of overcrowding, and the other that of the cost of building. As I understand the Bill, the intention is very largely to superimpose its financial provisions upon the Acts of 1935 and 1936, but I cannot understand why the Minister has not thought fit to approach the problem of overcrowding in a wider sense than he has up to the present. The problem can be looked at from many angles. The Minister has sought to look at it from the standpoint of slum-clearance and of the overcrowding which in no small degree is consequent upon the question of slum-clearance; but I would like to look at it from the standpoint of local authorities who have made vigorous attacks upon the housing problem and have done all that they possibly could to abate overcrowding as well as to clear away slums.
I come from a district in which, before 1930, the authority had cleared away practically every slum that there was in the district, so that no application at all has been made to the Minister from that district for assistance under the Act relating to slum-clearance. The problem of overcrowding, however, is creating serious concern in the country, and I want to ask the Minister whether we cannot, within this Financial Resolution, consider seriously the question of relaxing the standard with regard to overcrowding which was fixed in the Acts of 1935 and 1936. I have in my area a small urban district where there are 467 houses which are regarded as overcrowded. In that area, as
2152
in many similar areas, work is taking place during the whole of the 24 hours of the day, so that the problem there is essentially different from the rural problem.
In those areas, from many of which hon. Members on this side come, you have three-shift and four-shift systems at work, and it is impossible to apply, in areas of that kind, the standards provided for in this Resolution. In the area from which I come, there is bedroom accommodation for 6,836 people out of a population of 12,000, and, unless there is a relaxation of the standards to which the Financial Resolution is related, we shall only have power, on a generous interpretation, to build 64 new houses, whereas, on the basis of bedroom accommodation, and taking into account the methods of work in the district, we require 467 houses. That problem, in a developing area, is causing considerable concern. The position is that, if the Bill is passed and the Resolution goes through without alteration of the standards, over 1,000,000 families in this country will be living in houses for which no provision can be made within the standards of the survey of 1935 and 1936. It has been worked out that, after we have passed this Bill, 2,000,000 married couples with families in this country will have no provision made for them. In face of that, I ask the Minister whether he can look on the Bill with the complacency which he seems to be showing. If it is desired that the population should be increased, this is the wrong way to bring it about. I am quite astounded that the Minister, in both his speeches, should have indicated to the House that, as a result of this Bill, there will be practically no increase in rents. This Financial Resolution is making provision, I suppose, for a subsidy to reduce rents. I have evidence on that point from my own local authority. I find that there are houses which are rented to-day at 7s. 6d. a week, inclusive of rates, and that when the Bill is passed we shall be called upon to pay, for similar houses, 10s. 7d. per week; while rents of 8s. 6d. a week will be raised to 11s. 9d., and rents of 9s. 6d. a week will be raised to 14s. 2d. I am sorry that I cannot get enthusiastic about this Bill. I think the House is not justified in approving a Bill which has the effect of deliberately raising rents in developing areas by 3s. to 5s. a week, and which, in addition, confines

2153
2,000,000 people to houses for which provision has not been made at all. I cannot understand the Minister saying that the big municipalities, and that bodies such as the County Councils' Association and the Rural District Councils' Association welcome this Bill.
6.34 p.m.
Mr. Pilkington: Before hearing the Debate on Tuesday and the speech which has been delivered this afternoon from the Front Opposition Bench, I thought that everybody would have agreed in congratulating the National Government on the magnificent achievement of its housing programme. I know now, however, that I was wrong. The Minister described to us the other day how, under this Bill, he envisaged the building of some 80,000 houses a year, making a total of 400,000 in five years. That is about double the number for the last five years. It is a tremendous increase on anything achieved by the Labour party when they were in power, yet we have hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Labour benches describing this is a "retrograde" Bill, "to stop, or slow down," the building of houses and slum clearance. When the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) questions what he calls the inaccuracies of the Parliamentary Secretary, one is justified in suggesting that he should remove the beam from his own eye. In many cases, though not all, the actual planning necessary under the Government's campaign has been carried out with great forethought and vision. I have in mind an area at Huyton in Lancashire which has been planned and built by the Liverpool Corporation with great success. The woods, and even the brooks, in that area have been not only preserved, but incorporated in the estate.
The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member is also trying to deliver a speech on the merits of the Bill.
Mr. Pilkington: I was trying to lead up to the question of the extent to which community centres should be adopted by local authorities. The other day the Minister was asked to give a list of local authorities which have provided these centres. He gave some 15 names. But, surely, in all the new estates which are some way away from the main centre of the town there should be these community centres provided under the Bill.
The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out that under the Act which this Bill proposes to amend there is no provision for community centres.
Mr. Pilkington: I will pass on from that, and only express the hope that there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter soon, because it is very important. Under the present Act, the assistance given in respect to each house varies with the size of the family. That is not the case under this Bill. It seems very unfair that a town should be penalised because of the number of large families it has. Towns vary in the proportion of their large families to their total population. In my town of Widnes, the number of large families is very considerable. It is a town of only 42,000 people, yet it has some 75 families with 10 or more children, and one family with 25 children. Would the Minister not be prepared to see that the proposed rate is varied for those places which need a larger number of big houses, compared with small houses?
6.40 p.m.
Mr. Logan: I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the financial provisions of the Bill. In passing, I must comment on the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken, and who referred to the housing estates of Liverpool at Huyton. It is interesting to hear hon. Members from other parts of the country congratulating us upon the spread of the city of Liverpool. To-day, we are dealing with the passing of the old Act and the bringing in of a new one. The financial arrangements must be taken as a debit and credit account from the point of view of accountancy. In the city of Liverpool we calculate an average family for the purpose of housing to be 4.25 persons. On that estimate, £9 3s. 11d. per annum is the amount of subsidy we receive under the present Bill. The Minister may recall that I asked him during the concluding passages of his speech what would be the position in the case of obligations already entered into between the Ministry and the local authorities. He said that where they had accepted liabilities nothing could be done under this Act.
I want to call the Minister's attention to a gentlemen's agreement, as it might be termed, which exists in the City of Liverpool. There we are dealing with a

2155
most able housing director, one of the best in the country. We have entered into obligations, and they must be taken into account—not only with regard to the responsibility of the Treasury, but to the responsibility of the citizens of Liverpool in footing the Bill, if we are in advance of our time. There was an agreement entered into that there should be a 10 years' slum clearance scheme in operation. Then the Minister asked whether we could not acquiesce in an eight years' agreement, and, in order to expedite this scheme, an agreement was accordingly come to. The Ministry, whatever its financial arrangements, in a Bill which deals with urban district councils and other areas with a smaller number of houses, having entered into an arrangement, not in writing but tacitly, must at least meet or exceed the financial obligations over and above those stereotyped obligations that will be of general application. In regard to this particular scheme, having got rid of 40,000 to 60,000 houses, we have now scheduled, and have to deal with, 10,000 houses in the inner area of the city. That being so, we are right up against the financial responsibility, and I am extremely surprised how wonderfully well the representatives of Liverpool appear in this House to back up the overburdened ratepayers of the city. The voice of Liverpool is always silent in regard to costs to the city, and no criticism is to be offered. I offer this condemnation, not as a criticism of the Minister, but on the financial aspect of the Bill and the question of equity, which ought to be suitably met in regard to the provisions of the Bill.
I have gone into the housing commitments of the City of Liverpool, which looks like having a warrant issued against it, because it will not be able to deal with the commitments on account of the new Act. It will have increased liabilities after 31st December, 1938. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he must meet the local authority in some way because of the difficulties of the situation there. Overcrowding is a very great problem, and, therefore, the financial relationship of the Bill means a lot to Liverpool. It also means retarding slum clearance, because both these things cannot go together unless we are able financially to meet our obligations.
2156
I will give a summary of the position as received from the Town Clerk of Liverpool, in response to a telegram which I sent him asking him to let me have particulars in regard to housing operations and the position at Liverpool. There can be no doubt of the correctness of these figures. Taking the flats and the houses still required under the slum clearance programme, the present subsidy from the Exchequer would amount to £141,233 17s. 6d., whereas under the new Bill, the Exchequer contribution, based upon the city's existing plans of £10,000 per acre, would be reduced to £129,553, while in order to obtain this financial assistance the local rate contribution would be increased from £39,765 to £64,776 10s. They say that they do not disagree with the deficiency question as mentioned by the Minister. They say that it is correct, but they also say—and I agree with them—that it is unfair that the share to be taken by the local authority should be increased, and that the proportion of two to one is inadequate.
I am fully convinced that these proposals may be the best, and, no doubt, in many ways this is a good Bill for the purpose of relieving some of the difficulties, but it will create greater difficulties and delay in the City of Liverpool. It will increase our rents, and anything that is going to increase rents ought to be met in this House. There can be no redress in regard to the difficulties of a city like Liverpool, which has a town-planning, redevelopment and rehousing scheme. Ten thousand houses are scheduled to be dealt with in the inner area of the city. They are now going to suffer a loss. They could satisfy the Minister that they have carried out their duty up to a given point and yet their obligation has to go on. The Minister ought to be empowered under the provisions of the Bill to meet such an obligation. This is a penalty upon the people of such a city.
We are all anxious to have rehousing and to get rid of the slums. Unless we are able to fix reasonable rentals, this can be brought about only by Exchequer assistance. It will be intolerable to tell these people that if they are rehoused they will have to pay a higher rent. The financial obligations we have incurred, and the provisions of the Bill do not give us an opportunity to meet the requirements

2157
which are absolutely necessary for the home life of our people. Our housing programme will be stayed because of the financial arrangements of this Bill, and I ask the Minister, knowing how anxious he is—I do him that credit—to bring about a better sanitary state and healthier conditions in the land, to see whether some method can be brought about to relieve authorities which have had to incur these increased obligations.
6.52 p.m.
Mr. Lipson: I have listened with considerable sympathy to the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan), and all the more perhaps because the point I wish to make is not dissimilar. I want to indicate a certain inconsistency in the financial proposals now before the Committee. That inconsistency shows itself in the difference of principle that has been followed in determining the subsidy to be given to local authorities for slum clearance and that in determining the subsidy to be given for overcrowding. During the course of the Debate it has been pointed out that the subsidy to local authorities for slum clearance is to be very much less than it was under the old system, and fears are being raised as to whether that will not lead to an abatement of the energy of local authorities in dealing with this great evil. I hope that it will not, because that would be a great calamity, but I must point out that the proposal to reduce the subsidy for slum clearance at this stage has at least this merit. Those local authorities who have been energetic in dealing with this problem and who have made considerable progress can congratulate themselves on their early start. It will be a reward for them for having got on with the job, whereas those local authorities who have been slack in dealing with it will perhaps regret that they were not more energetic in their action.
When we turn to overcrowding exactly the reverse principle has been applied. The subsidy for overcrowding under the 1936 Act was a discretionary subsidy. A local authority could not be certain how much it was going to get by way of subsidy, even indeed if it was going to get anything at all, but the most that it could hope to get was £5 a year for 20 years—that was the maximum—a total of £100 per house. Under the new proposals the subsidy for overcrowding is £5 10s. a
2158
year for 40 years, £220 a house, a difference of £120.
I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the injustice to those local authorities who have already entered into contracts and have either built or are in the process of building houses in order to do away with overcrowding. I should like in this instance to quote the example of the borough which I have the honour to represent in this House. The town council of Cheltenham is a most progressive body. It has been foremost in working every Measure passed by this House for the improvement of the housing conditions of the people, and it has already contracted to build 124 houses under the old subsidy in respect of overcrowding. It has applied for a subsidy, but it has not been told yet whether it will get any subsidy at all, but the most it can hope to get will be £100 per house, spread over 20 years. If it had been slack in working this Act, and if it had waited for better terms, it would now be getting as a right £5 10s. a year for 40 years. Therefore, owing to the fact that it was energetic in working the Housing Act of 1936, it stands to lose £120 on 124 houses, a matter of £14,880, and those local authorities who have been laggards in dealing with overcrowding can congratulate themselves, because they are going to get better terms.
I submit to the Minister that it is unfair that the authorities which have been energetic in this matter should be penalised in this fashion. It is unfair, and it is also unjust, and I would also point out that it would be very unwise for him to give to local authorities the impression by any act or his, that if, when any Measure is passed by this House and certain subsidies are offered to local authorities, they only wait long enough, they will get better terms. That is bound to produce an element of uncertainty and delay. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will make some effort within the Financial Resolution to provide for those authorities who have already built houses to deal with overcrowding. He gave us the figures during the Second Reading Debate. Already some 17,000 houses have been built or contracted for to deal with this question. There is not a very-considerable sum involved for the Government, and I hope, therefore, that he will see whether it is not possible to

2159
make retrospective the overcrowding subsidy, and let it apply to those houses that have already been contracted for or built.
I would point out to him that the attitude which was adopted by Cumaean Sibyl was very much wiser than that proposed in this case. The Committee will remember that the Cumaean Sibyl went to Tarquin and offered him nine Sibylline books at a certain price. Tarquin thought the price was too high and refused to buy. She went away and burnt three and came back and asked him the same price for the six. He again thought that it was too high and refused to buy. She went away again, burnt three more, and came and asked him the same price for the remaining three and he paid it. The moral if it was that he had gained nothing by waiting, but that if he had taken the opportunity when it first came, he would have been better off. That is the moral which, I hope, the Minister will try to impress upon local authorities, that they will gain nothing by not administering the Acts which this House passes. Therefore, I trust that he will make such arrangements within the Financial Resolution as will not only do justice to these local authorities who have done their duty, but will not create a dangerous precedent so far as his own Department is concerned.
6.59 p.m.
Mr. Riley: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) upon his stimulating and courageous speech in criticism of the Government. I want to associate myself with him in one point of view only with regard to the financial part of the Bill in relation to the promotion of housing. The Bill is called Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, but I submit to the Committee that it would be more appropriate, as far as the financial Clauses of the Bill are concerned, to describe it as the Housing (Obstruction) Bill. I do not relate that to the parts of the Bill dealing with rural housing. I agree that in that respect a generous spirit, foresight and an enlightened attitude have been displayed. But when we come to consider its effect upon housing in urban areas, particularly industrialised areas, which are largely concerned with the question of slum clearance, I fail to see in what way the Bill is going to be stimulating. Slum clearance is the great practical present question. Overcrowding has come into
2160
the arena in recent years, but the immediate question which still remains a blot on our housing system is the prevalence of tens of thousands of disgraceful slums in our great cities.
Under existing powers the Government make a contribution in the case of a slum clearance house providing accommodation for poor persons of £9 a year, on top of which the local authority contributes a further £3 15s. With these two contributions it is possible to take people who have been living in slums, and are often very poor, into decent houses at the same rent that they paid before. Now the Minister reduces that £9 to £5 10s. whatever the number of persons in the house. Under present arrangements, if there were 10 persons, £25 would be contributed, stimulating local authorities to deal with the slum clearance problem. Further, the local authority is to contribute £2 15s. for each house in place of £3 15s., which is a distinct encouragement to backward local authorities to slow down housing. Under the Bill the Treasury will be liable, for 270,000 houses, to an annual charge of £1,500,000. As the law stands now, for the same number of houses the State contribution is £2,500,000, so that local authorities will lose £1,000,000 a year. Instead of being a Measure to encourage housing it will slow it down and will discourage local authorities from going on with slum clearance work and it will inevitably raise rents. Who is to make up the difference between the £9 and the £5 10s.? It will have to be made up either by increasing rents, raising rates or reducing the cost of building. It is unlikely that there will be any substantial reduction in the cost of building. It is morely likely to go up. The effect of the Resolution will be either to place a larger burden of weekly rent upon poor people in slum clearance houses or an increased rate charge on local authorities, and to that extent it will discourage housing. If rents are increased, instead of being willing to go into the new houses, the people who are moved will seek other houses of a slummy type.
7.8 p.m.
Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said that these financial provisions had not met with the approval of local authorities. There had been no favourable comment. I think he has overlooked

2161
the fact that such bodies as the Rural District Councils Associations have approved the Government's proposals with reservations on certain Committee points. They have said that the subsidies to be granted are, in their opinion, fair. I wish to deal with the question first, whether parish councils should be enabled to apply for a subsidy under Clause 3 of the Bill. The Minister said they were not housing authorities, and he did not wish to include them. Parish councils own a great number of houses. They have taken advantage of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. I hope at a later stage it will be made possible for them to build houses and get the necessary subsidies. Certain parish councils have greater facilities than rural district councils for obtaining architects and for that reason they stress the importance of this aspect of the question.
My chief reason for rising is the Minister's remark about my views on lump sum grants, which are shared by certain other Members on this side of the Committee. I understand that he said he could not see his way to make that arrangement because, if he gave a lump sum beforehand, he did not see how there would be any practical means of enforcing the conditions laid down in the Clause. If that were established, I should agree that I had not made out my case. However, in the Housing (Rural Workers) Act lump sum grants are given for reconditioning, and there are stringent conditions attached as to the rent to be charged, and who are to occupy the houses when reconditioned. Where any of these conditions are broken the whole of the money given by way of Exchequer grants is recoverable immediately from the grantee or his successor in title.
For that reason, I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter if it is not too late. We believe that there are numbers of persons who have not great means, especially agricultural labourers and people of similar status, who wish to build cottages in which to live in their retirement. They cannot possibly take advantage of Clause 3 unless the Government, instead of making annual contributions, make a grant towards the erection of houses. The Minister has drawn my attention to the way they can get advances from the rural district council. If that is the solution of the problem—I do not say that it is not—there must be some power
2162
which can encourage, if not force, rural district councils to give it, otherwise I fear in many cases they will not feel encouraged to grant a loan to a man who, quite clearly, is not of great substance. On this side of the Committee we regard Clause 3, and the part of the Resolution directed to it, as a great encouragement to rural housing in the smaller villages, where rural district councils have never built houses. These houses are required, and I hope the Minister will see that the financial arrangements for building houses under Clause 3 are adequate to enable these houses to be built.
My last point is directed to that part of the Financial Resolution which says that houses built under Clauses 2 and 3 are to be occupied only by the agricultural population as defined by the principal Act. I am afraid—I hope that I am wrong—that by that method of wording in the Financial Resolution it will not be possible for us to amend this part of the housing proposals in Committee, because we shall be restricted by the definition under Section 115 of the principal Act. That definition is different from the definition in the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. The difference is that in the Housing Act, 1936, agricultural population means
"persons whose employment or latest employment is or was in agriculture or in an industry mainly dependent upon agriculture and also includes the dependents of such persons."
where as in the 1926 Act, in addition, there is the provision that they may be persons whose economic condition is substantially the same as that of the agricultural workers. In other words, they need not necessarily be agricultural workers or persons engaged in occupations connected with agriculture, but persons of the same wage basis, such as roadmen, who could have the advantage of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926.
Unless we can amend this definition at some stage of the Bill, men such as roadmen will not be able to enjoy the facilities under Clauses 2 and 3. I had hoped that it would have been an appropriate Amendment to have moved in the Committee stage, but I fear that by the close drafting of the Financial Resolution such an Amendment might be ruled out of order at this stage. For that reason I should like to stress the point and to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider

2163
very carefully whether he cannot extend the classes to whom the facilities under Clauses 2 and 3 are to be granted, so that not only agricultural workers but all those people in rural England of the same economic status may be included.
7.18 p.m.
Mr. Robert Gibson: One or two facts have emerged from the consideration of the contribution that may be helpful and may call for some reply. The contribution, as I understand it, is £5 10s. in the case of a house or flat, and where the flat is built on an expensive site the contribution ranges from £11 to £26. The cost of the site attracts my attention. It amounts to £17 where the cost of the site is £12,000 or more per acre, and rises to £26. The cost of the site to qualify for the £26 contribution appears to me to be £30,000. That seems an extraordinary price to pay for land for the building of houses for working people to live in, and it would appear that the Minister is driven to one of two alternatives. Is the £30,000 an inflated sum to pay to the owners of what well may be slum land? That land is being put to a use to which it would not be normally put. Land of that character costing upwards of £30,000 an acre would normally be used for industrial purposes, but it is being subverted for use for residential purposes. I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary choose as between these two horns of the dilemma.
With regard to large cities other than London, there is land in the centre which is very costly, but just outside that central belt there is land which could very likely be purchased at £1,500 to £4,000 an acre. Under the Bill only flats can be built on that site in order to qualify for the £11 contribution. If a house is built on the site, the contribution for which the house will qualify is only £5 10s. I am informed on very high technical authority that a cottage can be built more cheaply than and quite as substantially as a flat. As a Scotsman who frequently came to England before the War, I was very much struck by the type of terrace house south of the Border. Those houses had gardens and the rents were relatively cheap, something like £35 to £40 a year. I always found that Englishmen were very proud of those houses. They were the envy of the world, the Englishman's
2164
castle, and were available for working people. To me as a Scotsman accustomed to the warehouse conditions in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Greenock, they were admirable. The children could run into the gardens to play without being dressed up in order to go to a public park or a private garden.
Since the War south of the Border that very fine tradition seems to have been abandoned inexplicably in favour of the building of cottages, about 12 to the acre, away on the periphery of the city. They were necessarily built there in order to get cheap land. The alternative to that class of dwelling was to build blocks of tenements within the town. We are accustomed to these big blocks in the north. We know what they lead to, and Scotsmen may perhaps be able to render a service to their brethren south of the border by calling attention to the facts. So far as England is concerned these blocks of flats within the town are definitely unpopular. They are certainly unsuitable for family life and are likely to reduce very seriously the birth rate. Again and again I receive letters from women in my constituency saying very plainly that they are not going to bring children into the world in the overcrowded conditions that obtain there. Under this Financial Resolution we find the very same policy being introduced south of the Border that has been so hurtful north of the Border.
This Bill offers in the case of sites valued at £1,500 and up to £4,000 overwhelming inducements to local authorities to pay just over £1,500 an acre for their land, and having bought it to build flats on it. According to the Financial Resolution those are simply blocks of flats, but according to the Bill they are blocks of flats of not less than three floors, and there is no limitation that I can find either in the Financial Resolution or in the Bill of the number of flats that may be built per acre. The contribution is payable for 40 years. Forty years at £26 a year means £1,040, and I am credibly informed that that is about twice the cost of building a flat. That is to go on for 40 years and, apparently, there is no limitation of the number of flats per acre.
The Minister of Health has entered upon a campaign to produce two things. He is going to endeavour to increase the birth rate and he has initiated a physical

2165
fitness campaign, but this Bill is going to do the very opposite. Why drive people into flats? Does the Minister intend that his right hand is not to know what his left hand is doing? He wants physical fitness on the one hand, but, on the other hand, this Bill will drive people into flats, where their physical condition is bound to deteriorate. I suggest to the Minister that he might well consider these two matters and, if it be still possible, he might make provision for the continuance of the tradition of the terrace house of which the Englishman used to be so proud, and which Scotsmen were delighted to come South to admire.
7.28 p.m.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: I hope the Committee will pardon the intervention of another Scotsman. I have been asked to say a few words by one or two organisations which operate in England and with which I am associated. There are two or three questions which I should like to address to the Parliamentary Secretary. To save time I have given him notice of the questions and, therefore, I can restrict my remarks. The Bill is concerned principally with local authorities and also with private individuals. Those are the two parties who are to get subsidies, but there is another type of body. There is the sort of semi-public body, such as the Land Settlement Association, and a few others that one could mention, doing public work in housing, social development, land settlement and so on, and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how the Bill affects bodies of that kind. Is a body like the Land Settlement Association, which is registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, entitled under the Bill to obtain a subsidy for the building of houses for, (1) farm workers employed on its central farm, and (2) smallholders who have been established on holdings on a rent paying basis on land owned by the Association? Is a body of that kind entitled under the Bill to obtain a subsidy for the building of such houses? Are there any special circumstances governing the granting of subsidies to such an Association as that for the building of these two types of houses?
The second question is one with which hon. Members opposite are familiar. The Land Settlement Association has recently developed a phase of activity by establishing
2166
what are known as cottage homesteads around large cities, a house with three bedrooms and about one-third of an acre of land which is equipped to provide the family with a considerable amount of food. It is possible that the Land Settlement Association may be able to establish several big schemes of cottage homesteads in association with employers in places like Liverpool, and I want to know whether if such a scheme is carried out the subsidies under the Bill will be available for such work?
Mr. Logan: What kind of scheme?
Mr. Stewart: I do not want to detain the Committee, but we are trying to do in Liverpool what has been done so well in Belgium where hundreds and thousands of workers are established in cottages in the countryside.
Mr. Logan: If you put them into the countryside you will never get them back into Liverpool.
Mr. Stewart: I want to know whether such schemes will be able to draw the subsidy.
7.33 p.m.
Mr. G. Griffiths: I have listened to the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with this Bill. The Minister of Health can always make a very plausible speech when introducing a Bill, and I remember he said that the Bill of 1935, the overcrowding Bill, was going to create a new heaven and a new earth in a very short time. What is the reason for this Bill?
Mr. Messer: Another new heaven.
Mr. Griffiths: The reason is that the 1935 Act, instead of providing a new heaven and a new earth, has provided a new hell it has been a complete failure. The Government have not got the houses they hoped to get. The Minister said on Tuesday night that the housing rate for the entire country averaged 3½d. in the £, and that the cost of housing in London was 3d. in the £. The cost of houses in Wakefield is 6d. in the £ and in my own local public authority it is 1s. 8d. in the £. If this Bill comes into operation it will be another 4d. on the rates of the locality. I am speaking of the Hemsworth Rural District Council. I have heard representatives of rural district councils say that they have not built

2167
houses. I was interested in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) who desires that a number of urban authorities in his division shall be made rural authorities because they are too small and are not able to build houses. The exact opposite is the case in the Hemsworth rural district. This rural council has built more houses than any other rural council in the British Isles, and they desire to build more.
The Minister of Health came to Harrogate on the last Friday in November and said that he wanted local authorities to be quickened up—they were not building fast enough. The Hemsworth Rural Council asked for the approval of 200 more houses and the right hon. Gentleman refused to sanction them. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has spoken about parish councils and the building of houses. There is no need for parish councils to build; it is the rural councils in the North Riding who want the needle stuck into them, and if the rural councils will not do the work, then the county council should have the power to do the work for them. The Hemsworth Rural Council have built over 1,000 houses, and as to parish councils, I have one in my district with a population of over 12,000, another with 8,000 and the next one with 5,000. There are four parish councils who desire to become urban councils. They have a population of 35,000, and the Minister says "No." Why? Because if they are made urban councils they will cease to be able to help the outlying parts of the rural council in building houses in the agricultural areas. At the moment they are helping in the rates to put up these houses for agricultural workers. The main reason why I intervene in the Debate is to point out that people who are working part-time in mining and other industries have to help by means of the county rate the housing programme for agricultural workers. I agree with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that a low-paid worker in a rural area, whether he is an agricultural worker or not, should share the same facilities as an agricultural worker. Under this Bill they do not do so. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) speak about the Overcrowding Act as only a beginning.
Mrs. Tate: I said that the standard was only a beginning.
Mr. Griffiths: Yes, I think it is a standing disgrace. I was on the committee which dealt with the Overcrowding Bill.
The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member forgets that he is not entitled to deal with anything that is not implicit in the Financial Resolution.
Mr. Griffiths: I want to point out that the overcrowding standard is in the Bill, and I am speaking of the Financial Resolution. I want to prove, if I may, that I can go to a five-roomed house with 18 persons in it before it is overcrowded.
The Deputy-Chairman: That is exactly what is not in the Financial Resolution.
Mr. Griffiths: I accept your ruling, Captain Bourne. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary this question: "What are you going to do about the parlour-type house?" Not a word has been said about working-men having a parlour-type house. The Minister spoke about a living-room and a scullery. I ask that they shall have a parlour-type house. I am asking that the boy and girl who are making an attempt to get a scholarship in a secondary school shall have somewhere to study. How can a boy or girl be expected to pass an examination if he or she has to study in a room with five or six other persons there all the time? I have been interested in safety classes for miners' boys, and I am proud that I was one of the originators of the safety class in the Miners' Welfare Committee in South Yorkshire. At some pits boys are not taken on unless they possess a safety badge. I wish they would not take anybody on at a pit unless they has passed through a university. Then we should not have so many miners, and wages might get higher. But I want to ask how you can expect a boy to study after he has been to a night school, or before he goes, when there are eight or ten other persons in the living room? It is an impossibility. I am appealing to the intelligence of the Parliamentary Secretary to give us the parlour-type house for these people.
There is another point, and some hon. Members may regard it as humorous. I am desirous of a parlour-type house because when a young girl and a young man are getting ready for marriage I

2169
would sooner see them in the front room in the evening than trailing down the street at night into the lanes. I would ten times sooner see them courting in the parlour than I would have them courting outside in the lane. It may be humorous, in a sense, but how can they do their bit of spooning in a room where they are eight or ten other people? I think, when all is said and done, the point is worth consideration. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do what he can in this matter, and to deal with the question of the cost of building parlour-type houses, as the Minister did not speak about the cost, but only said that the rents of such houses would be from 6s. to 6s. 6d. a week. I wish now to draw attention to paragraph A (3) of the Money Resolution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and I have an Amendment on the Paper. We are opposed to that part of the Bill which gives a grant to a private person. That means that in the rural areas, the tied cottage will go on until eternity. We are bitterly opposed to the tied cottage. Some of my hon. Friends on these benches know what it is to live in the employer's house; it means being tied body and soul.
The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think the hon. Gentleman was in the House earlier when I pointed out that it is in order to argue that no money should be given to a private individual, but that it is not in order to discuss the question whether or not there shall be tied houses.
Mr. Griffiths: I will try to talk about the matter without mentioning tied houses. I am opposed to any money going out of the Treasury to a private owner. I believe it is a retrograde step and that it will not help the agricultural worker. Many agricultural workers living under their employers have almost been afraid to attend a political meeting or to go to the poll while the boss has been about. This will help to perpetuate such a system. In the Debate on Tuesday last, one hon. Member from a rural constituency said that this Bill would stir up the rural councils. If they have not been stirred up to the necessity for houses in the countryside before now, I think they ought to be put to sleep for ever, and not stirred up. If a rural council is not prepared to build houses, the power ought to be taken out of its hands and put into those of the county council; but where a
2170
rural council is building houses, let it continue to do so.
There is another point that I would like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. For the time being, I am chairman of the housing committee of my urban district council. As soon as the Overcrowding Act came into force, we asked the Minister of Health for some houses under that Act, as there is a Section in it which says that the Minister may make a grant. We asked for a grant, and although the housing rate in the locality was 1s. 8d. in the £, the Minister refused to give us one. One of the men in the Department, whose name I will not give, said, "Why do you not go back and try to get a slum clearance area?" So we got a slum clearance area, and we got the plan through. We are building four-bedroom type of houses, because we in the north do not believe in sleeping downstairs. Under this Bill, the Minister has power to say that, although the scheme has been passed, those slum clearance houses may, if he thinks fit, come under the £5 10s. figure. We are going to clear a slum area, and five persons will go into each of those houses. Five times £2 5s. comes to £11 5s., but instead of £11 5s.—I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will listen to me.
Mr. Bernays: I meant no discourtesy to the hon. Member. I was discussing with my hon. Friend the point which the hon. Member is raising.
Mr. Griffiths: I was saying that I do not want the Minister to have the power to say that he will not give £11 5s., but will give £5 10s. I do not want him to have the power to say, "I know the slum clearance scheme has been passed, I know I ought to give £11 5s. for 40 years, but I now have power to give £5 10s." The slum clearance scheme has been sanctioned and if we house these people under that scheme before 31st December, 1938, I do not want the Minister to have the power to take away from us the £11 5s. and to give us £5 10s. If the grant is reduced to £5 10s. and £2 15s., it will mean that the people going into those houses will have to pay not less than 2s. a wek more, which means over £5 a year. My people have to count their pennies before they go to market, because they have nothing to throw

2171
away. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary at least to give us a definite pledge that, in the case of a scheme which has been passed under the Slum Clearance Act, the £2 5s. shall not be taken away.
7.53 p.m.
Captain Heilgers: I agree with the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) that it is extremely desirable that, as far as possible, houses of the parlour type should be built, not perhaps so much for the reason which he gave, that it was desirable for his daughter to have somewhere to "spoon"——
Mr. Griffiths: That was only one reason.
Captain Heilgers: I understood the hon. Member to say that he liked to see his daughter spooning, but I hope that he did not look on too much.
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. and gallant Member must not put into my mouth words which I did not say. I did not say I wanted to see her spooning, but that I would sooner it was in my house than down the lane.
Captain Heilgers: The hon. Member also said that he would like to see a needle put into rural district councils, and that he would like housing in the rural areas to be put in the hands of the county councils.
Mr. Griffiths: I said that I wanted a needle put in where they had not started to build, but that where the rural councils were building, I wanted to allow them still to have the power.
Captain Heilgers: I apologise if I misunderstood the hon. Member. I believe that rural district councils are the proper authorities to do housing in the rural areas and that they have done very good work.
Mr. Griffiths: Agreed.
Captain Heilgers: I think the county council is too big and wide a body to deal with housing and that in many counties, particularly as regards the Housing (Rural Workers) Act with which they have had to deal, they have put up a rather poor show. I would not recommend that housing should be given to them. The hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) spoke about flats. I do not know what
2172
the procedure is in Scotland, but I feel that flats for the agricultural population are entirely undesirable. I remember that in a previous Debate in the House, I described flats as soulless and soul-destroying. I do not believe there is the slightest need for them to be erected for the agricultural population. I would like now to refer to the question of private individuals building houses in agricultural areas. In my part of the country, with the problems of which I am familiar, there are very large farms; I think that in West Suffolk there are 87 farms of over 500 acres. That means that the farms are very widely scattered and at some considerable distance from any village. Therefore, although I agree in the main with the proposition of hon. Members opposite that, in general, tied houses ought not to be encouraged to any great extent, there is undoubtedly need for cottages for key-men on these big farms. May I give the Committee my experience on my own farm? I farm over 1000 acres and I have 15 cottages. Last year I built two new houses on the lines of council houses, but they cost me a sum which I could not continue to spend. Unless I got some assistance, I could not attempt to provide any further housing accommodation for my employés. Living in those 15 houses are 56 persons, of whom 15 men and five boys work on my farm. But I want more than 15 keymen. I want 16 keymen to run a big farm of this description, but I have no houses for them. Under this Bill, I shall be able to get the necessary assistance to build houses for those keymen.
Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. and gallant Member is hoping that the Government will give money for him to build these houses. In the event of his falling foul of one of his employés, will he have the power to sack that employé and turn him out of the house which the Government have built to shelter him?
Captain Heilgers: That is a very reasonable question. I would remind the hon. Member that I said that I do not think too many tied cottages are desirable; but if I did fall out with one of my men and he wanted to go. he would have certain safeguards. In the first place, there is the safeguard, although not a very big one, that if I wanted to put another keyman into the house, I should first of all go to the agricultural committee of the county council and apply

2173
to it for a certificate that the cottage was necessary for the purpose of carrying on the good husbandry of my farm, that is to say, to put in another keyman.
The Deputy-Chairman: I have already stopped several hon. Members who tried to develop the question of tied houses, which does not arise in this Debate.
Captain Heilgers: I am sorry, Captain Bourne. I was only trying to answer interruptions. Those who live in villages—and I think it is desirable that housing should be concentrated in villages—suffer from some disadvantages. I came across an instance the other day. I was asked to visit some people in my own village. Their trouble was that at a recent sale of a farm the cottages in which they live had been sold to some landlord who lived in Oxfordshire, about 120 or 150 miles from our area. They could get nothing done by that absentee landlord. So, there is something to be said for the landlord who is on the spot and is aware of the troubles which may afflict the man in his cottage.
Mr. Logan: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Member to say that he is anxious to get Government money under this Measure to build houses in his own interest and for his own servants, whom he can dispossess?
Captain Heilgers: That is true, but I would also point out that one man who works for me and who recently got into a brand new council house of the latest type, has asked me to build a house for him because he wants to be nearer his work.
Mr. G. Griffiths: Probably because the rent is too high.
Captain Heilgers: I agree, but under this Bill we are going to build houses more cheaply, and we hope to be able to let them at reasonable rents. I could not afford, myself, to build houses. The houses which I built last year cost £700. and I am getting 5s. a week rent for them, and that is not an economic proposition. I make one plea to the Parliamentary Secretary. It seems a great pity that while we advocate the building of houses in villages and the provision of amenities such as community centres, the one thing that is left out is the provision of village halls.
The Deputy-Chairman: That cannot possibly arise on this Resolution.
Captain Heilgers: I am sorry if my feelings on that subject have led me beyond the Rules of Order. I believe that this Resolution will provide an adequate subsidy. No subsidy is any use, unless it provides houses within the means of those who are to live in them. A penny on the rent means a penny less for bread. I think it can be said that in slum clearance and dealing with overcrowding under the provisions of recent Acts we have made a very good start. All over my constituency houses are going up as a result of those Acts. I know one village in which there are no fewer than 48 houses, either built or in process of construction under those Acts. But once we get to the end of these slum clearance schemes and schemes for dealing with overcrowding there will be a hiatus. The Bill fills that hiatus in regard to providing for the general needs of the population. We want not only better houses but more houses, and I believe that this Bill will meet that need.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. Silkin: The main issue between hon. Members on this side of the Committee and hon. Members opposite is whether or not the Government are entitled to reduce the subsidy on slum-clearance, and, if they are, whether they are justified in reducing it by this amount. On the Second Reading I gave the House certain figures and details which in my opinion supported the assertion that there was no case for the reduction of the slum-clearance subsidy. The Parliamentary Secretary had not the courtesy even to refer to my speech and he certainly made no answer to it, but the Minister, having slept on those figures for two nights, offered the Committee to-day some sort of answer. The only case put forward for the reduction of the slum-clearance subsidy is that rates of interest have fallen. This afternoon the Minister gave a figure of £4 15s. as the fall in the rate of interest in respect of cottages. But even assuming that there is no other consideration to be taken into account he is reducing the subsidy on cottages from £11 5s. to £5 10s. which is a reduction of £5 15s. On the asumption that there has been no increase in the cost of building at all, how does the Minister justify a reduction of £5 15s. when, according to his own figures, the fall in the rate of

2175
interest is £4 15s. Why is he taking an extra £1 per annum over and above the fall in the rate of interest?
In addition to that consideration, however, the Minister has admitted that there has been an increase in the cost of building, of £25 per dwelling. That means an increase of £1 a year or thereabouts on loan charges. I dispute the figure of £25 per dwelling as the increase in building costs. Experience in London shows that the first flats erected under the 1930 Act cost £400 per flat. To-day the cost is £580 per flat, an increase of £180 and the loan charges on £180 would give a figure of £9 per year. I have no reason to think that the experience of London differs from the experience of other towns. Indeed I understand that London is building flats more economically than many other large towns. But in London there is an increase in respect of building costs of £9 a year.
Sir Francis Fremantle: Will the hon. Member explain why that is so high and whether that means that the London County Council have to pay 5 per cent. for money?
Mr. Silkin: I am including debt redemption as well as loan charges. I have calculated the figure in exactly the same way as the Minister calculated his £4 15s. The two figures are comparable. The fact is that, apart from any other consideration, the erection of flats is costing £9 a year more and the Minister is accounting for only £4 15s. I accuse the Government of being unable to justify this reduction in subsidy for slum clearance and of making a definite attack on the work of slum clearance in this country. I asserted on the Second Reading and I repeat, that the Minister has, by circular and by speech, constantly urged on local authorities the desirability of improving dwellings and providing additional amenities. I think that the improvements which he is advocating are justified, but the whole of the additional cost involved is being imposed on the local authorities. There is no suggestion that any part of the cost should be borne by the Exchequer.
I said on Tuesday that the additional cost of these amenities and improvements would be £200 per dwelling. The Minister saw fit not only to challenge but even to ridicule that figure. These are
2176
some of the things which the Minister has urged on local authorities—the provision of larger rooms; increased size of living rooms as the number of bedrooms is increased; the provision of fixed baths and separate bathrooms; provision of private balconies and a reduction in the density of flats. When the original calculations were made, they were based on a density of 60 flats to the acre. To-day, the average is under 50 to the acre. The Minister will appreciate the fact that that involves, not only additional cost of building but additional cost of land, for which we get no additional subsidy. Local authorities have also been urged by the right hon. Gentleman to provide such amenities as community centres, children's playgrounds, gardens, and sheds for perambulators and cycles. I have made inquiries since the Minister challenged my statement, and I have verified the figure of £200 per dwelling as the cost involved if all these amenities and improvements were provided. If the Parliamentary Secretary again challenges these figures, I hope he will give the Committee some justification for suggesting that it is less than £200 per dwelling.
Finally, it may be urged that there has been, to make up for the reduction in the subsidy for slum clearance, an improvement in the subsidy for overcrowding, and that I admit, but as a matter of fact the latter is merely a recognition of the fact that that subsidy was never really adequate. The 1935 Act was passed on the assumption that the Exchequer contribution for overcrowding should be twice the rate contribution. In fact, the experience of those local authorities which have actually undertaken a certain amount of abatement of overcrowding has shown that on actual results the rate contribution was higher than the Exchequer contribution. The improvement in the Exchequer contribution under this Bill is merely, in my view, an act of restitution and an attempt to make the Exchequer contribution double the rate contribution, as was intended under the 1935 Act, and it would be quite wrong and in my view unfair to set off the improvement in the Exchequer contribution for overcrowding against the reduction of the subsidy for slum clearance.
So far as London is concerned, we are this year finding that in addition to the compulsory rate contribution in the Consolidated Fund we have actually had

2177
to make a further contribution from the rates of £100,000, which indicates that the State contribution at the present time is quite inadequate to meet the needs of a town like London, and I should be very interested to find what is the position in other large towns and in small towns. In my view, if dwellings are to be let at rents within the means of those for whom they are intended, it is essential that there should be an additional subsidy beyond the State subsidy and the fixed rate subsidy. I repeat that this Bill is definitely an attack on slum clearance, and I am quite satisfied that the result of these financial provisions will be that slum clearance will be slowed down, that rents will be increased, and that a number of local authorities will be called upon to make an extra payment out of the rates.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. David Adams: It is interesting on this Bill to recall that it is just 50 years since a serious campaign was initiated for the better housing of the working classes, and thanks to the growing sense of responsibility of the workers Parliament has been induced or compelled from time to time to make provision for the continuance of that great crusade. I think it is true to say that but for the setback embodied in this Measure, a period of 10 years might have seen this country freed from the scourge, for it is nothing less, of ill housing of the working classes. The Minister mentioned that he had received support for his proposals from various local authorities. I should have been interested to have heard the names of those authorities, excepting perhaps certain rural authorities which may admittedly, under parts of the Measure, obtain satisfaction, but so far as urban authorities are concerned, I am satisfied that there is not one in the country that will declare in favour of these proposals; and had the Minister, who attended the great Harrogate Housing Conference on 26th November, declared then the amount of the reduction which is contemplated, I am certain that he would not have been received, as he was, with approval and cheers for favours to come, but in an appropriate manner otherwise.
There is not any question that the reduction in the amount for slum clearance will create great difficulties and disabilities for many of the local authorities in the Kingdom. The 1930
2178
Act has worked well for a period of seven years, and we see no justification whatever for abandoning the provisions of that Act as affecting either slum clearance or the equally important question of overcrowding. It has been done at this time, when there are new and greater burdens placed upon the local authorities of this Kingdom and upon the workers, to whom undoubtedly the Bill means increased rentals. The masses of the people are being burdened by this Parliament, by increasing rates of indirect taxation.
In the matter of overcrowding, the Minister has admitted, very happily and frankly, that equal treatment should be accorded in his financial proposals to that given to slum clearance, and one would have expected that he would have merely applied the 1930 Act to both forms of housing disability. The County of Durham, of which I desire to speak a word or two, has become seriously alarmed at the revelation shown in the overcrowding survey, and a conference was held of all the local authorities in the administrative county on 12th January last, when resolutions were sent on to the Minister and the Government demanding that there should be nothing less than the figures embodied in the 1930 Act, both for slum clearance and for overcrowding, with certain other resolutions regarding the provision of houses for aged persons. The declaration of Durham County is that it is a Special Area, and that whatever else the results of this Bill may be, that Special Area ought to have special treatment, and will require special treatment if the housing situation is to be effectively dealt with.
I would not be astonished, in regard to this great mass of overcrowding in the most overcrowded county in the United Kingdom, where there are 40,000 families, or 12 per cent. of the entire working-class families, living in overcrowded conditions, if little or nothing is done under the proposals submitted to the House at present. The urban areas of Durham reveal a situation which is really a scandal to our present civilisation. In Hebburn 25.2 per cent. of the entire working-class families are overcrowded, in Jarrow 17.5, in Felling 15.8, in Ann Plaice 13.7, in Benfieldside 13.6, in Blaydon 12.6, and in Durham Borough 12.6, as compared with the less overcrowded areas, where in some cases there was no overcrowding, up to a maximum

2179
of nearly 0.3 per cent. It is the same story with regard to the rural districts. The percentage is 13.2 downwards compared with the rural districts in other parts of the country, which have an overcrowding ranging from only 0.3 to 0.7 per cent. Of the county boroughs in the United Kingdom, Sunderland has the worst overcrowding of families, amounting to no less than 20.6 per cent.
The Durham County Council prepared a statement showing the activities of the Council and the financial position resulting therefrom, and I should like to read a little from it to show the multitude of small houses upon which this new burden will fall. Statistics taken from the 1931 Census of England and Wales
"show that in the administrative county of Durham there is a larger proportion of small houses and consequently a smaller rateable value than in any other county and conversely there is a smaller proportion of large houses than in other counties."
The statement then gives a table indicating a comparison of the size of occupied dwellings in the administrative counties of England and Wales with those in the county of Durham. This shows that houses of from one to three rooms in England and Wales number 14.5 per cent., but in the county of Durham there are no less than 42 per cent. Houses of from four to five rooms in England and Wales are 51.8 per cent., and in Durham 48 per cent. Houses with six or more rooms number 33.7 per cent. in England and Wales and only 9 per cent. in Durham. The statement continues:
"From the above figures it will be seen that the proportion of houses of six or more rooms which may be taken as having a rateable value which will produce in rates more than the cost of the services provided by the local authorities for these houses and their occupants is very low in the county of Durham, and that this county is at a serious disadvantage compared with other counties, there being no other county in England and Wales where the percentage of houses of this type is so low, the next lowest being 4·8 per cent. and the highest 53·9 per cent.
An analysis of the rateable value of houses in the county of Durham containing six or more rooms shows that of these only 0·2 per cent. have a rateable value of £50 or more, and it is abundantly clear even after a cursory-consideration that this figure is very low. The de-rating of agricultural, industrial, and freight transport hereditaments has resulted in an administrative county with a large working-class population almost entirely debarred, for one reason or another, from all
2180
rateable value, except that arising from the relatively poor property in which they reside, the result being that the essential local services can only be provided by the ratepayers of the county assuming an unduly harsh burden."
I quote these figures, with the kind tolerance of the House, upon the injunction of this conference which was greatly perturbed at the situation as regards overcrowding and the proposals of the Government for dealing with it. In Durham County the rateable value is only £3 us. per head, against the average for the counties of England and Wales of £5 17s. The rates borne by the small houses and the shopkeepers amount to no less than 90·5 per cent., industrial hereditaments bear 7·6 per cent. and freight transport hereditaments 1·8 per cent. For Poor Law relief, which indicates the impoverishment of the county, the rate is no less than 9s. 5d. in the £, as against an average for the country of 3s. The cost of the social services amounts to no less than £4,000,000 per year.
Mr. Fleming: On a point of Order. These are interesting figures, but are they relevant to the Financial Resolution that we are discussing?
The Chairman: I have allowed the hon. Gentleman a good deal of latitude and he has related what he has said to some extent to the subsidy, but I think that these particulars about the special position of the County of Durham are hardly relevant.
Mr. Adams: I was almost at the conclusion of my story. I submit that what I have quoted is relevant because under the proposals of the Bill there will be added financial burdens on a county which is literally penurious. This is clearly a Special Area continuing under the horror of penury——
The Chairman: Now the hon. Gentleman is going back to what I complained about. This is not a discussion on Special Areas.
Mr. Adams: I am not discussing it from the point of view of a Special Area, but from the point of view of an area which will be gravely affected, in the opinion of the local authorities, under the provisions of this Measure. If we are to have the serious overcrowding situation in Durham, which is greater than that of any other part of the United Kingdom,

2181
dealt with, it must be by adopting either the provisions of the 1930 Act so far as finance is concerned, or by some other financial method by way of the Commissioner for the Special Areas.
8.34 p.m.
Mrs. Tate: I rise to endorse the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) when he asked for a little wider discretion in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would represent to his Department the desirability of including among agricultural workers people such as the village nurse, and to allow the village nursing association, the village nurse herself, or the local authority on her behalf, to apply for and to benefit from this grant. I would make a strong plea for widening the definition so that it should be on a salary rather than on an occupational basis.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. Bernays: I gladly take the opportunity of replying to this less contentious Debate than that of Tuesday, and I will do my best to restrain my natural pugnacity within reasonable limits. I have been accused of showing discourtesy on Tuesday, and I shall wait until the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who I am sure will come in, is here before I deal with it. Meantime, I should like to say a word to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). I think it is a little unreasonable to accuse any Minister or Under-Secretary who speaks from this Bench of discourtesy because he has not had time to refer to a particular hon. Member's speech. If that was really the case there would not be an hon. or right hon. Member on this Bench who had not been discourteous to some Member, and the same would be true of hon. and right hon. Members opposite when they themselves sat here. Even now I could not possibly find time to deal with all the questions the hon. Member raised, and, indeed, I cannot deal with all the points raised from various parts of the House, but there will be opportunities for considering them in detail on the Committee stage. The hon. Member for Peckham made the point that the reduction of subsidy was greater now than the reduction in interest rates. Let us examine the figures. The present subsidy is £2 5s. a person. The number of persons in an average family is four.
2182
£2 5s. multiplied by four equals £9 a house. The proposed subsidy is £5 10s. Take away £5 10s. from £9 and the answer is £3 10s. The drop in interest is £4 15s.
Mr. Silkin: The average number of persons is five, I think.
Mr. Bernays: That is not the information in my Department. Now I come to some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield. He said that the new grant would penalise local authorities with big slum clearance programmes. Put another way, that means that it will be most beneficial to authorities with large overcrowding problems. I would also put this point to him: He compared the subsidy not with its actual value as compared with 1930 but with its value to the tenant and local authority. The value to the tenant is much the same, and the statutory rate contribution is £1 less. If you look at the general average of rents of houses built by local authorities, including Bristol and Manchester, you will find that they are higher than the rents of houses which can be produced under the Bill. Then he asked the pertinent question, "Why has the fall in interest rates not been passed on to the tenants?" While we want to produce houses at low rents, there is a limit to the extent to which the cost can be passed on to the general taxpayer. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that principle in the Housing Act of 1930, when he said:
"In each case after review the Minister may by order provide for the reduction of the grant under each Act and may also revise the normal rate charge to be taken into account in fixing the rents."
The object of my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman, and the aim of all previous legislation, was to produce houses at rents between 6s. and 7s. a week, and we believe that we shall be nearer to attaining it under this Bill than we were before.
Then a question was asked about the cost of building materials in relation to the cost in 1930. During the past year they have risen £12 per house. During these times of slightly rising prices I do not think that figure can be regarded as a considerable one, and in fact during the last two or three months it has remained the same, so, in my right hon. Friend's phrase, one might say about building

2183
materials that they are perhaps steadying towards a fall. The right hon. Member for Wakefield also made a point, which he made on Second Reading, that really the problems of overcrowding and slums are the same, but in my view and that of my right hon. Friend, that really is not the case. Overcrowding is not by any means always found in slum conditions. In the houses which have been demolished the average number of occupants has not exceeded 3½ per house, and what we have started to deal with are evil housing conditions which, in our judgment, would not have come within the ambit of the Act of 1930.
Next I should like to say a word about one or two questions in connection with the agricultural problem. The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) asked for an assurance that the quality of the houses in the villages would not be sacrified. My right hon. Friend has no intention whatever of reducing standards. The only control exercised by him as Minister of Health is in the direction of seeing that local authorities do get value for their money. I was asked by another hon. Member from the Labour Benches—I think it was the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price)—whether it could not be made an obligation on the part of rural district councils to consult the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. As I said in my speech on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend attaches very great importance to the preservation of the amenities of the countryside, and he believes, as I am sure does everyone who has at all gone into the problem, that it is not necessary to make the country ugly in order to prevent its being insanitary. My right hon. Friend has constantly referred to the advantage of having panels of architects, and will do all he can to encourage this practice. No doubt this point will be thrashed out when we come to the Committee stage.
The hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) raised the question of the agricultural worker in urban areas, which I think was also touched upon by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths). The difficulty we have to face there is that there is not the same likelihood in urban areas that cottages built for agricultural workers
2184
will always remain in the hands of agricultural workers, but that, again, will be thoroughly discussed in Committee, and we can examine it again when Amendments are moved. The hon. Member for Hemsworth also asked whether there would be parlour houses. The answer is that the local authorities must build for the needs of their localities and, if necessary, a proportion would be parlour houses. He also submitted a particular question about his locality. I have the answer here, and perhaps it will be more convenient if I give it to him afterwards, as we wish to get to a Division.
Mr. G. Griffiths: I hope it is a good answer.
Mr. Bernays: I hope it is. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) asked whether this Bill would enable subsidies to be paid for cottage homesteads. The Exchequer subsidies under this Bill are paid direct to local authorities. Where the housing of the agricultural population is in question, the local authorities may make arrangements to grant assistance up to the amount of the Exchequer subsidy, and so far as an association is providing houses for the agricultural population there is no reason why individual local authorities should not make grants for the purpose he had in mind.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Gentleman knows, of course, that there is an industrial population?
Mr. Bernays: Yes, and I am coming to that point. Grants for housing under this heading are limited to the agricultural population. With regard to the second point relating to cottage homes, I understand that these are proposed for the urban population. In so far as families are living in insanitary or overcrowded conditions it may be possible for the association to make arrangements with individual local authorities which will secure the objects in view, but the matter will in the first instance have to be explored locally. If the hon. Gentleman wishes any more information on that point I shall be happy to give it to him.
Mr. Dunn: In regard to overcrowding, is there any intention on the part of the Ministry of Health to revoke the overcrowding provisions under the survey?
Mr. Bernays: There is no such intention. I want now to refer to one or two personal remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield.
Mr. R. Gibson: Before the Parliamentary Secretary goes on to that subject would he mind dealing with the point which I raised regarding the extortionate value of land used for housing purposes, and, secondly, with the terrace houses?
Mr. Bernays: I am afraid I cannot deal with the first point without knowing more detail than the hon. Gentleman gave me.
Mr. Gibson: I simply gave figures.
Mr. Bernays: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to discuss it with us we shall do what we can, but it is very difficult to give an answer merely on the spur of the moment. With regard to the provision of flats, the policy of the Department is to encourage cottages where possible but, particularly in London, and I think in Liverpool and Manchester, where land in the centre of the town is of very great value, something like £5,000, £8,000 and £12,000 an acre, it is not possible to build cottages. In those cases we reluctantly agree that, in the conditions, flats are necessary.
Mr. Gibson: They are from £1,500 to £4,000.
Mr. Bernays: I will examine the detail points. In conclusion I want to deal with the attack upon me made before this Resolution was discussed. The right hon. Gentleman uttered a most serious and portentous rebuke. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember the conditions under which I had to reply in the Debate and particularly they will remember the continuous barracking to which I was subjected. I only stated what were the facts. Why should hon. Gentlemen think that they can attack us and we listen to them in silence and then we must never answer back?
Mr. Silverman: That is not the point I was making. The sort of thing that we objected to was the quite unnecessary discourtesy in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
Mr. Bernays: I was not referring to the hon. Gentleman. I was referring to someone much more important. What actually happened, I remember very well, was that I gave a detailed and as I
2186
thought careful answer, and there was a shout—here it is in the OFFICIAL REPORT——
"[HON. MEMBERS: 'NO answer.']"—
You can imagine what a noise that made. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield had got up to the Box and asked me a question, I naturally should have answered him, but he shouted above the din: "No answer." I answered:
"It is the only answer which the right hon. Gentleman will get."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1938; col. 1827, Vol. 331.]
I believe that is the only thing I have done. I need not come in a white sheet. If an apology is needed it is from the Opposition for this continuous barracking, Really, we are not thin-skinned on this side and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen should not be thin-skinned either.
Mr. G. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has finished it up very nicely.
8.51 p.m.
Mr. Greenwood: I hardly think that the hon. Gentleman's apology has been a handsome one. I speak as one who has been subjected to barracking as much as anybody in this House from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and from right hon. Gentlemen opposite also, and I do not complain. My complaint was that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary was discourteous. He accuses me of shouting above the din. I rose in my place only once, under the greatest provocation, to ask the right hon. Gentleman a simple question to which he did not know the answer. I did not intervene at that time, but the hon. Gentleman thinks his remark is fitting because there was a perfectly legitimate Parliamentary interruption from hon. Members whose views must have been shared on that side, because he had given no answer to my question. It is proved that he gave no answer to my question because the right hon. Gentleman himself spent the first quarter of an hour of his speech this afternoon giving me an answer which I said was as satisfactory as I could expect from him. If the Parliamentary Secretary had made the same kind of answer I should have been perfectly satisfied, and I think some of my hon. Friends would have been. It is discourteous, and—I repeat what I said this afternoon—impertinent for the hon.

2187
Gentleman to say that that was the only answer I was going to get. I am glad that he has been reproved by his chief this afternoon.
The Chairman: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has exceeded the time taken by the hon. Gentleman in referring to this matter, but if he is going to continue very long I shall think that he is moving to report Progress.
Mr. Greenwood: I should not object to that. My point is a perfectly serious one. The right hon. Gentleman thought it worth while to begin his speech this afternoon with a very full explanation on the point which I had raised on Second Reading. In so far as he did that, I regard it as a reproof to the Parliamentary Secretary.
I want to deal with one or two of the points made by the Parliamentary Secretary about the Financial Resolution. I gather that under the Bill—I think I quote his words exactly—the value to the tenant is much the same. I knew that, and the hon. Gentleman has given us our case. That is putting the best interpretation upon it. Time will prove whether the assertions which I have made are right or not. Then the hon. Gentleman tried to defend his policy by saying there was a limit to the expenditure which the taxpayers can pay. What about the ratepayer? What about the tenant? Are there no limits to what they can pay? That, again, is no answer to our case. Then the hon. Gentleman referred—it has been referred to two or three times—to the provision I made for a review of the State contribution. If I were ever responsible for another Housing Act I should do the same thing. I am not against making provision for a review of the circumstances. At the time of the passing of the Act of 1930, conditions in the building trade were quite as stable as they are now, but one can visualise circumstances in which the cost of building might fall, and in that case it would be perfectly right for the State and the local authorities to revise their views of what was necessary. But let it be said for me that I myself have never been guilty of revising any State contribution downwards. I did, in 1929, save this country from the wreck which was intended of the Wheatley Act. That wreckage was completed in 1931.
2188
The hon. Gentleman talks about rents of 6s. and 7s. per week. That is just preposterous, and it will be even more preposterous under the present legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) has dealt with the rise in the cost of building in recent years, and very staggering the figures are. I say that it is not possible, at present building costs, and with this subsidy, to build houses on any kind of basis for the vast majority of the people at that rent. Time will prove whether I am right or not. There is another misconception with which I should like to deal, about the distinction between slums and overcrowding. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I understand the slum problem as well as he does. I have said on previous occasions, and I say again to-day, that overcrowding is an element in the slum problem. Broadly speaking, it is in the slums that you get the worst overcrowding, combined with very bad physical environment. The Parliamentary Secretary tells us that overcrowding is not always found in slum conditions. Admittedly that is so, but my case has been that, where you get the double evil of overcrowding and bad physical environment, that is the primary problem. In overcrowded conditions you have slums in the making. You will find them within a mile of this House—large middle-class houses, once occupied by wealthy people, now overcrowded and degenerating month by month down to the slum level. I say that in principle there is no difference between the two problems. You cannot define a slum once and for all, because, with every year that passes, these overcrowded conditions are degenerating down to the slum level.
A wise statesmanship would have taken the overcrowding problem in its stride with the slum problem, now that we have attacked it, and would not have brought down the financial assistance to the overcrowding level, but, in order to make a good job of this great national duty would have raised the level of the subsidy up to the one which I instituted. I suppose that, as this Bill continues its course, the right hon. Gentleman will persist in saying—he is very good at publicity—that it is a fine Bill; but I am afraid that on this side of the Committee we shall have to persist in saying that we do not think very much of it. I am bound to say, with all respect to the

2189
Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, that I do not think they have answered the arguments which we have put in Committee on the Money Resolution and which we put on the Second Reading, and we shall continue, as we have done all through, to assert what is fundamental with us, namely, that this is no contribution whatever to the solution of the housing problem of this country, and that its motives lie outside the solution of the housing problem.
The Chairman: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to move an Amendment?
Mr. Greenwood: There is an Amendment in my name which I should like to move.
The Chairman: That is why I called the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Greenwood: I was exercising my right to speak twice in Committee. I beg to move, to leave out lines 40 to 45.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 116.

Division No. 103.]

AYES.

[9.3. p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Cower, Sir R. V.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G A.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Albery, Sir Irving

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Grimston, R. V.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Apsley, Lord

Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

Radford, E. A.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Assheton, R.

Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)

Rankin, Sir R.

Atholl, Duchess of

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Hambro, A. V.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Balniel, Lord

Hannah, I. C.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Riekards, G. W. (Skipton)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Bernays, R. H.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Bird, Sir R. B.

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Bossom, A. C.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Salmon, Sir I.

Boulton, W. W.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

Salt, E. W.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Holmes, J. S.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Hope, Captain Hon. A O. J.

Savery, Sir Servington

Brass, Sir W.

Hopkinson, A.

Scott, Lord William

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Hulbert, N. J.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Hunter, T.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Butcher, H. W.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Hutchinson, G. C.

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Carver, Major W. H.

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Cary, R. A.

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

Spens, W. P.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Keeling, E. H.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Storey, S.

Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark N.)

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Leech, Sir J. W.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)

Levy, T.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Crooke, Sir J. S.

Lewis, O.

Sutcliffe, H.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Liddall, W. S.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Loftus, P. C.

Tate, Mavis C.

Cross, R. H.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Cruddas, Col. B.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Thomson, Sir J. D. W

Davidson, Viscountess

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

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

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Markham, S. F.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Danman, Hon. R. D.

Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

Turton, R. H.

Denville, Alfred

Maxwell, Hon. S A.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

May hew, U. Col J.

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

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Dunglass, Lord

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Eastwood, J. F.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Eckersley, P. T.

Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Ellis, Sir G.

Morgan, R. H.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Everard, W. L.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Fildes, Sir H.

Munro, P.

Wragg, H.

Fleming, E. L.

Nall, Sir J.

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Fremantle, Sir F. F.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mr. Furness and Major Herbert.

NOES

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Hardie, Agnes

Parker, J.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Harris, Sir P. A.

Parkinson, J. A.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Hayday, A.

Pearson, A.

Adamson, W. M.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Pathick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Alexander, R (. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Price, M. P.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Pritt, D. N.

Banfield, J. W.

Holline, A.

Quibell, O. J. K.

Barr, J.

Hopkin, D.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Batey, J.

Jagger, J.

Ridley, G.

Bellenger, F. J.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Ritson, J.

Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

Bromfield, W.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Shinwell, E.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Silkin, L.

Buchanan, G.

Kelly, W. T.

Silverman, S. S.

Burke, W. A.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Simpson, F. B.

Cape, T.

Kirby, B. V.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Cluse, W. S.

Kirkwood, D.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Cooks, F. S.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Sorensen, R. W.

Cove, W. G.

Lawson, J. J.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Gripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Leach, W.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Daggar, G.

Lee, F.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Leonard, W.

Thurtle, E.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Leslie, J. R.

Tinker, J. J.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Logan, D. G.

Tomlinson, G.

Dobbie, W.

Lunn, W.

Viant, S. P.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Walkden, A. G.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

McEntee, V. La T.

Walker, J.

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

McGhee, H. G.

Watson, W. McL.

Foot, D. M.

MacNeill Weir, L.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Frankel, D.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Westwood, J.

Gardner, B. W.

Marshall, F.

Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

Garro Jones, G. M

Mathers, G.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Gibson. R. (Greenock)

Maxton, J.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Messer, F.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Milner, Major J.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Grenfell, D. R.

Montague, F.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Naylor, T. E.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Oliver, G. H.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.12 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The House will observe that the objects of this Bill are generally set forth in the explanatory memorandum. The necessity for it arises from a recent judgment of the High Court as to the effect of Section 2 (2) of the National Health Insurance Act, 1936. That Subsection, as hon. Members familiar with National Health Insurance will remember, was formerly Section 10 of the Act of 1935. Before the passing of the Act of 1935, it was possible for a person to become an employed contributor and qualify for an old age pension on a short period of insurance if having been the owner of
  2192
  a business, and therefore uninsured, he transferred the business to a relative on approaching pensionable age and becoming employed in the business. The Section was designed to exclude this, and to prevent what is known in insurance circles as "family employment" insurance on the strength of such employment, but this Section did not say that family employment was not to be employment within the meaning of the Act.
  The result, as now declared by the High Court judgment, is that certain rights normally following the cessation of employment within the meaning of the Act are denied to persons in such "family employment" on 2nd August, 1935. They are also denied to persons who at that date, while so employed, ceased to be engaged in some other concurrent employment in respect of which they had been insured. Under the scheme of Health Insurance and Pensions, a person who ceases to be liable to compulsory insurance does not pass out of insurance immediately. He is given a "free" insurance period of 18 to 24 months, and, more important still, he has the right, if he has paid insurance contributions for two years, to continue to be insured as a

  2193
  voluntary contributor. There rights are given when as the Act puts it a person
  "ceases to be employed within the meaning of the Act."
  The Section to which I have referred said that the persons who are engaged in one of these family employments shall not be insured, but it does not say that the employment itself is not employment within the meaning of the Act. As an unfortunate result persons who were engaged in family employment on 2nd August, 1935, when the 1935 Act was passed, were abruptly taken out of insurance without being given the usual light to a free insurance period, and they also lost their option of becoming voluntary contributors. Thus they lost not only their Health Insurance benefits but also their rights to widows' and old age pensions, although they were all compulsorily insurable under the law as it stood before the Act of 1935 came into operation.
  If the law remains unamended persons engaged in this kind of family employment in future may also lose their rights in certain circumstances. I will give an example. A man may be in concurrent employment in respect of which he is properly insured. If the employment should cease, he would naturally expect to be able to continue his contributions voluntarily, but he would be unable to do so unless we passed this Bill, because his "family employment" leaves him still employed within the meaning of the Act. No discretion has been given to the Minister of Health. He has found himself powerless in this matter. Therefore the Bill proposes that this kind of employment shall be added to the list of employments which are excepted from compulsory insurance. It also, at the same time, enables the Minister to reconsider claims for pensions which have failed on a true construction of the present provision regarding these family employments, and to award a pension with retrospective effect when the claim would have succeeded on the basis of the new wording of the Section.
  Mr. Logan: Does that mean that any such person would be able to make application as a voluntary contributor and be reinstated?
  Sir K. Wood: It means that I shall be able to consider this claim, and if we
  2194
  pass this Bill, as I hope we shall, that person's rights will be given back.
  Mr. Logan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, owing to the new Bill, they will become State contributors or will the approved society have the power to accept them? Will they remain as voluntary contributors under the Act, in the society, or will they come under the new scheme?
  Sir K. Wood: I will ascertain that information during the course of the proceedings. It is rather a technical point. Liability is placed upon the Exchequer to a very small degree. The Act of 1935 had no intention of removing liability. The amount is inconsiderable and, therefore, I do not think that there need be anxiety from the point of view of the Exchequer. I believe that anyone who has had experience, as has the hon. Gentleman opposite, of the working of insurance societies and of the particular cases which have arisen—not many—will feel that, in all the circumstances, this legislation was necessary to do justice to people affected in this way, when there was no such intention by Parliament, and in view of the interpretation of the law which was, no doubt, quite properly given at the time. For all these reasons I hope that the Bill will commend itself to the House. I am informed that the answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) is in the affirmative.
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: I rise to say a few words in support of this Measure, although there is nothing more painful for me than to be called upon to say a single word in favour of this Government at any time. The Bill now before the House as the right hon. Gentleman has said is a very necessary Measure. I want, however, to disabuse the minds of hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman by reading from his brief made the whole position as clear as mud. I am sure that every Member of the House, even the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General knows every angle of this Bill after the eloquent speech of the Minister of Health. In order to approach this Bill in the right spirit, I would like the House to listen to the closing words of the official Memorandum of explanation:
  "It is anticipated that the number of such persons will not exceed a few hundreds and the cost will be small."

  2195
  That is the financial content of the Bill, and I want to say only one thing in support of the Measure. It is right that the decision of the High Court referred to should be reversed by this Measure. There are not many cases of the kind covered by the Bill, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and his deputy will know full well that when persons in family employment apply for membership the approved society is always in a difficulty on this particular issue. This Bill will not do very much to clarify that peculiar problem, but at any rate it will restore to several persons the rights which were intended for them under the Act of 1935.
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. Logan: I am pleased at the introduction of the Bill now before the House because it provides an opportunity for the class against which an injustice was committed to come back into insurance. I am even more pleased with regard to the reply which I received to my question, that a reversion can take place. It would not be just if the reversion could not come to the approved society also. While the State Scheme brings in that particular class of contributor, if on 2nd August, 1935 a person was justly entitled, provided the 104 contributions had been paid, to become a voluntary contributor, such a person would have had the right then to make application to become a voluntary contributor in whatever approved society with which he had been associated. I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has stated, although the new Act will come into operation, that it will be optional for a member who is qualified by reason of the 104 contributions either to determine to go into the Government scheme or have the right of applying as a contributor under the voluntary scheme to the approved society. My idea in putting this point of view is that there is a great deal at stake. It may be that such men or women may have been in an approved society. They may have contributed to the funds of a society able to give additional benefits to the voluntary contributor such as he would not otherwise be able to get.
  In the circular issued with regard to the Regulations it is stated that a person can contract out or remain in the approved society, and I am anxious to know whether, in this respect, a reversion
  2196
  is to take place as a matter of equity. In justice to these people they ought to have the right to join the approved society if they so wish, because the additional benefits which may accrue to the funds of the society will be at their disposal. On the other hand, they will not be able to have those benefits. Can I have the assurance that you are going to give the rates which were permissible then and not the rates under the new Act? If that adjustment could be made, the regulation proposal form can be signed, as we have to do with all C contributors to-day. If they sign it they automatically become members of the approved society; otherwise they have the right to apply under the State scheme.
  Sir K. Wood: I should like to have an opportunity of studying that carefully. I was able to give an affirmative answer to the hon. Member's first question, but this, obviously, needs very careful consideration. I will consider it and communicate with the hon. Member.
  9.27 p.m.
  Mr. Buchanan: I rise to ask a question. A certain number of people have been refused. I am afraid there may have been one or two who did not persist in applying because they knew that at that time they were outside the law. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to assist those people without their having to make fresh claims? Also, will any steps be taken by the Department to see that any person who has not so made a claim is informed as to his position? As far as I can gather, certain people were passed out of insurance. Under this Bill they are in the main to get their rights back. They have not only passed automatically out of health insurance, but out of their approved societies. Will steps be taken to see that the approved society will take them back again? It has the right of refusal. It would be only just and equitable, seeing that they were passed out by this legal decision, that all other matters should be put right.
  Mr. Tomlinson: As one who has had some experience in administering National Health Insurance, I should like to offer a word of thanks for this restitution. I should like to ask whether it will require a decision of the High Court at all times to remove anomalies under the Act. There are many classes of people who

  2197
  have suffered under National Health Insurance and have not received their rights back, because no action has been taken in the High Court.
  9.35 p.m.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: We should have been lacking in our duty if we had not raised the point that has just been put. It would appear that it is necessary to get a High Court judgment in order that questions of this kind can be dealt with. We were hoping, and we are entitled to expect, that a much more comprehensive Measure would have been introduced to deal with anomalies which have arisen in the administration of the present Act. Seeing that the Government have seen fit to introduce a special Bill to deal with a High Court judgment, we are entitled to expect that in the near future a much more comprehensive Measure will be introduced to deal with anomalies arising out of our experience of the present Act to deal with the low economic position of old age and widow pensioners.
  Sir K. Wood: The Department have, I understand, noted practically all the cases that have arisen in this connection where a claim has been put forward and refused. I will undertake a complete revision of all these cases and, if there are any which have not been noted, I will endeavour to carry out the intentions of Parliament.
  Mr. Westwood: Will there be co-operation between the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Department, so that whatever action is taken in England will be followed up by similar action in Scotland?
  Sir K. Wood: There is always close co-operation between the two Departments, and my right hon. Friend and I will see that it is closer still if possible. As far as membership of approved societies is concerned, I am informed that they have in the great majority of cases kept these members still in association with their society. Where they have not gone back I will use my endeavours to see that they retain their association with their old societies.
  9.33 p.m.
  Mr. Batey: The Bill will affect very few people at a very small cost. There are many anomalies in connection with National Health Insurance. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question on a larger scale? We have
  2198
  been urging him for a long time to bring in a Bill amending the 1935 Act to deal with the large mass of anomalies under which people are suffering, but he does nothing. Is he going to continue this course of coming to Parliament with these small matters and leaving alone big questions which affect so many people? Again and again we have urged him to deal with wives who cannot claim their pensions when the husband reaches 65 and they have to live as best they can on 10s. That is a matter to which he ought to have given his attention long ago. If we pass this small Bill unanimously, when are we to expect him to deal with these other important questions?
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday next.—[Mr. Furness.]

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) [Money].
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
Resolved,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, in relation to persons who are, or who since the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, have been, employed in the manner mentioned in Subsection (2) of Section two of that Act, and to make consequential amendments in the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1936, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the sums necessary to defray such increase in any expenditure which by the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, or the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, is directed to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament as is attributable to the operation of the said Act of the present Session."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Sir K. Wood.]
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

BLIND PERSONS BILL.
As amended, considered.
Mr. Speaker: The Amendment which stands on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Tottenham, South (Mr. Messer)—in page 2, line 15, after "Sub-section," to insert:

2199
"any old age pension payable to the blind person under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, as amended by Section one of this Act shall be disregarded, and."
would involve a charge upon the rates and is, therefore, out of order.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
9.37 p.m.
Mr. Rhys Davies: I should like to say a very few words before we part finally with this Bill. You have stated, Mr. Speaker, that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) is out of order and consequently we cannot deal with that subject, except that I might make an appeal to the Minister. I do not think that it would be too late for him to give kindly consideration to the point that I am about to put to him. Under the Bill it will still be possible for the old age pension of 10s. a week to be taken into account for assessing the needs of a blind person. We have failed to make any impression upon the right hon. Gentleman so far, but I would ask him whether he could not meet us by a compromise, which might not cost very much. We know full well that where a blind person is in an institution the institution, generally speaking, takes the money that the blind person may receive either by way of old age pension, health insurance or any other social service cash benefits. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give favourable consideration to the position of the blind person who is living at home, so that when his needs are assessed and he is in receipt of the 10s. old age pension that sum will not be taken into account in assessing his needs. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give heed to that request. If he feels disposed to do something in that direction he might still be able to do it in another place. This Bill is very much like other Government Measures; it does a great deal of good, but we wish it had been much more generous to blind persons. In spite of all that, we do not intend to oppose the Bill on Third Reading.
9.40 p.m.
Mr. Messer: There are few Members more disappointed than I am to-night. Through a misunderstanding, my
2200
Amendment was not called in the Committee stage, and now it has not been called on the Report stage. That is a disappointment, because the Bill could do with very drastic alterations. It will be of very little benefit as it stands. I consider it to be a piece of typical Tory legislation. Tory speakers at by-elections may attempt to make some show of having done something by referring to this Bill. Very few blind people will get any benefit out of the Bill, and it is well that that fact should be known. What is the history of it? For long, weary years the blind have been waiting for something to be done. The Minister's own Advisory Committee in 1928 recommended that there should be a reduction in the age at which the pension should be payable. Again, in 1935 they reaffirmed that view, and asked that consideration should be given to it. In 1938, after having been conceived 10 years ago, after 10 years of gestation, the thing is stillborn.
The benefit in the Bill, as far as I can see, is for the local authorities and the county councils. It does nothing for the blind, as such. The number of blind persons between the ages of 40 and 50 who might have benefited is very small and could not possibly exceed 7,000. The blind people and those who have been engaged in the administration of the Blind Persons Act had hoped that the Bill would have contained some improvement, but it is to be regretted that nothing really material has been accomplished. The Bill leaves untouched the great problem that is facing the blind. The Bill is a monument of lost opportunity. In the last few weeks I have heard in the House the quotation:
"Hope springs eternal in the human breast."
But we never hear the quotation completed:
"Man never is, but always to be blest."
Of the blind people between 40 and 50 who might be affected by the Act, the majority are unemployable and untrainable. For those who are employable the position is anomalous. It is possible for a person to be an employed blind person and getting money from the work he does, but this Bill does nothing to alter a situation which everybody who knows anything about the blind has pressed for alteration. They will have their income

2201
augmented and, whilst employed, they are insured, but when they are unemployed they are dependent upon unemployment benefit and are getting less than those blind persons who are in receipt of the blind person's pension, plus domiciliary assistance. Therefore, you are robbing the blind people of incentive to employment, for in many instances the employable blind person may be worse off than those who are unemployable and untrainable. The Bill continues that anomaly. Under it blind people will get their domiciliary assistance, as they always have, but there is no assurance that anyone will get one penny piece advantage. The Bill does benefit somebody. It benefits those mean authorities who are doing very little in domiciliary assistance.
Mr. Quibell: Where are they?
Mr. Messer: In Lincolnshire there are four who pay as little as 15s. a week. Under this Bill the rates, or the ratepayers, will benefit at the expense of the blind. It provides £160,000, yet it will not be the blind who will get it, but the ratepayers. It ought not to be called a Blind Persons Bill, but a Rate Assistance Bill. The Ratepayers' Associations are probably the only people who will give it their blessing. It still leaves in the hands of private, indiscriminate and irresponsible charities an important aspect of the work. We have failed to face responsibilities which are ours. I could give the name of a charity which is able on its own volition to raise only £4,000 a year for the purpose of dealing with this charitable work. That society appoints highly paid officials, appoints home teachers and spends £40,000 a year of public money. Private charities are still responsible for the maintenance of workshops and for the maintenance of teaching and training institutions. Blind people go into these institutions and public money is paid for their training. After they have undergone a period of training they go into the workshop, still under the private charity, and if the manager of the charitable institution does not like their religion, their politics or their looks, they get the sack, and it is a difficult job for them to find another position because of the limited opportunities there are for blind persons.
I myself a few years ago interviewed the manager of one of the biggest institutions in London who had discharged two
2202
men for staying out and distributing handbills. I showed him that while snow was on the ground and at a time when they were practising carols for Christmas he had put two men in the gutter because he did not like what they were doing privately. It is possible for blind people to be victimised. There is a blind workshop not a mile from this House where to my knowledge people living in my division have been victimised and cannot get another job. These associations are in control of this work. They take blind persons into training for a job and they give them a certificate which entitles them to call themselves blind workers. Within my own knowledge and experience is the case of a man who learned to tune pianos, but because he could not pass the repair test he could not get a certificate. I know-thousands of piano tuners who cannot do any repairs at all. This power ought not to be left in the hands of private people. It is the responsibility of local authorities to look after a section of the community who are unable to look after themselves.
I want to point out also that the Bill still leaves a great inequality in various parts of the country. No attempt has been made to unify the treatment, and the result is that local authorities who are generous suffer as a consequence of those who are mean. If the Minister will look at his own Advisory Committee he will see that there are some who give an income to a blind person up to as much as 27s, 6d. a week and there are some who give as little as 15s. a week. There are about 46 authorities who have no scheme at all for the blind, and there are a number who deal with cases on their merits. We all know what merits an individual case has when it goes before certain local authorities.
The great evil of the Bill is that the basis of assessment of income of the Old Age Pensions Act still operates against the blind person. Under the Old Age Pension Act the Minister of Health will assess the value of the treatment and maintenance of anyone who is in a hospital or institution. We get this position: Under the Bill where a man maybe drawing 10s. a week old age pension, plus other income, and goes into hospital, he is informed that his income has increased to the extent of £3 10s. a week, and, consequently, is not entitled to the old age pension, because the Minister of

2203
Health regards the cost of his maintenance and treatment as income. Obviously, it is not income; he does not go there because he wants to. There are still certain liabilities which have to be met. There are his share of the rent and certain fixed charges, but his blind pension is taken away. It would perhaps be unfair if I say that the Bill does nothing at all. It does two things. It takes the dependants of blind people out of the Poor Law. That will have to be watched with great care, for the position at the moment is that blind persons are entitled to an income because they are blind, and their relatives and dependants, should they need it, have to go at the moment to the public assistance committee, where they will be paid according to scale.
There is a danger that in the amending schemes which must be brought forward we shall get that which will result in a reduction of the combined amount which goes into the household, which can be done under the Bill. I am rather glad of that, because I want to see the Poor Law entirely ended. The second thing which the Bill does is to provide some assistance in the matter of funeral expenses for blind persons. I think it would be much better if we did something to make their lives worth living rather than to bury them decently when they are dead.
I sometimes wonder whether in our administration we are not rather too cold and lacking in that human quality which is required to understand the people for whom we are administering. Surely, there is no section of the community which has so great a claim on the respect of the community as those who have lost their sight, those who are condemned to a life of eternal darkness, to a night that knows no dawn, who can share with us the scent of the flowers but never the glory of their colours, who can feel with us the warm breath of the sun, but are never inspired by its rising or the peace of its setting, who can never feel that they are akin to those who have that which they lack. I want to plead with those who have eyes that can look up with a light of joy to have pity on those who have eyes, but only for weeping.
9.57 p.m.
Sir K. Wood: I feel that a few words from me are due to the hon. Member
2204
for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer). I hope he will not think I am discourteous if I do not reply in detail once again to the criticisms that he has made. I suppose that in the case of all legislation that is brought forward, there always remains something more that could be done. For very many years there has been no legislation with relation to blind people, although many Governments have been in power. This Measure at any rate does take legislation on behalf of blind people a stage further, and it is in that sense that I commend it to the House. It will do something more for people whom we all desire to help, and I am glad that it has fallen to my lot to be able to bring forward such a Bill. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hopes to the hon. Member with regard to the suggestions that he has made. I do not wish to enter into further controversy to-night, but the hon. Member will appreciate that one of the Clauses of the Bill places upon the local authorities the duty of having regard to the needs and necessities of the blind, and I think that within the interpretation of that Clause a very great deal can be done for the blind people in many of the ways mentioned by him. At this hour of the night the House will not expect me to controvert the statements that have been made, and I hope that the House will now give the Bill a unanimous Third Reading.

POPULATION (STATISTICS) BILL.
As amended, considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
9.59 p.m.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, who is responsible for this Bill, must be rather glad that the storm which passed over him earlier in the day has somewhat subsided during the latter part of our sitting. As far as this Measure is concerned, the storm which took place on its earlier stages has removed a good many of the landmarks which were present before the rising of the storm. I intervene on this occasion for the purpose of putting one point to the Minister, a point which I raised on the Committee

2205
stage. The House will remember that the Bill is designed to elicit certain information at the time for registering births or deaths which has not hitherto been available when those registrations were effected. The Minister has accepted the opinion of the House that this information should be jealously guarded from the point of view of its confidential character.
The point which I put to the Minister in Committee, and which I now put to him again, is whether the registration officer should be compelled to announce to the person registering the birth or death that the information will be confidential. The Minister has been good enough during the time which has elapsed between the Committee stage and now to look into this matter and to consult me in regard to it. In view of what he told me, I decided not to move any Amendment on the Report stage, but I hope that to-night he will be able to give us the assurance that, although he has not changed the Bill and put in the provision which I asked him to insert, he is taking other steps, possibly better ones, to achieve the purpose which I have in mind.
10.2 p.m.
Mr. Lewis: As one of those who opposed the Bill on Second Reading and had some criticism to offer on the Committee stage, I would like, now that we are parting with the Bill, to pay a tribute to the Minister of Health for what he has done. In the Debates on the Bill, he has shown himself very willing to listen to criticism and in so far as the criticism could be shown to be well-founded, to contrive to meet it. I think that if at other times Ministers would show themselves equally willing to encourage other Members of the House to assist in passing legislation, many of the Bills which leave the House would leave it in much better shape than they do at the present time.
10.3 p.m.
Mr. Kingsley Griffith: As I believe I was one of the first people to oppose the Bill, I would not like it to be given a Third Reading without uttering a parting word. The Bill started in a rather reckless and extravagant form, but later in life it assumed such a respectable appearance that I feel we should give it the tribute of some kind of fatted calf before it finally goes to another place. As the Bill originally was, there were
2206
many things in it to which many hon. Members objected, but at the same time I think we all knew there was a genuine object behind it with which we all sympathised, realising that the problem of the future population of this country was one which we needed to consider. The only objection raised in the House was that originally a great many of the questions that were to be asked were unnecessary and might be oppressive. That is a matter which we do not need to consider now, for the Minister has met us in a generous way. I hope that the Bill in its final form will avoid all the objections that were put forward on Second Reading and will fulfil the very genuine objects which the Minister and his advisers had in mind when the Bill was brought forward. I hope that in its present form it will be of genuine assistance in solving one of the most difficult problems of modern times.
10.5 p.m.
Sir K. Wood: I am indebted to the hon. Members who have spoken for their observations on the Bill. I do not regret my association with it and I think, as time goes on, the action which the Government have taken in this matter will be more and more justified. I recall that the first census Bill introduced into this House many years ago was rejected by a very large majority, but after some years, fresh proposals were introduced and the census method of obtaining information was eventually accepted by the people of this country and indeed almost throughout the world. I understand that there may be people who take points of objection here and there as to the exact questions which may be asked and I do not resent any of the criticisms that have been made. I understand the feeling of hon. Members who naturally desire to protect the liberty of the individual and to prevent unnecessary and vexatious questions being put to people. I hope that hon. Members on their part appreciate my position. Although I am sometimes accused of introducing Measures with a view to appealing to public opinion, there is nothing of that kind in this Bill. When I undertook this Measure it was solely on the merits that I did so. I think I can claim that credit for myself. I hope that the Measure will be of increasing value not only in connection with the obtaining of information regarding the future population, but also with regard

2207
to matters with which I am particularly concerned, namely, social administration and new social proposals, its relation to which is very often forgotten.
I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and I undertake that the Regulations to be made under the Bill shall lay the duty on the registrar of putting before the informant, in the first place a printed form containing a prominent notice stating that the particulars required will not be entered upon the register. I will also take the necessary step to see that the informants are notified by the registrar that the information given under this Measure will be treated in the strictest confidence and used by the Registrar-General alone for statistical purposes only. I propose further that the form itself shall be prescribed by and form part of the Regulations and before I approve the Regulations I shall be glad to show them to hon. Getlemen who are interested in this matter and whose full co-operation I hope to obtain. I thank the House for having seen this Bill so far on its way to the Statute Book, and I hope that it will prove to be a useful piece of legislation.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I be allowed to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said concerning the particular point raised by me?

DOMINICA BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

DOMINICA BILL [Lords].

  CLAUSE 1.—(Separation of Dominica from Leeward Islands.)
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I wish to raise a point on Sub-section (2). The right hon. Gentleman has from time to time pointed out the difficulty experienced in certain Crown Colonies in getting measures through the local legislatures. Under this Sub-section an Order in Council may
  2208
  be made setting out the type of government which should be established under the new arrangement. When the right hon. Gentleman was asked during the Second Reading Debate, what was likely to be done in the matter of government, we were informed that, virtually, government under the old arrangement would continue to be operative under the new arrangement. I referred at the time to the suggestion that there should be established an unofficial majority in the legislative council and that the number of elected unofficial members should be increased. I was informed that those changes had taken place and that the new constitution would make provision for a majority of unofficial members. I have looked into the matter, and while it is true that, under the new arrangement, unofficial members are in a majority of eight to three the elected members are in a minority of five to six.
  The point I tried to make on Second Reading was that there had been an agitation that the number of elected members should be increased and that the elected unofficial members should be in a majority in the legislature. The existing arrangement, I gather, does not provide for that majority. I ask that an assurance be given in respect of this Sub-section that, in the making of the new constitution, some regard will be had to the operating principle of self-government. A further point emerges on this Clause in regard to the franchise. In many of these West Indian Islands only a small proportion of the population enjoy the franchise and a very high standard of qualification is necessary for membership of the legislature. With a view to making more operative the principle of representative Government, I should like to ask what is the proportion of persons enfranchised in the island and what are the qualifications necessary for membership of the legislature.
  The danger in these Crown Colonies is that when you have a form of representavite Government, that Government tends to pass into the hands not only of the official section but of a small oligarchy, and I would like to see operative here a wider measure of self-government. Moreover, if social reform and labour legislation are to get through these Chambers, obviously there should be a more progressive element represented in the legislature, which often is not the case when

  2209
  the franchise is limited and a high qualification for membership of the House is called for. I would therefore like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give me an assurance in respect to these two points, because I am sure he is just as anxious as we are that fuller representative Government should be operative in the West Indies now that the occasion of framing a constitution for Dominica has arisen.
  Mr. Riley: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us how many of the five elected members are coloured people and whether any of the three nominated members also are coloured?
  10.16 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): As I said on the former occasion, there is no proposal in this Bill to make any further alteration either in the franchise or the constitution which Dominica has enjoyed since the recommendations of the Commission which went out from here in 1932 were put into effect. They went fully into the question of the franchise and established for the first time an unofficial majority in this island. No change is made in this Bill, and, as I said before, I have no intention at present, certainly not without further representation and inquiry from Dominica, of making any changes whatsoever in regard to franchise and representation. To the best of my knowledge, all the elected members are coloured, and of the nominated unofficials I am not quite sure, but certainly one is coloured. Dominica has a very small white population, and to the best of my knowledge that white population is declining. According to the last report, the white population in Dominica represents just under 1½ per cent. of the total, so that, taking the population at 47,000, it means that there are about 700 whites, which I think is a full estimate. The number of persons estimated to be qualified for the franchise is somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000.
  I do not think Dominica is the kind of place where they are likely to require much labour legislation. There are no large employers of labour, and there is no industry. It is, as I said before, probably more than any other of these islands essentially a peasant island, and, as I say, under this Bill no further changes in the constitution are contemplated.
  2210
  All this rather legal language is merely for the purpose of re-enacting what has to be re-enacted when you have a community part of whose laws are the laws of the existing Federation and part of whose laws are their own local laws. In future they will not be part of the Federation, and therefore it is necessary to re-enact the laws and make them into one body of law. This is a Bill to de-federate Dominica and make it a separate Colony, joining with three other Windward Islands in paying the salary of a common Governor. His main powers are in regard to public safety and so on, and he has special powers, and also, as long as any one of these islands is in receipt of grants-in-aid from the Treasury here, he, of course, has to have certain special financial powers. I wish to make it clear that the object of this Bill is not to make changes, but to carry out the wishes of everyone, white and coloured, to be out of the Leeward Federation and to have a constitution of their own associated with the Windward Federation. It has no other implication, no other object, and no other purpose.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I understand I made a mistake when I said that all the elected representatives were coloured. I understand that three out of the five are coloured, and that one of the nominated unofficials is coloured.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Hope.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes after Ten o'Clock.