§ 4.5 p.m.
§ Mr. Tomlinson
I beg to move, in page I, line 9, to leave out "forty-two," and to insert "forty."
The purpose of this Amendment is to shorten the period during which the subsidy is payable. It will be generally agreed that the purpose for which subsidies were granted under the original Act was to encourage the landowner or landlord to take advantage during a given period of the provisions made by Parliament whereby he could improve his property at little or no cost to himself. The argument was, of course, that in the interests of the people who would be called upon to live in these houses it was desirable that such improvements should be carried out.
§ Mr. Tomlinson
If I read the Act aright, where the amount does not exceed £100 the grant is payable by the State and the local authority.
§ Mr. Tomlinson
Then I withdraw the suggestion that the landlord would receive the whole amount, and I am sorry for my mistake. Let me put it in another way. The inducement was that in order to obtain two-thirds of the amount he should take advantage of this provision within a given time. This is not anything new; other Ministers have taken advantage of the same principle; if it can be called a principle; they have offered the same inducements in other directions with a view to getting work done. I seem to remember a Minister of Education who suggested that if schools were reorganised and buildings erected within a given time a grant of 5o per cent. instead of 20 per cent. would be paid. The same thing 60 has occurred again in the present scheme of schools reorganisation, the purpose being that work which is necessary should be done within a given time.
Those of us who object to the principle of this Measure suggest that if that is the purpose in the mind of the Minister the limiting of the period during which the grant is to be made will result in the work being done much more speedily. It seems to me that if the Act is extended to 1942, instead of to 1940 as we suggest, we are simply allowing the individuals whose property needs reconditioning to go on for another three years before they carry out their obligations, knowing that the Act will not expire until 1942. In that way the Bill would be placing a premium upon the landlord who is not prepared to do his duty immediately. Further, if the Government are serious in the suggestion that it is in the interests of the people living in these houses that the houses should be put right, the acceptance of our Amendment would ensure that that desire was carried out earlier.
§ 4.9 p.m.
§ Mr. Charles Brown
I support the Amendment. When the Minister moved the Second Reading of this Bill I thought he had very great difficulty in finding really effective arguments for a continuation of the Act for another four years. On examining the statement that he then made we find that in a period of about 12 years there have been about 46,000 cottages improved under this scheme. Everyone is aware that there must be several hundred thousand agricultural labourers who need rehousing under decent conditions. There are other measures at work, I know, but there seems to be no justification for the continuation of the Act for another four years unless there is a considerable speeding up of the process, and of that there is no indication at present. The Minister says that progress has been more rapid recently than formerly, mainly because of what he called publicity about the Measure. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will get some further publicity to-day from the discussions in this House. But no one can say that the Act has been successful. Viewing the Act retrospectively, and remembering that it has been in operation nearly 12 years, no one can regard the Act as a success. It has not grappled effectively with what 61 is a real problem. Therefore, there is no very good reason for suggesting that it should be continued for another four years. We might give it a further trial, but I am certain that two years will be sufficient. If it is not demonstrated within the next two years that much more progress can be made by a Measure of this kind, I suggest that the whole matter calls for review and that the whole business should be tackled much more radically and thoroughly than has been the case up to now.
§ 4.12 p.m.
§ The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood)
I do not propose to debate whether the Act can be termed a successful one or not. Opinions obviously differ as to the meaning of the word "successful." All I say is that at any rate it was the view of right hon. and hon. Members of the Labour party when they were in office that there was not sufficient progress being made, particularly in Scotland, and they asked Parliament to renew the Act for five years. I have called attention to the observations of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) on the Act. He made a very strong speech, critical as he was, but what he said certainly appealed to me. He stated that he would do nothing that would prevent one single agricultural worker from getting better housing conditions. That, in brief, is the answer to the question whether the Act is a success or not. As a matter of fact, there has been a considerable increase, particularly in England, in the application of the Act, and I hope it will be more generally adopted during this lengthened period of life.
There is a good reason why I have asked the Committee to continue the Act for the period that is mentioned in the Bill: it is to make the period coincide with that of the new agricultural subsidy under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act of this year. We desire to do that so that we shall be able when the subsidy comes up for review, to look at the whole position of housing in rural areas and deal with all aspects of the question at the same time. If any further justification for this proposal were required, I think it is to be found in the unanimous recommendation of the sub-committee of the Housing Advisory Council in connection with the Ministry. In the first 62 place they regard the Acts as an essential supplementary part of the machinery of rural housing legislation. They also suggest that the period of the Acts should be extended, so as to correspond with the period of the new subsidy in connection with the housing of the agricultural population. For all these reasons I think the Committee ought to adopt the proposal in the Bill, which will enable a further, and I hope successful, effort to be made in this direction, before the end of the period indicated.
§ 4.17 p.m.
§ Mr. Ridley
In his defence of this Clause, the Minister seemed to pitch his tone in a very minor key. He first called in aid the reason given by my right hon. Friend for supporting the Bill. The only reason which my right hon. Friend gave for doing so, was that he could not oppose anything which might do somebody some good in some way. I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman quoted the opinion of the advisory committee on rural housing to the effect that they regarded these Acts as an essential supplementary part of the machinery of rural housing legislation. I take it that the word "supplementary" is the operative word in that recommendation, and I beg therefore to suggest that the committee had in mind the idea that this legislation should be supplementary to something else. But to what? Surely it must be supplementary to a real effort to rehouse the people in the countryside—a real effort which has not yet been forthcoming from the right hon. Gentleman, and a real effort which will now, we take it, be deferred for at least four years. My hon. Friends on this side cannot join in that assumption. We suggest, therefore, that the extension should be limited to two years in order that the right hon. Gentleman may be encouraged to produce more substantial legislation, having for its object a generous replanning and rebuilding of rural housing such as neither this Bill nor any existing legislation would achieve.
§ 4.20 p.m.
§ Mr. Arthur Greenwood
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to meet us on this Amendment. After all, he has succeeded in "wangling" the law, as regards a year's continuance of this legislation. This Act was passed in 1926 and was to last for five years. It was due to expire in 1931. It was carried on from 63 1931 to 1936. Then the right hon. Gentleman, amidst a mass of other legislation, carried its continuance until this year. Now he wants another four years. In putting down this Amendment we took into account the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had already enjoyed a two years' continuance beyond the intention of the Act of 1931, and I think he might have met us on this Amendment. But instead of that, having, as I say, wangled "two years, he now proceeds to suggest that the Act should last for a further four years. The right hon. Gentleman says he regards this legislation as a subsidiary contribution to the solution of the problem. I regard it as a very bad contribution. I am prepared, in a time of emergency, when new houses are not being built, to concede that a second-hand house made fit for the occasion might be better than a very old second-hand house. But I have never agreed—and my speeches on the subject are open to the Members of the Committee who are industrious enough to examine them—that reconditioning is a satisfactory process.
I am not against the preservation of ancient buildings. Indeed, I have done what I could to promote it, but it is clear that you cannot make satisfactory modern dwellings out of rural cottages which have been built for 10 to 150 years whatever you may do with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), who is a practical builder, would agreed that it is practically impossible to put damp courses into these old cottages. You may improve the doors of these cottages so that they will shut or open, as the case may be, and you may increase the size of the windows, but you cannot prevent them from becoming damp, because of the absence of a structural feature which is common to every house built in these days.
§ Mr. Greenwood
If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to make it a condition of the grant that it should be done, then I am prepared to reconsider my view, but the truth is that while it may be done, it is very costly and it is not often done. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to say in how many houses, in respect of which this grant has been made, damp courses have 64 been introduced. I hope either the right hon. Gentleman or the parliamentary Secretary will reply on this point, because I attach a great deal of importance to it. We have had reports from medical officers in the county areas about the prevalence of rheumatism among the rural population and that is not unconnected with dampness in rural cottages. In 1926, on the introduction of the original Act, I quoted reports by medical officers on the health of people living in these cottages; and my view is that most of the houses are so bad that they cannot be put right. There is no use in adding a new wing or another room on to a bad house, but that is being done under these Acts. A Member of Parliament told me last week that he had done it himself—and he is not a Member who sits on these benches. You cannot make a bad house into a good one by reconditioning it—I mean a cottage intended for a worker. If you are prepared to spend enormous sums on restoring an ancient mansion it can be done, but for 95 per cent. of these century-old rural cottages there is nothing but demolition.
The right hon. Gentleman in the Second Reading Debate said that the response under the Act was now increasing, as a result, he suggested, of publicity. The right hon. Gentleman's genius for publicity is well known and I think I described this Bill as a Measure for housing by publicity. But I do not think that takes us very far. Even if the right hon. Gentleman can induce more local authorities to take advantage of this Act and to push it—and to advertise the right hon. Gentleman himself in the process.—
§ Mr. Greenwood
Very important from his point of view. Even if all the advantages were brought to the notice of landlords, and even if they were to take full advantage of the Act, which will be the net effect in the next four years? The right hon. Gentleman's estimate—and this is purely problematical—is that 35,000 rural cottages will be put into a somewhat better condition than they are in now. At what cost? I suggest that this Government which has a sort of taste for economy in social affairs and which killed the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act in 1931—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] —Yes. Not 2,000 of those houses were 65 built, and there might have been 40,000 new cottages under that Act.
§ Mr. Greenwood
The hon. Gentleman is apparently trying to become an expert in the art of intervention in Debate. I am afraid he will not succeed. I take his point. If these 40,000 new cottages were not needed, why does the right hon. Gentleman want to recondition 35,000 existing cottages?
§ Sir F. Fremantle
The right hon. Gentleman has taken up my intervention wrongly. I mean that those powers were not needed—as was shown in the previous Debate after the right hon. Gentleman had made his speech, but, unfortunately, he was out of the House.
§ Mr. Greenwood
In my judgment, and in the judgment of the majority of Members of this House, in 1931 those powers were needed, and they would have been exercised but for the first National Government, which slaughtered that Act. They built only about 1,800 houses, instead of 40,000. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that. Now he falls back upon advice. His advisory committee, he says, have recommended that the Act should continue for a further period. Part of the case which the right hon. Gentleman has made and which I conceded, was that this Act had been a boon to Scotland. What is the recommendation, then, of the Scottish Housing Advisory Council?
§ Mr. Greenwood
Yes, the majority, and, if I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman's majority. In their last report is the following:With regard to the period for which the Act should be extended we recommend that county councils should be empowered to receive applications for assistance for two years after the passing of legislation extending the Act.There is the part of Great Britain where the Act has operated and where in 1931 they pleaded for its continuance. There is the part of the country which has gained most from the Act—and those are the words of people of wide knowledge and experience who have to advise the Secretary of State for Scotland. They add: 66We desire to make it clear that we are definitely opposed to any extension of the Act beyond this period.Where then is the right hon. Gentleman's case? His charge against me on the Second Reading was that I was privy to the continuation of the Act in 1931, which I admitted in this House. He drew attention to what I had said about the situation in Scotland, but I had intended to draw attention to it myself. His strongest case was Scotland, and he asks now for five years when a majority of the Scottish Housing Advisory Council have asked for only two years and have said they hope this cursed piece of legislation will end at that time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, it is so cursed in their view that they are definitely opposed to any extension of the Act beyond a further two years. If that be so, it seems to me to be reasonable that this Amendment should be accepted. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept it, it is an admission of failure on his part to deal with the problem of rural housing, which the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) says does not exist. If it does not exist, this Bill is not needed, but if it is needed, then the submission made by every speaker on this side on the Second Reading is that the right way of tackling this problem is by new houses, built according to modern standards, and not by an attempt to lengthen the life of houses which in urban areas would have been condemned by medical officers of health two generations ago. I hope, therefore, the Committee will agree with us, and indeed will be prepared to go on arguing the point as to the wisdom of this Amendment.
§ 4.32 p.m.
§ Mr. Ede
I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the Amendment, because to have accepted it would have assisted him in his own rural housing campaign. I find that this Act has been of different values in different parts of the country. There may be some counties in England and Wales where a number of houses have been built, but there are other counties where the Act has been used by the local authorities very largely as an excuse for not getting on with their own jobs. Where those local authorities are very largely, if not entirely, composed of supporters, on election day, of the right hon. Gentleman, 67 who spend the time in between elections in cursing him and his Government for introducing a bastard form of Socialism, this Act is used as an excuse for their own schemes not being prepared. They say, "After all, rural housing has always been, is now, and ever ought to be a matter for private enterprise. We ought not to come into it at all, and we think the proper thing is for the landowners and the other people concerned to bring their cottages up to a proper state of repair by the use of this Act." If the right hon. Gen Leman limits the period of this Act to the two years that we suggest, he does deprive those people of two years of delay which they will use against him.
In some of these areas I have seen schemes submitted for turning stables into cottages, and in that part of the country areas which I know stables have frequently been better than rural workers' cottages. I well recall an estate that belonged to a duke, on which the stables for his horses actually had a set of hot water pipes so that they could be kept warm in winter, and that was on an estate where most of the rural workers' cottages were without damp courses. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he limits the operation of this Clause to two years instead of four, he does deprive these people who have no intention of getting on with the work of rehousing rural workers of one of their excuses for postponing the preparation of schemes. I sincerely hope the Amendment will be taken into the Division Lobby, so that we can make it quite clear that we think that the proper way of dealing with the housing of the rural workers is to build new cottages.
It is no use the Lord Privy Seal getting up in another place and saying that it is necessary that everything should be done to provide the working-class wife in the rural areas with as good conditions as she would enjoy in the towns, if for any substantial part of the houses that he wants built he is going to rely upon this Act. You cannot expect the wife of an agricultural labourer to be satisfied with the kind of cottage that is too often produced by this Measure when she knows that by going into a town she can get a house that has all the modern conveniences and that can be kept clean with a minimum of labour, as compared with 68 the maximum that she has to expend in many of these cottages. From every point of view, the restriction of this Measure to two years would be a good thing for the people whom the Measure is avowedly designed to benefit.
§ 4.37 P.m.
§ Sir F. Fremantle
I did not say "are now being put in." I hope they are in many cottages where necessary, but I only said they can be put in, when the right hon. Gentleman said they could not.
§ Mr. Viant
I readily accept the correction, but as the hon. Member knows, I am speaking from personal experience, and I say that in a large number of these cottages it would be an impossibility to put in a new damp course, apart from the cost. You have to remove in a given space a number of layers of brick, and in so doing, when you have removed a couple of courses of bricks, you find that the underlying courses start to powder immediately they are exposed to the atmosphere. While remaining intact, the house will not sink, but you run a number of risks, and even although you put in a couple of layers of new bricks, you still have the remaining moisture there. You might coat your bricks with bitumen, but none the less you will not keep the damp down. In a number of instances—
§ Mr. Viant
I am referring to the inadvisability of continuing this procedure for four years instead of two. The methods that are being adopted do not warrant the State expending the money in the manner in which it is being expended now. In a number of cases they are removing the soil and simply backing up the outside of the house with a coat of bitumen. Thousands of people are the victims of tuberculosis and rheumatism, owing to the fact that these cottages are so damp, and this Committee ought not 69 to be prepared to perpetuate a system of this kind but ought to be willing to embark as rapidly as possible on the building of new cottages.
§ 4.40 p.m.
§ Mr. James Griffiths
In Wales there has scarcely been any use of the powers of this Act, and as a matter of fact I support the Amendment because the Act is being used in Wales and elsewhere as an excuse for doing nothing with a very grave problem. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has recently had two investigations, both of which have covered the housing problem in the whole of Wales and particularly in rural Wales. There was, first of all, an investigation which his officers conducted into the housing conditions in the county a part of which I have the honour to represent in this House, namely, Carmarthenshire. The results of that investigation have not yet been made public, but I do not think that I should be far wrong in saying that in that county there is revealed a shortage of well over 1,000 and nearing 2,000 rural cottages. The result is shown in this county, as in every other county, that people are leaving the agricultural industry, for one reason, because of the shortage of houses. I am sure that the report of the officers of the Ministry on housing conditions in Carmarthenshire will reveal that something infinitely more fundamental will have to be done there, something of a real public character. Most of these houses in my own county, as in most of the other rural counties, are very old—70, 80, and even 100 years old. They are houses that ought not to be improved, but that ought rather to be demolished. To begin with, in most cases they are badly situated. We would not choose those sites for new cottages, and to extend the life of these cottages in their present position is not to serve the interests of health or good housing at all, but is to perpetuate the evils of bad housing in the countryside.
Rheumatism, tuberculosis, and all the other diseases that are a plague in the countryside are providing a tremendous problem, and the position in Wales in this respect is parallel with that in the rest of the country. The mortality from tuberculosis in the rural counties of Wales is double the average for the country. It is absolutely a plague that is sweeping the countryside, and in consequence the 70 young people who grow up in the rural areas are looking for the first opportunity to get out of them. In these rural areas the county councils are responsible, but they say they are riot going to do anything about it, that there are provisions in the Act of Parliament by which the owners of the cottages can do something. The owners do not do anything, and the councils are using the powers of this Act as an excuse for not doing anything themselves. I am sure that something infinitely more effective than the provisions of this Act is required to deal with the problem. In 12 years we have lost in Wales alone 20,000 people who have gone out of the rural areas. The land is becoming depopulated, because the young people will not stay on the land and bring up their children to be swept by the white plague.
Then there is the other investigation, which has just been concluded and upon which the Minister will shortly receive a report, into the problem of tuberculosis. That investigation was forced to become an investigation into housing conditions, and the state of affairs revealed in the rural areas of Wales was absolutely a scandal and a byword. I do not know why it is that the man who works on the land, upon whom all other workers depend—miners, tinplate workers, colliery workers and factory workers—gets the worst house, the worst wage and the worst kind of life in every way. I support this Amendment because it will give a time limit to the landowners. I have never seen them do anything without a time limit. If they are given unlimited time they will fiddle it away, and do nothing. If the Minister is anxious, therefore, to get the most out of this Act, he will limit the time. We are proposing two years in order to give the opportunity for the most effective use to be made of it. We should tell the landowners that at the end of that time, if they have not reconditioned their cottages, the cottages will be pulled down and the local authorities will be told to tackle the problem. I support the Amendment also because I hope that at the end of two years we shall have another Government, and that we shall then get a Bill to deal fundamentally with this gravest of our social problems in rural England and Wales.
§ 4.47 P.m.71
§ The Chairman
I ought to utter a word of warning to the Committee. This Debate is developing into a Second Reading Debate, and I would remind hon. Members that the principle of extension was passed on Second Reading.
§ Mr. Sorensen
I appreciate the warning which you have given to me personally and to the Committee generally. It is given probably because it is strange for a representative of an outer London area to have the temerity to speak on this question at all. I do not know whether I have any houses occupied by rural workers in my district; if so, they must be few and far between. I represent, however, a constituency that is in a partially agricultural county, and as a member of the county council of Essex I am naturally interested in the housing of the people in that county who are of an agricultural and rural nature. I appreciate the desire of some hon. Members opposite to preserve some of our old cottages, if they can be preserved in their own historic condition, with a view to preserving the amenities of the countryside. Nothing is so offensive to the eye as new cottages totally out of keeping in the countryside in which they are erected. At the same time, there are other concerns besides the aesthetic. One often has a desire to buy
§ one of these country dwellings, but we should have a different idea of their aesthetic value if we lived in them for a fortnight.
§ We should limit the assistance which is being given to the landlords of Essex and other parts of the country. One of my county council colleagues who died a few months ago left a fortune of £200,000, and yet he had been foremost in securing every farthing's worth of assistance from the State and the county council for the preservation of his tumble-down cottages. We want to stop that sort of thing. Landlords have already had ample opportunity to take advantage of the facilities that are given under this Act, and there is no need to extend the facilities further. We should recognise that all has been done that can equitably be done. While we desire to preserve the characteristics of the countryside, we wish to preserve also the human beings who live there. In their interests we should limit the period of this Bill and intimate to the landlords that they have had ample opportunity of reconditioning their houses.
§ Question put, "That the word 'forty-two' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 93.73
|Division No. 203.]||AYES.||[4.52 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.||Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)|
|Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)||Cox, H. B. Trevor||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.|
|Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Univ's)||Cranborne, Viscount||Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Crooke, Sir J. S.||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Crossley, A. C.||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Crowdar, J. F. E.||Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.|
|Balniel, Lord||Davidson, Viscountess||Holmes, J. S.|
|Barrie, Sir C. C.||Davison, Sir W. H.||Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.|
|Beamish, Roar-Admiral T. P. H.||Da la Bère, R.||Hopkinson, A.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Horsbrugh, Florenoe|
|Bennett, Sir E. N.||Denville, Alfred||Howitt, Dr. A. B.|
|Bernays, R. H.||Dower, Major A. V. G.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)|
|Bottom, A. C.||Dugdale, Captain T. L.||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)|
|Boulton, W. W.||Duggan, H. J.||Hulbert, N. J.|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Edmondson, Major Sir J||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Brass, Sir W.||Emrys- Evans, P. V.||Hunter, T.|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)||Hurd, Sir P. A.|
|Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Hutchinson, G. C.|
|Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Fremantle, Sir F. E.||James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.|
|Brawn, Rt. Hon. E. (Laith)||Furness, S. N.||Keeling, E. H.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Gluckstein, L. H.||Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)|
|Burton, Col. H. W.||Goldie, N. B.||Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)|
|Campbell, Sir E. T.||Grant-Ferris, R.||Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)|
|Cary, R. A.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)||Gridley, Sir A. B.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Leech, Sir J. W.|
|Channon, H.||Grigg, Sir E. W. M.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.|
|Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Grimston, R. V.||Levy, T.|
|Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Lindsay, K. M.|
|Chorlton, A. E. L.||Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)||Lipson, D. L.|
|Clarke, Frank (Dartford)||Guinness, T. L. E. B.||Llewellin, Colonel J. J.|
|Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grintead)||Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.||Lloyd, G. W.|
|Clarry, Sir Reginald||Hannah, I. C.||Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.|
|Co[...]ant, Captain R. J. E.||Harris, Sir P. A.||Mabane, W. (Huddarsfield)|
|MeCorquodale, M. S.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|MaKie, J. H.||Remer, J. R.||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Maclay, Hon. J. P.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)||Thomas, J. P. L.|
|Macnamara, Major J. R. J.||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)||Touche, G. C.|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Makins, Brig.-Gin. E.||Ross, Major Sir R. O. (Londonderry)||Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.|
|Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Markham, S. F.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.||Wakefield, W. W.|
|Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.||Russell, Sir Alexander||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Hon.|
|Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)||Salmon, Sir I.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Samuel, M. R. A.||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Mills, Major J. D (New Forest)||Sandeman, Sir N. S.||Watt, Major G. S. Harvie|
|Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.||Sanderson, Sir F. B.||Wayland, Sir W. A|
|Morris-Jones, Sir Henry||Sandys, E. D.||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Scott, Lord William||Wells, S. R.|
|Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Shakespeare, G. H.||White, H. Graham|
|Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.||Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Neven-Spenoe, Major B. H. H.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Nicolson, Hon. H. G.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitshin)|
|O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Palmer, G. E. H.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Wise, A. R.|
|Patrick, C. M.||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.||Withers, Sir J. J.|
|Peters, Or. S. J.||Spans, W. P.||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)||Wood, Hon. C. I. C.|
|Plugge, Capt. L. F.||Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Procter, Major H. A.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Raikes, H. V. A. M.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)|
|Ramsbotham, H.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. Cross and Mr. Munro.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Griffiths, J. (Llanally)||Poole, C. C.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Groves, T. E.||Richards, R. (Wrexham)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)||Ridley, G.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Ritson, J.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)|
|Barnes, A. J.||Hardie, Agnes||Sexton. T. M.|
|Barr, J.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Shinwell, E.|
|Batey, J.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Silverman, S. S.|
|Benson, G.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Simpson, F. B.|
|Broad, F. A.||Hopkin, D.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Bromfield, W.||Jagger, J.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Brawn, C. (Mansfield)||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lee- (K'ly)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Chafer, D.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kelly. W. T.||Stephen, C.|
|Cove, W. G.||Leach, W.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Leslie, J. R.||Summerskill, Edith|
|Daggar, G.||Logan, D. G.||Thorne, W.|
|Dalton, H.||Lunn, W.||Thurtle, E.|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Tinker, J. J.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||McEntee, V. La T.||Tomlinson, G.|
|Day, H.||McGhee, H. G.||Viant, S. P.|
|Ede, J. C.||MacLaren, A.||Walkdan, A. G.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Maxton, J.||Walker, J.|
|Gallacher, W.||Messer, F.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Gardner, B. W.||Montague, F.||Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)|
|Garro Jones, G. M.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Naylor, T. E.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Noel-Baker, P. J.||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Paling, W.|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Parkinson, J. A.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Griffiths, O. A. (Hemsworth)||Pearson, A.||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Anderson.|
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ 4.59 p.m.
§ Mr. T. Johnston
I was amazed at the levity with which some hon. Gentlemen on the other side treated the last discussion. The Amendment simply meant that the Act should not be allowed to operate for more than two years, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) submitted an official recommendation from Scotland in support of the Amendment. 74 The right hon. Gentleman did not even attempt to answer my right hon. Friend. The Amendment was simply brushed aside and we were smothered in the Division Lobby without any answer from the Government benches. I put it to the Minister or the hon. Member who is representing the Scottish Office that this is too important a Clause to be passed without discussion. I have the minutes of the Berwickshire County Council for 15th September, 1936. What do they say about the financial position in that 75 county as a result of the uncontrolled—because that is what it means—operation of these Measures?The rate for the work already done in this county under the Rural Workers Act is 7d. per pound, the total cost to date being £69,232, falling almost immediately on householders, as compared with a rate of about 1d. for all the new houses built in the county.A penny is the rate leviable for all the new houses built under all the Acts up to 1936, and 7d. is the rate levied for the reconditioning of private property under this Measure. I should be out of order in discussing what kind of alterations have been made to houses in this and other counties, but on a later Amendment I hope to adduce some extraordinary examples of what has been done, and on still another Amendment to describe some of the extraordinary characters who have swallowed up the money, saying something about their banking accounts and the absence of a means test in this matter. The Government made no attempt to reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield when he quoted the recommendation of the majority of the Scottish Advisory Committee that on no account would they agree to an extension of the Act for more than two years, while the majority would not agree to extending it at all.
I do not know the figures for other counties, but I have given them for Berwickshire. In September, 1936, it meant a rate of 7d. in the£ in Berwickshire, and I would give a great deal to know what amount is levied in Ross and Cromarty, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will at a later stage be prepared to tell us. I have cases where multi-millionaires have come along and got this money. There was a case in Berwickshire in which one proprietor got a grant of £1,000, and when he died a year or two afterwards he left estate valued at £300,000. Is that in accordance with public policy? Is that the sort of thing which the Government wish to promote and to continue, in face of the recommendations of their own committees and without giving any reply when the question is raised from the Opposition benches?
§ 5.8 p.m.
§ Sir K. Wood
I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I have been 76 guilty of any discourtesy. I thought I had made a defence, to the best of my ability, of the action of the Government in extending these Acts for the period mentioned, and I recalled the recommendations of the English committee—not, it is true, the Scottish committee. It is also true that I did not reply to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). It is not often that I do not reply to him, and I always do my best, but I really thought that on this occasion he was having his usual little fling at this Measure, and that we might leave him to do so. He called it "a, cursed Act," and things like that, and I thought that he might as well be allowed to say it, and that I should not be doing any harm if I did not make any comment upon it. I am only anxious now that this Bill is going on to the Statute Book, and after the Second Reading had been agreed to without a Division, that we should all do what we can to make the very best of it, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I am unduly unkind when I say that I do not think his speech was really helpful in getting the Measure accepted by the local authorities. I much prefer—and I shall cite it whenever I have occasion to advocate this Measure—a speech which was made by the late Mr. Adamson, who was regarded as a particularly sensible and safe man, so far as his politics permitted him to be.
§ The Chairman
The hon. Member must not interject remarks like that on a point of Order. It is no point of Order at all.
§ Sir K. Wood
The late right hon. Gentleman pointed out the advantages which were being given to agricultural cottages by the Measure he was then commending, and what had been done, although in those days a great deal less was being done than at the present time. He told the House that considerable advantage had been taken of the provisions of this legislation and added:It has been the means of providing improved and healthier housing accommodation for a large number of rural workers.I doubt whether we could have better testimony to a Measure than that. He 77 went on to describe the work which could be done under the Bill which he was then bringing forward, and what he said applies equally to the Bill which I have the honour of bringing in.Much of the work that has been done under the Act has consisted of the introduction of water, baths and w.c.'s into houses; the provision of sculleries; the renewal of defective roofs and floors; the adoption of measures to do away with dampness; and the provision of larger windows to permit of better lighting and ventilation. Many examples of actual cases showing what has been done could be given if time permitted.That is a statement by a late Secretary of State for Scotland. He added:Each year has seen a progressive increase in the number of applications made for grants and the number of houses reconditioned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21St April, 1938; cols. 821–3, Vol. 251.]These statements were made in support of a Bill to extend the provisions of the rural workers housing legislation for five years, and I regard them as a complete vindication of the action of the Government. It is perfectly true that the Scottish Advisory Committee recommended the extension for only two years, but the Government decided to follow the recommendations of the English advisory committee, and it is only fair to say that although the Scottish committee recommended two years, they did add this, and it is an impressive comment on the statement of the right hon. Member for Wakefield:We are impressed, however, by the very large number of houses in rural Scotland which are defective and which could be reconstructed or improved "—They do not say that we must not do anything to recondition the houses, and that it must be all new building:and in order to give every encouragement to the improving of rural housing conditions we recommend an extension.
§ Sir K. Wood
It is true they said for two years, and that the English committee recommended the longer period, and my answer to that is that the Government have taken the responsibility of following the advice of the English committee. My final observation is that I have never put forward this Measure as the only means of dealing with rural housing. I am not prepared to go over all the points in the speech of the right hon. Member for Wakefield, because I have heard them so many times, and I am sure he will go on repeating them— 78 I hope he will live many years to do so—but I would emphasise the point that, obviously, the main effort for better housing in the countryside must be made through the provision of new cottages. The Committee will remember that the Act gave very considerable help by way of subsidy to rural housing, enabling, we are advised, cottages to be built for agricultural labourers at a very low rent. This is a supplementary effort to that main effort. I ask the Committee to approve this Clause. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they want this Bill, will agree that this Clause must remain in.
§ 5.16 p.m.
§ Mr. Johnston
Would the right hon. Gentleman mind giving the Committee the benefit of his observations upon the financial position which I have just exposed to him, regarding Berwickshire, and the rates of 7d. and 1d.?
§ Sir K. Wood
I do not quite see how that particular matter can be discussed on this Clause. All we are considering at the present moment is whether the Clause should be continued, although I regret the condition of affairs in that part of the country. So far as Ross and Cromarty are concerned, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that they will get additional grant under the Bill.
§ 5.17 p.m.
§ Mr. Tomlinson
I was rather surprised that the Minister, answering a question put by my right hon. Friend, suggested that in some instances he had followed the advice of a committee and in other instances he had not done so. since coming here I have found that a Minister follows the lines laid down by a committee when it suits him. In particular, I remember the Rent Restrictions Bill which the right hon. Gentleman conducted through this House. It seems strange that the Scots, who have used this Act most and at such tremendous cost, should suggest that it be continued for not more than two years. The advice of the English committee—the English counties have not used the Act of Parliament, on the whole—was that it should be extended for four years. The Minister has taken the advice of the Committee that suited him. Will it surprise him that the great Lancashire county council has spent, during the whole period of the operation of the Act, just over £512 They have spent .004 of a 1d. rate, 79 which rate brings in £44,819, although there are 13 rural and 58 urban districts in what is one of the largest counties in England. There is no necessity for extension of the Act. The people in Scotland have had experience of the Act, and say that it ought to be stopped because it is not only a ramp, but an expensive ramp which does not produce the goods. In England, the local authorities may have learned something from sitting alongside their Scottish friends, but they would let the Act go on for another four years until they get a little more rake off. Then they will bring it to an end. There is no argument for continuing the Act.
§ 5.20 p.m.
§ Mr. Macquisten
So far as I can gather from the Opposition speeches there is something to be said for the Bill, although the Members opposite seem more anxious to get at the landlords than to get at the cottages. Are the local authorities getting the cottages?
§ Mr. Macquisten
Yes, I think they are getting on with them. My objection to the building of new cottages is that most new buildings put up in these days, in modern building conditions, are very jerrybuilt. Shocking houses are being put up all over the country. Sometimes the builders themselves are not too sure whether the cottages will stand up before they get the wallpaper on. They want the wallpaper to hold the house together. The houses are frequently very bad. Old cottages are very much more solid although, of course, they are much more out of date and require repair which is very often expensive; but when it is done you get a much better result.
I am living in a cottage that has been standing for over 200 years, and will no doubt stand for another 200 years. [An HON. MEMBER: "YOU will not be the tenant then."] No, I do not expect I shall. You get a better job with proper reconditioning. By reconditioning you can make comfortable dwellings for the rural workers in Scotland. English houses are very gimcrack. One of the first things that struck me when I came south was that almost all the houses are made of brick. We used to despise bricks in Scotland. We used freestone, which is a better way of building cottages and 80 making them particularly solid. Our people in the Border land got into the habit of doing so generations ago when there was so much Border thieving and cattle stealing. You will find that those cottages, once they are fitted with modern conveniences, will be all that the people will want. Once those cottages are reconditioned in that way they will last for centuries.
§ 5.22 p.m.
§ Mr. Johnston
Would the hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to enlighten the Committee whether cottages are, as a matter of fact, getting conveniences, modern or otherwise, under the Act?
§ Mr. Macquisten
Surely, they are. If a man is spending money on his cottages he has to make them reasonable and give them modern conveniences. The tenants will not be satisfied with four bare walls. Landowners have the common sense to know that unless they do so they will lose their labour and make their agricultural operations much more difficult. Enlightenment is coming into every class that the first thing you have to do is to please your customer and the next to please your labour, and the capital will then be looked after. The man who does not treat his workers well and give them decent housing and working condition will go to the wall, every time, while the man who has a larger heart and a more liberal mind—
§ Sir John Withers
The Minister gave us some interesting figures. I would like to know more about them. I would like to know the number of houses renovated under the renovation rate and the number built under the building rate.
§ 5.25 p.m.
§ Mr. George Griffiths
I was amazed at the easy way in which the Minister took things, after the inquiry made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), and the damning facts that he disclosed. He began by sitting in a large county in North Wales, and I was keenly interested, because I was born in North Wales. He sat in Colwyn Bay and other places and he had evidence from Anglesey 81 and elsewhere. The inquiry was set up by the Minister himself. I wish the report had been here now. If it had been, and the Minister had stood at that Box with so much complacency I should have wondered what was the matter with him. It is no use being content while thousands of people are dying of tuberculosis on account of bad housing. The hon. and learned Gentlemant went for the local authorities, the sanitary authorities and the surveyors, but the best thing the Government could tell him was not to be quite so harsh about it. The Government are asking in this Clause that the dying from tuberculosis and the rheumatism should go on. We ask that there should be two years to make the application and that, if the opportunity has not been taken, the State should take the matter up and see that the people are properly housed.
§ 5.27 p.m.
§ Sir Percy Hurd
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) asked whether there was any evidence of modern conveniences being supplied in these houses. I will cite a case from Stirling. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to the recent broadcast from Edinburgh in which a discussion took place upon the advantages of new houses against reconstructed houses. After the claims on behalf of new houses had been put forward by a member of a local authority, the chairman of the debate said: "Now we are to hear a lady from Stirling, who lives in one of the reconstructed houses that has been made modern inside. She will give her opinion." The lady came forward and said: "I had a pretty poor house until it was reconstructed, and now it has all the conveniences that any working woman could desire." The councillor from Edinburgh who took part in the debate asked her: "Mrs. Ferguson, would you not like to have one of our new council houses?" But she replied that she would not. She went on to say: "The other day I went into a council house to call on a friend of mine and when I got to the bottom of the stairs I asked her whether I might come upstairs and have a cup of tea. My friend said she did not quite hear what I said, so I bellowed louder. Then she asked me whether I would mind going 82 into the room because she could hear me better through the ceiling."
§ 5.29 p.m.
§ Mr. Johnston
I put a question to the Minister about something which he has not yet answered. I have here the Scottish Report, dealing with the rural parish of Tarbat, in the county of Ross, from which I have already quoted. On page 97 details are given of a very old house which was reconstructed under the Rural Workers Act. It is stated that out of 20 houses reconstructed, the number of houses in which, in spite of reconstruction, there is no inside water supply, is eight, the number in which there is dampness is one, the number with insufficient lighting six, those with no water closet six, and those with structural defects four. These are cases where public money has been spent in one small parish in Ross-shire.
§ 5.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Greenwood
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to regard this Debate somewhat flippantly. I do not so regard it. I do not appreciate his sense of humour, nor do I feel either annoyed or pleased about his jokes regarding myself. It may well be that, as has been said, there are houses which have been well constructed; I have never denied it; but what we say, and this is really the point, is that this is a major part of the housing problem, which, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted this afternoon. It may well be that in certain parts of the country the new houses are not as good as regards structure as the older ones. Perhaps it might have been better for the countryside if the houses there had not been built to last so long. There is a good deal to be said about length of life in regard to amenities in housing, and that again is part of our case.
We did not object to this Bill on Second Reading. I myself, in following the right hon. Gentleman, referred to the continuance of the Bill for two years, and quoted the recommendations of the Scottish Housing Advisory Council. I argued the case with regard to the period of two years, and I do not want to repeat the argument now, but the right hon. Gentleman has not admitted our case at all. If he added our two years to the two years he has already stolen, he would have got his four 83 years. We do not want to continue this kind of legislation indefinitely. It is beyond doubt, and, indeed, it has been admitted by official inquiries, that the Housing Acts in rural areas have never been satisfactorily administered. The law has not been carried out. Houses have been allowed to fall into disrepair, and it may well be that, in the interests of the rural workers, something has to be done immediately to deal with that problem. But the right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with an Act which has had a run since 1926, that is to say, 12 years. He is now proposing to add a further four years, making it 16 years—half a generation; and he still wants to continue it. But we have had evidence to-day, in the report quoted by my right hon. Friend, which proves that this Bill ought not to last even for another two years. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would publish some detailed return on this matter. I should like to see listed, in an appendix to a report, the names of the individuals who have profited financially by this Measure; and I should like to see an analysis of the burden which has fallen upon local rates.
We were told by my right hon. Friend, in the course of his argument against the continuation of the Act for more than two years, that one county just over the Border has a 7d. rate for improving houses which are privately owned, and has only spent a rd. rate in providing new houses. I say that that approaches a national scandal. It does not matter how much a rd. rate amounts to; the point is that seven times as much has been spent on improving landlords' houses as has been spent on providing new houses for people in similar circumstances. And I imagine that, in the county of Berwick, that rd. rate would include houses in urban areas; I do not know; but, anyhow, the proportion of 7 to 1 still remains. It seems to me that what we are asking is reasonable. The right hon. Gentleman prefers to accept the English report rather than the Scottish report. It was due to my lynx-eyed right hon. Friend, who discovered that the Scottish report suggested only a period of two years, that I was able to quote it on the Second Reading. This seems to me to let Scotland down very 84 badly. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman quoting my old friend Mr. Adamson. I have never run away from what I then said. I did not do so on the Second Reading, and I do not withdraw a word of it. I am not ashamed of it. But that was in 1931, and we are now in the year 1938. Seven years have elapsed, during which period I have not been responsible for housing administration. This policy is to continue for another four years.
The right hon. Gentleman made a serious statement, which may give rise to serious misunderstanding. He talked about having given an increased subsidy for rural housing. It is not true, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. What he has done has been to reduce the subsidy under which effective building was being carried on, in order to improve the financial advantages to be obtained under the Bill which his Government introduced and which is not going to yield results. I accused the National Government of having butchered the Act of 1931. That seemed to cause some amusement to the right hon. Gentleman, but no amusement was caused to me by the fact that there are 38,000 houses missing which should have been occupied. Moreover, he has done a disservice to the rural areas by reducing the subsidy under the Act of 1930. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to have it both ways. By extending the Act for four years, he is giving a further four years' run to these private landlords who like to enrich their estates and improve their amenities at the public expense; and by other legislation he has confined and limited the capacity of local authorities to deal with this problem. We shall have to go into the Lobby against the Clause.
§ 5.38 p.m.
§ Mr. Annesley Somerville
I am tempted to say a word after listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). We have heard once more that public money is being spent for purposes of private profit. Would it not have been fairer if the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned that the owner is tied down by certain conditions —that he may not charge more than a certain rent, and that he is bound for the period of 20 years to keep the property at the disposal of rural workers? It is quite true that the Act of 1926 has 85 not been taken full advantage of, but it is also true that a good many thousands of rural workers have benefited through that Act by having greatly improved reconditioned cottages. I consider that the present Bill is an excellent Measure. Some counties have used the Act of 1926 very considerably—Devonshire, for in-
§ stance; and my own county of Berkshire has been using it of recent years. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward an extremely useful Bill.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 103.87
|Division No. 204.]||AYES.||[5.41 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Petherick, M.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leads, W.)||Grigg. Sir E. W. M.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Grimston, R. V.||Plugge, Capt. L. F.|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.|
|Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)||Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)||Procter, Major H. A.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Guinness, T. L. E. B.||Raikes, H. V. A. M.|
|Assheton, R.||Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)|
|Balfour, G. (Hampstead)||Hannah, I. C.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)|
|Balniel, Lord||Harris, Sir P. A.||Remer, J. R.|
|Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)|
|Barrie, Sir C. C.||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Ross Taylor, w. (Woodbridge)|
|Bennett, Sir E. N.||Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|Bernays, R. H.||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Russell, Sir Alexander|
|Boulton, W. W.||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.||Samuel, M. R. A.|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Holmes, J. S.||Sandeman, Sir N. S.|
|Broad bridge, Sir G. T.||Hopkinson, A.||Sanderson, Sir F. B.|
|Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Horsbrugh, Florence||Sandys, E. D.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Howitt, Dr. A. B.||Scott, Lord William|
|Burton, Col. H. W.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Shakespeare, G. H|
|Campbell, Sir E. T.||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Shaw, Major P S. (Wavertree)|
|Cary, R. A.||Hulbert, N. J.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)||Hume, Sir G. H.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Hunter, T.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)|
|Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Hurd, Sir P. A.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Channon, H.||Hutchinson, G. C.||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.||Spens. W. P.|
|Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)||Keeling, E. H.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Chorlton, A. E. L.||Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Storey, S.|
|Christie, J. A.||Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)|
|Clarke, Frank (Dartford)||Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)|
|Clarry, Sir Reginald||Leech, Sir J. W.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Sinter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Conant, Captain R. J. E.||Levy, T.||Tasker, Sir R. E.|
|Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Lindsay, K. M.||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Lipson, D. L.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.||Llewellin, Colonel J. J.||Thomas, J. P. L.|
|Cox, H. B. Trevor||Lloyd, G. W.||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.||Touche, G. C.|
|Crooke, Sir J. S.||Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.||McKic, J. H.||Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.|
|Cross, R. H.||Maclay, Hon. J. P.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Crossley, A. C.||Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Wakefield, W. W.|
|Crowder, J. F. E.||Macnamara, Major J. R. J.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Macquisten, F. A.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|De la Bère, R.||Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.||Watt, Major G. S. Harvie|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Manningham-Butler, Sir M||Wayland, Sir W. A|
|Denville, Alfred||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Dugdale, Captain T. L.||Markham, S. F.||Wells, S. R.|
|Duggan, H. J.||Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.||White, H. Graham|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Elmley, Viscount||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Mills, Main- J. D. (New Forest)||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)|
|Erskine-Hill, A. G.||Morris-Jones, Sir Henry||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Wise, A. R.|
|Foot, D. M.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Withers, Sir J. J.|
|Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Munro, P.||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Fremantle, Sir F. E.||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Wood, Hon. C. I. C.|
|Furness, S. N.||Nicholson, G. (Farnham)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Fyfe, D. P. M.||Nicolson, Hon. H. G.||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Gluekstein, L. H.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh|
|Goldia, N. B.||Owen, Major G.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Grant-Ferris, R.||Palmer, G. E. H.||Captain Hope and Major Sir|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Patrick, C. M.||James Edmondson.|
|Gridley, Sir A. B.||Peters, Dr. S. J.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Grenfell, D. R.||Pearson, A.|
|Adams, D. N. (Pep'ar, S.)||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Poole, C. C.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Richards, R. (Wrexham)|
|Alexander, Bi. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)||Ridley, G.|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Ritson, J.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)|
|Banfield, J. W.||Hardie, Agnes||Sexton. T. M.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Shinwell, E.|
|Barr, J.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Silverman, S. S.|
|Batey, J.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Simpson, F. B.|
|Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Hopkin, D.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Benton, G.||Jagger, J,||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Broad, F. A.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly>|
|Bromfield, W.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Sorenson, R. W.|
|Cape, T.||Kelly, W. T.||Stephen, C.|
|Chater, D.||Kirkwood, D.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng;|
|Cluse, W. S.||Loath, W.||Summerskill, Edith|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Leonard, W.||Thorne, W.|
|Cove, W. G.||Leslie, J. R.||Thurtle, E.|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Logan, D. G.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Dagger, G.||Lunn, W.||Tomlinson, G.|
|Dalton, H.||Macdonald. G. (Ince)||Viant, S. P.|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||McEntee, V. La T.||Walkdan, A. G.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||MeGhee, H. G.||Walker, J.|
|Day, H.||MacLaren, A.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Ede, J. C.||Maclean, N.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)||Maxtor, J.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Badwellty)||Messer, F.||Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)|
|Gallacher, W.||Montague, F.||Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)|
|Gardner, B. W||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Garro Jones, G. M.||Naylor, T. E.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Gibson, R. ([...])||Noel-Baker, P. J.||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Grain, W. H. (Deptford)||Paling, W.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Parkinson, J. A.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves,|
§ Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.