§ 8.13 p.m.
§ Mr. T. Williams
I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, to leave out "half," and to insert "one-third."
The object of this Amendment, which is on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), who is absent from the House at the moment, is to reduce the rates burden which is on many of the heavily-rated districts in the country. In working-class areas, where housing needs are the greatest, the rates burdens are invariably the heaviest, and to that extent those districts ought not in future to be called upon to bear a heavier burden, in the interests of housing the people, than they are bearing at the present time. From time to time the Treasury has had to help 1379 private enterprise, or society generally, to build houses for workers, and in some cases a heavy contribution has had to be made from the rates. I do not think that should happen any longer, or at least to the extent that is proposed in the Bill. The Amendment, which reduces the contribution from one-half to one-third, seems to me to be a reasonable one, although even one-third of the charges will represent a heavy burden upon the people in districts where large numbers of houses are required and where rateable values are comparatively low. For these reasons, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the Amendment, for no one knows better than he does what the rates burden means in working-class areas, where the rates are far too heavy and where private enterprise will not build a solitary house. It is left entirely to the local authorities to erect dwellings, and the more they do in that direction, the heavier the burden upon the local people.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Miss Wilkinson
I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment. I would recall to him the fact that a deputation from the county council of Durham some time ago was met by the Parliamentary Secretary. We laid our case before him and he promised to convey the facts to the Minister. Durham is, I think, the most heavily rated county in the country. It certainly will be under the new arrangements with regard to public assistance. It is also the county with the highest rate of overcrowding. Anything that can be done to ease the rate burden in those particularly distressed areas, ought to be taken into serious consideration by the Government at the present time. We have, over and over again, pressed on the Government the fact that in these heavily rated areas the local authorities have to undertake a burden which ought to be placed on the national shoulders. They are sinking under the weight. They suffer from all the drawbacks of poverty in an aggravated form. They have a terrific rate of unemployment and a high rate of tuberculosis requiring sanatorium services and other services; they have a very heavy public assistance rate; and they have also to carry this very heavy burden in respect of overcrowding.
We fear that if the proposed ratio goes through those areas in which the rebuild- 1380 ing of the present overcrowded slums is most urgent will be unable to afford to do the work. Over and over again we have laid this matter before the Minister and he has promised to give it sympathetic consideration. I can tell him, as the deputation from the county of Durham has already told the Parliamentary Secretary, that the situation which will arise under the Bill is viewed with grave concern. Whatever the ratio may be and however fair it may be to the more prosperous Southern counties—a matter which we leave the Minister to decide—for those Northern counties to which I refer, the ratio and the subsidy as proposed in the Bill will not meet the present needs. I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment as cheerfully as he accepted a previous Amendment.
§ 8.19 p.m.
I, too, hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. He knows that all kinds of efforts have been made by the Government to mitigate the effect of high rates in those areas which are most heavily rated. Only last year we got a revision of the block grant, which comes into operation as from April of this year and from which some advantages are expected to accrue. But already much of that prospective advantage has been absorbed by the ever-increasing rate burden in these areas. Whatever steps are taken, the rates still increase, or at any rate the steps which have been taken have not proved sufficient to counteract the increase in rates. My own council will gain a substantial advantage as a result of the re-arrangement of the block grants, but if these areas are to bear heavy charges for housebuilding, it means that a number of them will not be able to carry out the work which is absolutely necessary if they are to have reasonable housing conditions.
That statement applies pretty generally to the Special Areas. I think it can be said of a number of them that their housing activities up to date have to a large extent been directed to removing an accumulation of bad houses. Those areas are already bearing substantial burdens, and if the Minister persists in his present attitude, it means that his policy will be a policy of decadence as far as those authorities are concerned. I believe that the Minister is fully conscious of this fact and that he desires to meet 1381 the wishes of hon. Members who are pressing him to meet this difficulty. There is already in these areas an average rate of about £1, which is very substantial when compared with other areas where the rate is about 10s. It may be that those less heavily rated areas will be able to carry out substantial housing programmes, but I assure the Minister, as regards the heavily rated areas, that we have nearly reached the limit of possibility of subsidising anything at all. That fact ought to be recognised by the Government.
Various methods are being employed to draw additional money to those areas, but the real solution has not come yet. Industries have not been located there to the required extent, in order to create new rateable value and enable the authorities to apply some of that increased rateable value to the solution of their housing problem. Instead of that they are faced with an ever-declining rateable value and the problem remains unsolved. In those areas we have hundreds, indeed thousands, of old houses which were built from 150 years to 200 years ago. A large number of them are owned by colliery companies. They were let cheaply before the War. Wherever there has been decontrol recently the rents have jumped up and substantial rents are now being paid for many of those houses. I had the misfortune to live in one of them in my early days and I can say truthfully that they are not fit for habitation and ought to be destroyed. But if, under the provisions of the Bill, we ask the local authorities to destroy such houses, we shall find that they have not the financial means to meet the liability arising from such schemes.
It is all very well to talk in the House of Commons and to produce a Bill and to say that you are going in for a great housing campaign to solve the problem of slumdom and give everybody nice cottages. The Minister must be conscious that we are not going to do anything of the sort by this Bill. The authorities in the heavily-rated areas cannot do the work unless they are met in the way proposed by the Amendment. I ask the Minister to give consideration to the facts which must be obvious to anybody who considers the position. If the right hon. Gentleman does so, and faces the situa- 1382 tion fairly and squarely, he must accept the Amendment.
§ 8.25 p.m.
Nobody could be more enthusiastic than I am for proceeding effectively, efficiently and quickly with the housing programme, and although I should have liked to have seen greater and quicker progress, I am one of those who are extremely proud that it is the Government of which I have the honour to be one of the back-bench supporters which, by its legislation, has made progress in slum clearance and overcrowding. I assume—and I hope I am right—that in this Bill the special provisions are being continued for financial assistance to slum clearance and overcrowding programmes which were provided in the original Act for meeting the additional charges which would have to come out of the rates in the Special Areas. If I have any grouse against my right hon. Friend, it is that I do not think there has been sufficient publicity of the provisions for providing houses in the Special Areas. In the North-East Coast area—and I presume the same facilities are available for the other areas which are scheduled Special Areas—the local authorities, if they so desire, can have the whole of their housing programmes carried out at the cost of the National Exchequer, with no additional cost to the rates.
The hon. Lady murmurs "higher rents," but I doubt whether she has any justification for making any such statement.
§ Miss Wilkinson
I do not usually make statements in the House unless I have justification for them. It is a fact that the rents of houses built by the North-Eastern Housing Association at Hebburn, which is the only place in my constituency that has undertaken it, have twice been raised and are now substantially higher than the rents of the houses built by the local authorities. That is my justification.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. All I can say is that, as far as the houses built by my local authority, which is on the other side of the water, and which is a moderate council—
I am very much obliged to the hon. Lady. It just shows the difficulty of getting into a dispute as between one council and another. All I can say is that, as far as I am aware, there is to be no increase in the rents of the houses built by the North-Eastern Association.
§ The Temporary Chairman (Sir Cyril Entwistle)
I would remind the hon. Member that we are now discussing whether the share of a local authority shall be one-third or one-half.
I listened to the case put forward by hon. Members above the Gangway, and they based their arguments for their Amendment on the case that we were imposing undue burdens on the finances of the Special Areas, and it seemed to me that I might be in order if I asked my right hon. Friend whether the same provisions apply to this Bill, that is to say, whether the whole of the charges can be paid for under the special provisions in the other Measure, in respect of houses built through housing associations. We have in process of being built by the housing association the whole of the houses which are required for slum clearance by the Wallsend authority, comprising some 400 houses, at no cost whatever to the local authority. It has taken rather a long time to get the local authority to accept the offer that was made by my right hon. Friend, and in another area in my Parliamentary Division the local authority has not yet taken advantage of the financial provisions offered.
It is only fair to say that my right hon. Friend has realised the position in the Special Areas and that no Government could have given better and fairer opportunities for the carrying out of housing programmes than the offer to bear the whole of the cost. I am told by my local authority—and I would refer the hon. Lady to this—that the terms which were offered by the North-Eastern Housing Association to the local authority were such that it was impossible for the authority to refuse them. The local authorities have been slow to take advantage of my right hon. Friend's offer, and I only wish that he would use a little additional pressure on some other authorities, because, where the rates have to be increased to meet the cost of housing programmes, they had far better take advantage of the Government's financial 1384 provisions and spend the additional money on extending social services which are much needed. I felt that it was essential that I should rise on this occasion to defend what my right hon. Friend has done, and I hope that in reply to the Amendment he will make such a speech that no local authority will turn down the financial provision which has been offered.
§ 8.33 p.m.
§ Mr. S. O. Davies
As one who, unfortunately, has a constituency that has had more than half of its working population unemployed from 12 to 14 years, I would be only too pleased to give every opportunity and encouragement to the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) to come to Merthyr Tydfil and apply the panacea which she has placed before the Committee. I could not allow this Clause to pass without emphasising the appeal that has been made, looking as I do, at what is implied in this Clause from the angle of a constituency such as mine. The local authority there has to build houses because the conditions of such an area have for many years naturally frightened away the speculative builder of houses. I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this fact and I am glad to see the Minister of Labour sitting nearby. The Government has already spent considerable sums of money—and I appreciate it—in clearing derelict work sites, and it has made the district more attractive than it used to be. There are, however, circling these old sites, dwelling houses running from 50 to 80 to the acre, built 100 to 150 years ago, which present a spectacle that is the last word in ugliness. That is certainly not conducive to attracting prospective employers to the district. They are houses a large number of which the right hon. Gentleman would, I know, condemn at a glance, and it is left to the local authority to try to provide fresh accommodation for the people who are living in those houses, hundreds of which have been condemned.
I have listened to hon. Members complimenting the Government on what they have done, but Merthyr Tydfil is an area which draws nearly 50 per cent. of its resources from cottage properties rated at under £13 per annum, and I cannot allow this Clause to pass without appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to try 1385 to appreciate the difficulties of that and similar places. The right hon. Gentleman rightly draws our attention to our obligations to house our people under better conditions, but, without wishing to make any party capital out of this, I must tell him that my friends on the borough council of Merthyr Tydfil are really disappointed with this Bill. These old industrial areas, which have, relatively, the heaviest housing problems, are admittedly in an extremely difficult position, because no fresh industries are going there and there are no fresh sources of revenue for the local authorities, and yet the problem devolves upon them of trying to rehouse the people who are living under such poor housing conditions as I have described. Until new industries are established we must continue to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for a larger measure of consideration. He is anxious that new houses shall be built for these people, but it is becoming more difficult year by year to do it. In South Wales we have had many long years of unemployment, and it is getting more and more difficult to rehouse our people, and I want to emphasise the appeal that the Minister will in some way or another give us more generous treatment, and at least accept the Amendment,
§ 8.39 p.m.
§ Mr. Silkin
I wish to support the Amendment—although it was standing in my name I was, unfortunately, not able to be present to move it—and to put the case of another special area, namely, London. The Minister of Health is fond of suggesting that London is in a very special position and can bear all sorts of burdens, but I would put it to him that London consists of 28 metropolitan boroughs, each of which is a housing authority, and that a number of those boroughs are undoubtedly very much worse off than many towns in the country. Take the case of Bethnal Green, Southwark or Bermondsey. Rateable values are low and the rates are high, and the housing problem is a very considerable one. I understand that Bermondsey has a housing rate of something like 6d. in the £. When the Minister talks of London being a prosperous area he should remember that London is not one area but 28 areas in the matter of housing activities. This Clause alters the basis of the relationship of the Exchequer subsidy to the local authority subsidy, to 1386 the detriment of local authorities. Ever since 1930 the proportion of Exchequer subsidy to local authority subsidy has been as four and half to one. For dwellings, particularly on sites costing more than £1,500 an acre, which is the case in practically all urban districts, the Exchequer contribution has been—on the basis of five persons per dwelling—£17 10s. per dwelling and the rate contribution has been £3 15s., which is roughly as four and a half to one.
Then came the Act of 1935, under which any dwellings put up for the purpose of abating overcrowding were provided with an Exchequer subsidy, and the local authority had to make a contribution amounting to one-half of the Exchequer subsidy. We on this side protested against that but nevertheless, taking the two susbsidies together and on the assumption—it is undoubtedly a fact in most places—that the number of dwellings required to rehouse persons displaced from slum areas is about twice the number rquired for the abatement of overcrowding, the existing proportion of Exchequer subsidy to rate contribution is as three to one. The purpose of this Amendment is to ask the Minister to retain that relationship between the Exchequer contribution and the rate contribution. If the Amendment is accepted, instead of the rate contribution being £2 15s. it will be, as stated in the second Amendment, which is consequential on this one, £1 16s. 8d.
I realise that the answer which will be given to this Amendment is that if it were acceepted the aggregate contribution of the Exchequer and the rates would be reduced, and that places me in some difficulty, because our real purpose is not to reduce the rate contribution but to increase the Exchequer contribution, and I should not be strictly in order in moving an Amendment of that sort. However, I want to put on record the fact that the local authorities are being badly treated by having the proportion which they are required to contribute towards the deficiency on housing increased from an average of one-third to one-half. Undoubtedly the effect of that in many cases will be a slowing down in the operations of local authorities or, alternatively, there will be an increase in the rates. I am not in a position to argue that the Exchequer contribution should be in- 1387 creased, I wish I were, because I think there is a perfect case for it, and the only thing that is open to me is to plead that the existing proportions between the Exchequer contribution and the rate contribution should be maintained, and for that reason I hope the Amendment may be accepted.
§ 8.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Tomlinson
I support the Amendment. I come from another distressed area, although it is not looked upon as one, and that is the County of Lancashire. There are 95 separate housing authorities under the Lancashire County Council and most of them will be called upon to build houses under the new regulations. I am anxious to help the Minister to achieve what it has been said he is out to achieve—a record during his term of office in the number of houses built. I should be happy to help him, not because he is the present Minister, but because I am interested in the people who will occupy the houses. I am just a little afraid that if the conditions remain as they now are in the Bill, the Minister's desire to create a record will pass into the category of the Private Member's Bill which was introduced yesterday for Scotland, and be among the still-births. The reason is that all over the County of Lancashire there is a rising rate demand for things other than houses. On Thursday next we shall be faced with an increase of 1s. 3d. in the £, the highest increase there has ever been in the history of the County of Lancashire.
Many local authorities who are housing authorities will be utterly unable, faced with this additional burden, to contemplate meeting their obligations under the Bill—and they are real obligations. Faced with an increased demand for housing they will not be able to meet that demand. Rates have been increased mainly because of the action of the right hon. Gentleman's Department and of other Departments. Some mention was made of that fact at Question Time. For poor relief and public assistance an increased rate of 4½d. in the £ is being asked. What does that mean? It means that conditions are so bad and are worsening to such an extent in Lancashire that the requirements of the people under this Bill will not be met by reason of the calls made upon local authorities from other 1388 directions. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to achieve his object in having houses built, there is one way only in which it can be done, and that is by reducing the burdens upon local authorities and enabling them to carry on without the disadvantages which they now have. This is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to show that he is anxious that the local authorities should get on with their work, and the right hon. Gentleman should make it possible for them to do so.
§ 8.49 p.m.
§ Mr. Dunn
I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. I am trying to help him and the local authorities who are dealing with the housing problems of their districts. I have often been pressed by hon. Members on this side of the House and who come from what are known as the Special Areas. Fortunately or unfortunately I come from an area which has not a classification of that kind, although I would be prepared to agree that there is a considerable measure of distress operating in the district, particularly noticeable when one comes closely into relation with the working conditions which have existed in that part of the country for a long period.
I am anxious that the Minister should look at the housing problem in relation to the general rating problem in the counties, and particularly the counties of the North. My experience will be similar to that of the hon. Member who has just spoken. When we in the North examine the rate burden, which affects the rent of the houses, and we compare the North of England with the South, we find that we are in an unenviable position. Taking the county from which I come with the local authority of which I happen to be a member, the combined rate works out at the present time to 21s. in the £. If local authorities are to be called upon to deal with their housing problems—this statement applies to the whole of my constituency—I think I should be right in saying that the combined rate would be in the region of 20s. in the £ for the whole of the constituency.
The local authorities have been progressively concerned since the immediate post-war years with dealing with their slum problems and in building hundreds of houses to deal effectively, in advance of this legislation, with their problems of 1389 overcrowding and slum clearance. I heard an hon. Friend talking of the rate-in-aid of housing in some of the London areas, and I understood him to say that the rate was 6d. in the £. If that is the measure of the rate contribution that has to be borne by prosperous London, we must compare it with 1s., 1s. 8d., and in some cases 1s. 9d. and 2s. in the £, with which the industrial poverty-stricken and hard-pressed areas of the North have to contend. There is a real case that even the areas not described as distressed put forward when they ask the Minister of Health to accept the Amendment.
Not only is there the problem of housing conditions, but the general problem of health. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows my views with regard to the problem of rating. I have stated from time to time on the Floor of this House that some measure of financial assistance for local authorities in dealing with their housing problem should not be out of compass with the provisions made by the Ministry of Health and with the desire of the ratepayers generally to assist in the housing problem. I have had many years' experience of local authorities of all kinds, from the parish to the county council, and I express the view, which applies particularly to the north of England, that unless there is a new conception of the measure of the capacity of the ratepayers to bear the burden in those distressed areas, we may have to call a halt in the public health services of the country. It is because I want housing to go along, and because I want the public health services to go along also, that I support the Amendment, hoping that the Minister will accept it and thereby avoid putting an unfair burden on the ratepayers of the districts concerned.
§ 8.55 p.m.
§ Mr. MacLaren
I support this Amendment, but not because I feel that it is an economic proposition to remove an imposition from the local authority and put it on the taxpayer. That, as I have mentioned previously, is like the Irishman who took four inches off the top of his blanket and stitched it on to the bottom, in the belief that he was making the blanket longer. To relieve the local authorities and put the burden on the Exchequer is not doing much in an economic sense; the public still have to pay.
1390 I support the Amendment because I want to make an appeal to the Minister. He occupies a unique position in the political sphere in which he operates. I see from time to time in the Press that he has been credited with having displayed considerable genius in bringing the forces of the National Government into a well organised state. We remember that, at times when elections are coming along, photographs appear in the Press of the right hon. Gentleman with his well-known smile, and we are invited to look at what the Minister of Health has done, and not to vote for Socialist candidates at the next November election, but to vote for the National Government candidates. The plea that is consistently made on behalf of National Government candidates as against Labour men in our local parliaments is, "Do not vote for the Socialists or the rates will go up." Here we have the organising genius, in the person of the Minister of Health, who will microphone these ideas through the divisions next November, but what is he doing now? He is putting up the rates, not only in this but in other Measures. The rates of the local authorities have become a veritable snowball owing to the new responsibilities which are constantly being passed on to them by the State. I appeal to the Minister as an honest man, because I believe that no one could keep that eternal, childlike, simple smile on his face without being an honest man—a man with an easy conscience. I appeal to him to consider this Amendment. If the Rulings of the Chair were not so strict, there are other lines that I might take on this question but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the Amendment seriously in view of the distress which has already been expressed to him.
We have national taxation running into astronomical figures, and naturally Ministers of all Departments are becoming apprehensive as to how much they can charge to the Exchequer and how much they can place on the local authorities. But, while the charges on the national Exchequer are running sky-high, it is true to say that the liabilities which are being piled upon the local authorities are equally becoming intimidating. Here we have these two horses running neck and neck, and Ministers are becoming apprehensive as to what they shall do. I know that the Minister of Health will now be labouring under that difficulty, 1391 and will not be able to be as liberal to local authorities, in view of the stringency at the Treasury owing to the rearmament policy; but it is equally true to say that in almost every industrial division in Great Britain the rates are almost as great a menace to local authority administration, if not a greater menace than the intimidating influence on the Treasury of a large Budget. We are now asked to reduce the commitments of the local authorities.
I conclude by saying that the Minister, as an honest man, will either have to consider the Amendment which has been placed before him or, when he is asked by the office across the street to get ready propaganda next November, he will not be able to pursue the line that the Socialists put the rates up. In view of the task that is before him next November, it will not be to his advantage, when the public are being asked for their support for National Government candidates, to leave us in a position to point to this and many other things that are done which make it impossible for the rates to come down, but which, on the other hand, put them up. In districts where there is great distress, the Labour men on the councils have a greater need for these services by reason of the higher rate liabilities which are imposed upon them. If Parliament imposes upon us the obligation of increasing the rates, the Government will not be able to come along next November and blame us. We believe in the right hon. Gentleman's integrity, his honesty, his uprightness and disinterestedness. Let him give us a lead by accepting the Amendment in one way or another.
§ 9.2 p.m.
§ Sir K. Wood
I gladly respond to the appeal which the hon. Gentleman has made to me in such flattering terms. I wish that everyone agreed with him in the attitude he has expressed towards me. I will confine myself, as he has suggested, to the terms of the Amendment, which I do not think has been properly put before the Committee by the hon. Gentleman who is responsible for its appearance on the Paper. What in fact would happen if the Amendment were passed? By the Financial Resolution which has been passed by the House, the Exchequer contributions have been fixed, and no deviation is possible. We have determined, 1392 after considerable debate, what it is that the State shall contribute to this proposal. Now we have an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), asking that a reduction should be made in the rate contribution. If I ever ventured to describe this Amendment from the point of view of the hustings, I should not say that it is an attempt by the Socialist party to reduce the rates; I should say that it is a proposal which would increase the rents.
The logical conclusion, as I think all hon. Members must appreciate, of this Amendment if it were passed, is that, the Exchequer contribution having been fixed, the only consequence of passing an Amendment of this kind to reduce the rates would be from a practical point of view, from my point of view as Minister of Health, and from the point of view of hon. Members interested in their constituences, that rents must be raised. I do not, however, press that upon the Opposition to-night, because I know that what they really desire in moving this Amendment is to raise the question of the rate contribution. I only put that point because it is the logical conclusion of the Amendment on the Paper. I appreciate, because I myself have been in Opposition once or twice—very rarely and for short periods—that this is the only way in which hon. Members can raise the question of the rate contribution, and, therefore, I do not want to make a mere debating point so far as that is concerned.
The hon. Member was, however, under a misapprehension when he said that this was a slap at the Exchequer. This Amendment is not a slap at the Exchequer, but a slap at the tenant. The hon. Gentleman in whose name this Amendment stands is in a very different position, speaking on behalf of a great local authority, from that of the other hon. Member who has expressed—as I think, very naturally and properly—his sense of the burden under which many tenants have suffered. I make no comment on rates in London. I do not want to do anything to encourage the hon. Member to increase still further the rates of London. I was somewhat disturbed at the announcement that I read in the paper this week, and I hope that no words of mine will encourage the hon. Member in that path. But, so far as the rates in London are concerned, hon. Members will perhaps be surprised to know 1393 that the London County Council housing rate is at present 2½d., and that the completion of the slum clearance and overcrowding programme will probably add a further sum of less than 2d.
§ Mr. Silkin
In addition to the rates levied by the London County Council, each of the London boroughs raises its own housing rate. The right hon. Gentleman ought to add the Metropolitan borough rate to the county council rate to get a true picture.
§ Sir K. Wood
I will certainly do that, and that will not destroy my argument at all in the comparison I was making between the hon. Gentleman and the other hon. Gentleman who spoke from the point of view of ratepayers up and down the country. I do not want to criticise the London County Council for what they have done in connection with rates, but, on the financial provisions of this Bill in relation to London, there is very little difference between the London County Council and myself. The hon. Gentleman has heard the statements from time to time of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), but, if he wants to look at the real difference between the London County Council and the Ministry of Health on the financial provisions in regard to London, he should look at the report of the finance committee of the London County Council in relation to those provisions. It is true that they state that the council would be placed in a worse position financially, and they complain about the ratio of State contributions being two to one; but when you examine exactly what they further require, what they say is that the subsidy per flat should be increased by £1 a year for 40 years in respect of flats on sites the cost of which (as developed) exceeds £1,500 but does not exceed £10,000, and that higher subsidies should be available for houses as distinct from flats erected on sites the cost of which (as developed) exceeds £1,500 per acre. They also say that dwellings provided for rehousing purposes in connection with slum clearance operations and displacements from unfit houses in redevelopment areas for which tenders are accepted before 1st January, 1939, even though the dwellings are completed after that date, should rank for subsidy at the existing rates.
1394 I am very happy to think that, very largely as a result of negotiations between the London County Council and the officers of my Department, there is really little difference between us on these financial provisions. The London County Council, in fact, are in a very different position from local authorities in other areas about which hon. Members have spoken this evening. I do not think that the London County Council, from the point of view of their own resolution, can say that the Government have not, to a very large extent, met the necessities of London in this connection. It is quite natural that when local authorities go to a Government Department they should press for all they can get. For the representatives of other areas who have spoken to-night, I have a great deal more sympathy. I know, from my own observations, that other areas are in a very difficult position: there is no question of a 2½d, rate for them; and we are endeavouring to meet, by various provisions in the Bill, some of the necessities of their case.
I do not want to go over the whole question of what has been done by recent proposals of the Government and the block grant. A very considerable addition was made in that connection; and I again press on hon. Gentlemen opposite, although I know their difficulties, the value and the merit of the North Eastern Housing Association. I have many times met hon. Members who represent the Special Areas. They do not like the fact that housing has been handed over from the local authorities to the Housing Association. I feel sympathy with them in that respect; but I must say that, however much they feel that, I cannot think how any locality could turn down an offer which is available in no other part of the country by which houses can be provided without any cost to the rates at all. Although I do not want to criticise hon. Members opposite, I think that is an almost impossible position to justify; and, in those circumstances, I suggest, at any rate so far as larger authorities in general are concerned, that there is very little difference between us. This Amendment, obviously, should not be pressed, because it would simply mean increased rents, particularly for those tenants in areas where they are least able to pay increased rents at the present time.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Greenwood
When the right hon. Gentleman is as conciliatory as he has been in his last speech I know that he has got a very bad case. When he pushes out his chest and is truculent, I know that he thinks he has a good one, but when he speaks in that minor key which he has adopted to-night, it is perfectly clear to me that he knows that he has not got a good case. We oppose the right hon. Gentleman not because we wish to create any new rate burden or to increase rents, but in order to raise the issue of the ratio between the contributions of the State and the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has been handing out bouquets to the London County Council—I could almost feel my hon. Friend behind me blushing—in trying to defend his position. The truth is that in future, at any rate with regard to slum clearance, and indeed in regard to the whole of his housing, local authorities are to be expected to make a relatively bigger contribution than they did before the Bill was introduced. The relation of the proportion is to be as two to one. Local authorities are to be prepared to supply half as much as the State.
What is the basis? Is it suggested that the resources of local authorities are about half the resources of the State? Is it suggested that the local authorities in this coming year can have a budget of £500,000,000? The State can find the money for what it wants. The Prime Minister has taunted me time and time again in this House for the statement which I made when I said that the people of this country can pay for anything they want. The right hon. Gentleman does not want housing as much as this Government want a Budget of £1,000,000,000, swollen because of rearmament expenditure. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not you want rearmament?"] I am dealing with the question of relative values and with the relative resources of the State and local authorities. I am saying that in the view of this Government, with its almost unlimited resources, local authorities should carry out a problem which is on their doorstep, not in Whitehall, and contribute half. That is impossible. The responsibilites of local authorities are increasing. A hint has been given—I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) is 1396 not here—that the London County Council rate is to be increased by 6d.
§ Mr. Greenwood
Let it not be thought that it is due to the inefficiency of the Labour government of London, because it is also announced in the Press to-day that the Conservative Lancashire County Council rate is to be increased by 1s. 3½d. in the £. I am not accusing them of anything. I am simply saying that heavier and heavier responsibilities are being thrown upon local authorities. The Government have not even had the courage to take national responsibility for air-raid precautions. Authority after authority in this country is having to face an increasing rate burden, because it feels that it must take all possible steps to defend its ratepayers in the event of air attack.
Reference has been made in many speeches to the distressed areas, and to those areas which are distressed but are not so defined, where, in spite of all that the Government say they have done for the maintenance of the unemployed in these times of increasing unemployment, there is an ever-growing burden for the maintenance of the poor placed on the local authorities. The more rationalisation and mechanisation advance, the more certain it is that people will lose all rights to Unemployment Insurance Benefits, and the more certain it will be that they will have to be cared for in the last resort by the Poor Law and not by the Unemployment Assistance Board. That board to-day is getting rid of its bad debts and pushing them on to the local authorities, and as this process goes on the poorest areas in the country are the areas which are having to carry the heaviest burden. They are the areas where the rateable value is the lowest, where the mass of the people are the poorest, where there are no prosperous suburbs of well-to-do people, and they are the areas where the housing problem, broadly speaking, is most acute. The right hon. Gentleman's great contribution to this problem is to make the local authorities bear half the burden of the State.
The real obstacle to the housing of the people in the rural areas is the rate problem. Rates there are relatively high. The yield of a penny in the £ is almost insignificant, and there are rural areas 1397 in this country where three-quarters of the rateable value is derived from council houses. The case that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to make is not a good one. There is a limit to what you can get out of the ordinary ratepayer, who is a poor person. The rate burden to-day on the great mass of our citizens is relatively heavier than the tax burden is to most of our citizens. Incomplete, inadequate and insufficient as our system of taxation may be, we are working towards a position where the burden will fall on the backs that can bear it best. I am not saying that we have got there, but the rate burden is unfair because it falls most heavily on the poor.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the block grant, but that is no answer. He is doing one of two things. Either he is going to increase the burden on
§ the backs of the working people or he is going to hold up housing, because if local authorities are going to have to bear a proportionately heavier burden than in the past, they will either shirk their responsibilities or, if they carry them out, they will have to put up the rents of the houses that they build. The right hon. Gentleman's charm of manner and his reluctance to debate the principles that are at stake will not help him. It may well be that he will have his way but the case put by my hon. Friend is unanswerable and I hope he will lead us into the Lobby in support of a principle which we believe to be right.
§ Question put, "That the word 'half' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 113.1399
|Division No. 118.]||AYES.||[9.27 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Dawson, Sir P.||Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||De Chair, S. S.||Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.|
|Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)||Doland, G. F.||McKie, J. H.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Dugdale, Captain T. L.||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Apsley, Lord||Duncan, J. A. L,||Magnay, T.|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Eckersley, P. T.||Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.|
|Assheton, R.||Edmondson, Major Sir J.||Manningham-Buller, Sir M.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Ellis, Sir G.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.|
|Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.||Fildes, Sir H.||Markham, S. F.|
|Balfour, G. (Hampstead)||Findlay, Sir E.||Maxwell, Hon. S. A.|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Fleming, E. L.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.|
|Balniel, Lord||Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)|
|Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.||Fremantle, Sir F. E.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Fyfe, D. P. M.||Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)||Moreing, A. C.|
|Beechman, N. A.||Gledhill, G.||Morgan, R. H.|
|Bernays, R. H.||Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)|
|Birchall, Sir J. D.||Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Gridley, Sir A. B.||Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Grimston, R. V.||Nail, Sir J.|
|Bower, Comdr. R. T.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Neven-Spance, Major B. H. H.|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Guinness, T. L. E. B.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.|
|Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.||Peters, Dr. S. J.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Harbord, A.||Pilkington, R.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Plugge, Capt. L. F.|
|Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Procter, Major H. A.|
|Bull, B. B.||Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.||Raikes, H. V. A. M.|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Hepworth, J.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)|
|Campbell, Sir E. T.||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)|
|Cary, R. A.||Higgs, W. F.||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)|
|Channon, H.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)|
|Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Holmes, J. S.||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)|
|Christie, J. A.||Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)|
|Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Clarry, Sir Reginald||Hume, Sir G. H.||Rowlands, G.|
|Colfox, Major W. P.||Hurd, Sir P. A.||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|Conant, Captain R. J. E.||James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.||Russell, Sir Alexander|
|Cook, Sir T. R. A. M (Norfolk, N.)||Keeling, E. H.||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Craven-Ellis, W.||Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)|
|Critchley, A.||Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)||Salmon, Sir I.|
|Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page||Leech, Sir J. W.||Sanderson, Sir F. B.|
|Crooke, Sir J. S.||Lees-Jones, J.||Savery, Sir Servington|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Scott, Lord William|
|Cross, R. H.||Levy, T.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Crowder, J. F. E.||Lewis, O.||Smith, Sir R. W, (Aberdeen)|
|Cruddas, Col. B.||Liddall, W. S.||Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)|
|Davies, C. (Montgomery)||Lindsay, K. M.||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)||Lipson, D. L.||Spens, W. P.|
|Storey, S.||Turton, R. H.||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)|
|Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)||Wakefield, W. W.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)||Walker-Smith, Sir J.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M F.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)||Wood, Hon. C. I. C.|
|Sutcliffe, H.||Warrender, Sir V.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Tasker, Sir R. I.||Waterhouse, Captain C.||Wragg, H.|
|Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)||Wayland, Sir W. A||Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.|
|Titchfield, Marquess of||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Touche, G. C.||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Ammon, C. G.||Hardie, Agnes||Pearson, A.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Hayday, A.||Price, M. P.|
|Barr, J.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Batey, J.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Ridley, G.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Ritson, J.|
|Benson, G.||Holdsworth, H.||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Broad, F. A.||Hollins, A.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Bromfield, W.||Hopkin, D.||Sexton, T. M.|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Shinwell, E.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Silkin, L.|
|Burke, W. A.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Silverman, S. S.|
|Cape, T.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Simpson, F. B.|
|Casslls, T.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kelly, W. T.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Cooks, F. S.||Kirby, B. V.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Cove, W. G.||Kirkwood, D.||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Daggar, G.||Lathan, G.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Lawson, J. J.||Thurtle, E.|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Leach, W.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Lee, F.||Tomlinson, G.|
|Day, H.||Leslie, J. R.||Viant, S. P.|
|Dobbie, W.||Logan, D. G.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Walker, J.|
|Ede, J. C.||McEntee, V. La T.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||McGhee, H. G.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||MacLaren, A.||Westwood, J.|
|Foot, D. M.||Maclean, N.||Wilkinson, Ellen|
|Frankel, D.||MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Gallacher, W.||Marshall, F.||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Gardner, B. W.||Mathers, G.||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Montague, F.||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Muff, G.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Nathan, Colonel H. L.||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.|
|Groves, T. E.||Parker, J.|
§ Amendments made:
§ In page 7, line 28, leave out "A rural district council," and insert "Any council of a county district."—[Lieut.-Colonel Heneage.]
§ In line 35, after "pound," insert "a year."
§ In page 8, line 9, leave out "the Eighth Schedule to," and insert "Section one hundred and fourteen of."—[Sir K. Wood.]
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ 9.36 p.m.
§ Miss Wilkinson
On the previous Amendment I drew attention to the rate burden in Durham, and the Minister made a somewhat lengthy reply, with which I should like to deal. On this 1400 matter he has dodged the issue of the rate burden for houses in the distressed areas by saying that we in Durham can get over it by means of the North-Eastern Housing Association. He is doing in this Clause what he has done in the country. It is not fair. The North-Eastern Housing Association is a dodge. The Minister attempts to get round the unanswerable case of Durham, of South Wales, of Cumberland and the other distressed areas, by making a special case of Durham. In the propaganda of the Tory party he blames the Socialists for duplicating officials, and then he comes along and in order to meet a difficulty he insists that an entirely separate organisation for housing should be set up. He cuts out entirely the experienced officials of the municipal authorities, and sets up his own authority and makes it an excuse for taking housing 1401 out of the hands of the local authorities and putting it into the hands of private enterprise.
In order to carry out his own political ideas in regard to housing the right hon. Gentleman takes this step and then he says that Durham has no case, because they can have the North Eastern Housing Association. There might be something in that argument if the North Eastern Housing Association had proved a success, but the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council really shows that what is being taken off the rates is being put on to the tenant. That is precisely what the Minister has done in the North Eastern Housing Association. I had an argument with the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) with regard to certain figures. The figures show that the Housing Association has put up houses which are demonstrably inferior to those that have been put up by the local authority—that can be proved by looking at the bricks, the windows and the general finish—and yet there have been two increases of rent above the charges that are made by the local authority. What is that but taking it off the rates and putting it on to the tenant? The Minister has not met and has not even attempted to meet the case of Durham that we put up when dealing with the original Amendment. All that he has done is once again to trot out the Christmas stocking of the North Eastern Housing Association.
I should like to give him some figures in regard to the Urban District Council of Felling in my division, who have told me what this Clause will mean to them. Their additional programme is for 500 houses, which will not qualify under the present subsidy but must come under the new subsidy. If they were getting the present subsidy it would mean £5,242 a year for 40 years, but under the proposed subsidy that figure will be reduced to approximately £2,750, a reduction to this extremely heavily rated area of £2,492 a year. In these areas we have to deal with the Minister of Health in a number of different guises. We deal with him as our loan authority. He has just refused us power to raise a loan for a stretch of road that is a death-trap, where children are being killed month by month as they come out of school. He has refused the loan on the ground that the rates in this 1402 area will not support the necessary increase, and yet by this Clause there will be an additional burden on this heavily rated district of nearly £2,500 a year. Is he going to meet that position by talking about the North Eastern Housing Association? The figures are well known.
If I may say so with due respect to a man whom we recognise as one of the most capable of a not specially good lot, I would say that it is not fair for him to come before the House and attempt to answer our unanswerable case from Durham by making jokes about his predecessor. If he would admit that the case is unanswerable we could respect him. Goering says that you cannot have arms and butter, and if the right hon. Gentleman would say: "You cannot have arms and houses," then we should understand him, but to say that the things of which we complain do not take place, is not worthy of him or of the Committee.
§ 9.43 p.m.
§ Mr. Sexton
I do not want to speak of a big industrial area like that of Jarrow, but of the more remote parts of South West Durham. We have there an urban district council, the Barnard Castle Urban District Council, which has so small a rateable value that a penny rate will hardly provide sufficient money to buy a wheelbarrow. I was a member of an urban district council in the South-West of Durham where a penny rate produced only £19. Where you have a district where a penny rate produces anything like that sum it means that the housing problem, however small, is very serious. The Barnard Castle Urban District Council will be entitled to £6 10s. per house, and yet it will be badly hit, according to a reply which I received from the right hon. Gentleman to-day. I was informed that under slum clearance there are 140 houses in the urban district of Barnard Castle which have to be replaced. They have already built 50 of those houses and there are 90 still to be erected. Ninety times £2 15s. is £247 10s., which will make an additional rate of 6d. or 7d. in the £.
In addition to that the same urban district council will have its overcrowding problem to contend with, and once again the rates will be increased. These rates must be borne very largely by small tradespeople in the village. There are only about 3,400 inhabitants altogether, 1403 and the tradespeople are doing badly enough now, but when I tell the Committee that there are 250 people signing on at the Employment Exchange every day in the week, it will be clear that something better ought to have been done for councils like this one. Barnard Castle is a very old-established country place, with very old houses, and one can imagine that if you really did what ought to be done in a place like that, it would cost 1s. 3d. or 1s. 4d. in the pound. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) said something about the North Eastern Housing Association, which is simply an outlet for frozen money. Money is being frozen up in certain parts of the country, with no outlet for investments, and here is the opportunity, but why should the housing be taken out of the hands of the local councils?
§ Mr. Magnay
Is it not a fact that at South Shields the Labour council have adopted this recommendation and put contracts in the hands of the North Eastern Housing Association?
§ of the strength of the feeling on the council.
§ Mr. Sexton
Has the control of local councils been at fault in the past? Has not praise often been given in this House by Ministers of the Crown for the efficient work done by local councils in housing? Yet public money is to be given to private enterprises such as the North Eastern Housing Association, and there will be competition between their houses and the local council houses. Whose house will it be, supposing the Association gets £200 altogether in public money, at the end of that time? I say the house should belong to the body which provides the money, because at the end of the time, when the house is paid for, if it belongs to the local authority, it will be an asset, because it will help to relieve the rates. Besides that, the fact of this £3 15s. a year being given to the housing association is neutralised by local authorities which are using direct labour, because they are building cheaper and, as the hon. Member for Jarrow said, much superior houses. Therefore, I have great pleasure in voicing my opinion against this Clause.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, no.1405
|Division No. 119.]||AYES.||[9.49 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Christie, J. A.||Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Gridley, Sir A. B.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Colman, N. C. D.||Grimston, R. V.|
|Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)||Conant, Captain R. J. E||Gritten, W. G. Howard|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)||Guinness, T. L. E. B.|
|Apsley, Lord||Craven-Ellis, W.||Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Critchley, A.||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.|
|Assheton, R.||Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page||Harbord, A.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Crooke, Sir J. S.||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)|
|Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)|
|Balfour, G. (Hampstead)||Cross, R. H.||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.|
|Balniel, Lord||Crowder, J. F. E.||Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.|
|Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.||Cruddas, Col. B.||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.|
|Beamish, Rear Admiral T. P. H.||Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)||Hepworth, J.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm h)||Dawson, Sir P.||Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)|
|Beechman, N. A.||De Chair, S. S.||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)|
|Bernays, R. H.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Higgs, W. F.|
|Birchall, Sir J. D.||Dugdale, Captain T. L.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)|
|Boulton, W. W.||Duncan, J. A. L.||Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.|
|Bower, Comdr. R. T.||Eckersley, P. T.||Holmes, J. S.|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Edmondson, Major Sir J.||Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.|
|Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Ellis, Sir G.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen, H. C. (Newbury)||Fildes, Sir H.||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)||Findlay, Sir E.||Hurd, Sir P. A.|
|Bull, B. B.||Fleming, E. L.||James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Keeling, E. H.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Fremantle, Sir F. E.||Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)|
|Campbell, Sir E. T.||Fyfe, D. P. M.||Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)|
|Cary, R. A.||Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)||Leech, Sir J. W.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Gledhill, G.||Lees-Jones, J.|
|Channon, H.||Granville, E. L.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.|
|Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)||Lewis, O.|
|Liddall, W. S.||Plugge, Capt. L. F.||Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)|
|Lipson, D. L.||Procter, Major H. A.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.||Raikes, H. V. A. M.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Lyons, A. M.||Ramsbotham, H.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)||Sutcliffe, H.|
|MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. C.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|McKie, J. H.||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)||Touche, G. C.|
|Magnay, T.||Ropner, Colonel L.||Turton, R. H.|
|Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.||Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)||Wakefield, W. W.|
|Manningham-Buller, Sir M.||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)||Walker-Smith, Sir J.|
|Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Rowlands, G.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Markham, S. F.||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Maxwell, Hon. S. A.||Russell, Sir Alexander||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)||Waterhouse. Captain C.|
|Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Salmon, Sir I.||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)|
|Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.||Sanderson, Sir F. B.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Moreing, A. C.||Savery, Sir Servington||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Morgan, R. H.||Scott, Lord William||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)||Wood, Hon. C. I. C.|
|Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)||Wragg, H.|
|Nail, Sir J.||Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crews)||Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.|
|Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Southby, Commander Sir A. R J.|
|Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Spens, W. P.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Peters, Dr. S. J.||Storey, S.||Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.|
|Pilkington, R.||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Hardie, Agnes||Price, M. P.|
|Ammon, C. G.||Hayday, A.||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Ridley, G.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Ritson, J.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Barr, J.||Holdsworth, H.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Batey, J.||Hollins, A.||Sexton, T. M.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Hopkin, D.||Shinwell, E.|
|Benson, G.||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Silkin, L.|
|Broad, F. A.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Silverman, S. S.|
|Bromfield, W.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Burke, W. A.||Kelly, W. T.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Cape, T.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Cassells, T.||Kirby, B. V.||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kirkwood, D.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Lathan, G.||Thurtle, E.|
|Daggar, G.||Lawson, J. J.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Leach, W.||Tomlinson, G.|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Lee, F.||Viant, S. P.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Leslie, J. R.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Day, H.||Logan, D. G.||Walker, J.|
|Dobbie, W.||McEntee, V. La T,||Watkins, F. C.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||McGhee, H. G.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Ede, J. C.||MacLaren, A.||Westwood, J.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Maclean, N.||Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)|
|Foot, D. M.||MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)||Wilkinson, Ellen|
|Frankel, D.||Marshall, F.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Gallacher, W.||Montague, F.||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Gardner, B. W.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)||Muff, G.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Nathan, Colonel H. L.|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Parker, J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Parkinson, J. A.||Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.|
|Groves, T. E.||Pearson, A.|
Question, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.