HL Deb 17 July 1935 vol 98 cc465-90

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL)

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now resolve itself into Committee.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

My Lords, I must make a protest on behalf of the Scottish Peers against the way in which we have been treated over this Bill. A few days ago it was put down, I think, for Second Reading as the first Order of the Day, and then a Standing Order was suspended, practically without any notice, and it had to be taken later on. Now I think everyone must admit that this is an important Bill, yet it is being taken at this late hour not long before the time at which your Lordships' House, as a rule, adjourns—namely, a quarter to eight. It is not as if this was the only instance in which Scottish business has been dealt with in this way. In the past Scottish business has always, I think—and I believe I shall be supported in saying this by most of my fellow Peers from Scotland—been treated more or less with contempt, and if His Majesty's Government are in favour of Home Rule for Scotland there is nothing they can do more to advance it than their present conduct. I must point out that a large number of Scottish Peers—I do not include myself amongst them—have come here at very considerable inconvenience and also very considerable expense, and it is only fair and reasonable that their Bills should be taken at a time when they can receive a fair and proper discussion.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I would like to join with the noble Duke in the protest that he has made. I agree with every word he has said on the general question as to the way in which Scottish questions are usually treated. At the same time, to-day, I must say that it is a little unfortunate that a Scottish Peer should have kept us for an hour and forty minute; on a matter which we particularly asked him to put off until another day. Even if he had not agreed to do that he need not have kept us waiting so long. He has now gone away, and is the only Scottish Peer who has not remained.

EARL STANHOPE

My Lords, I can only say on behalf of His Majesty's Government that we very much regret that this Bill should come on at this late hour. I think it was almost impossible to foresee that the two Motions on the Paper were going to take so long as they did. I knew that there were to be three Peers who would take part in the debate on the first Motion in regard to slavery, but other members of your Lordships' House, whom I did not know were going to speak, also took part in that debate. As regards the second Motion on the Paper, I think I must leave the noble Earl who moved it in the hands of his Scottish colleagues who, perhaps, will deal with him adequately without my saying anything further. I can only say I am extremely sorry that this should have happened. As your Lordships know, just before a Recess it is always difficult to arrange business, and we are very much in the hands of your Lordships as to how long a time will be taken upon a particular Motion.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

What are you going to do about the Bill? Are you going to take it now?

EARL STANHOPE

I suggest we should go on and see what progress we can make. We are very businesslike in this House, and get through a great deal of business in a short time when we have to do so.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Duty of local authority to inspect and to make reports and proposals as to overcrowding.

1.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority before such dates as the Department may, after consultation with the authority, fix as respects their district, to cause an inspection thereof to be made with a view to ascertaining what dwelling-houses therein are overcrowded, and to prepare and submit to the Department a report showing in such detail as the Department may direct the result of the inspection and the additional housing accommodation required in order to put an end to overcrowding in their district, and, unless they satisfy the Department that the additional accommodation required, in so far as it is required for persons of the working classes, will be otherwise provided, to prepare and submit to the Department proposals for the provision thereof.

(3) Any proposals under this section for the provision of additional housing accommodation shall be accompanied by a statement of the steps which the local authority propose to take to secure that the rehousing of families living under the worst conditions as regards overcrowding is provided for first.

LORD POLWARTH moved to insert at the end of subsection (1): Provided, however, that there shall be no obligation to submit such proposals for additional accommodation for farm and other rural workers who occupy their houses as part of their remuneration until legislative provision has been made enabling the local authorities to remedy overcrowding in these houses.

The noble Lord said: I will endeavour to move this Amendment in the briefest possible terms, as we are beginning the business upon this Bill at a late hour. I move it as Chairman of a local authority and housing committee because I feel that the clause as it stands imposes upon local authorities an impossible obligation. The clause requires us to complete a census and examination of all houses, and to report on all eases of overcrowding which exist within our area, and then to prepare and to submit to the Department of Health proposals for the provision of houses to meet that overcrowding. I move as a proviso that there shall be no obligation to submit such proposals for additional accommodation for farm and other rural workers who occupy their houses as part of their remuneration until legislative provision has been made enabling local authorities to remedy overcrowding in these houses.

I am all for remedying overcrowding in farm workers' houses just as much as in other houses, but I think it was practically admitted by the Government in another place that this Bill does not make any provision whereby we can remedy overcrowding in the case of these houses, which, as many of your Lordships know, are occupied almost throughout Scotland by farm workers as part of their remuneration, and are situated on the farm where they work. Local authorities cannot build houses for a particular class of workers. Even if they could, the chances are that the man with a large family would have removed elsewhere before the house was built. It has been said that the Housing (Rural Workers) Act will meet the case, but I think that is hardly so. In my own county, we stipulated that most of the houses built should have three rooms and the rest two, but houses with three apartments will only accommodate five people under the standard of this Bill, and I am afraid many farm servants will have to seek work elsewhere. You cannot expect the farmer, or the landlord, to be at the expense of providing larger houses when the farmer can so easily get a man with a smaller family to do the work required. I fear that the man with the large family will have a hard time of it.

It is obvious that some fresh proposals must be made. The Government propose an Advisory Committee to consider the matter. By all means let that be done, and then fresh legislative proposals can be introduced which will make it possible to deal with this difficulty. But, in the meantime, it is not fair to call upon local authorities to submit schemes which they really have no possible means of carrying out. They can only say that they cannot do it. There is no provision in the Bill which enables this real difficulty to be met. I will not enlarge on it further, because I believe your Lordships are fully familiar with it, but I move this Amendment with the object of putting on record that, as the Bill stands, it cannot deal with the problem of farm servants' houses. I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will see his way to accept the proviso and not impose upon us an impossible obligation.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Polwarth.)

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

I am quite aware of the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has raised, and of course it will all come up again in other forms in later Amendments. The overcrowding provisions in the Bill as it stands apply to tied houses as they apply to other houses on the principle that the enactment of one standard of accommodation for one section of the community and another standard, or none at all, for another section can hardly be justified.

LORD POLWARTH

I agree to that.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

The noble Lord's Amendment would merely have the effect of excluding tied houses occupied by farm workers and other rural workers from the operation of the Bill, in that: it would destroy the only means of making the overcrowding provisions effective in these cases—namely, the duty which is placed on local authorities to provide the additional accommodation that is necessary to put an end to the over in the houses in question. The arguments against the exclusion of tied houses from the Bill will be fully dealt with in a statement which I propose to make on another Amendment, and f also propose later to deal with the question of large families. In the circumstances I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I gather that the noble Lord does not want this Amendment put in the Bill here, because he wants to have the same rules for all and does riot wish to divide Scotland into two halves, but I suppose he will tell your Lordships that the Bill is not going to be operative as far as farm servants' houses are concerned.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

I do not say that the Bill is not going to be operative as far as farm workers' houses is concerned, but the Bill will not be operative until the appointed day is reached.

LORD POLWARTH

I do not wish to exclude them from the Bill, but only to defer the matter until the Government can make some provision to enable the local authorities to remedy this overcrowding.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I am sorry the Government will not accept the Amendment, because I think that what it really means is that any farm worker who has a large family will be thrown out of employment. There is another difficulty which has not been mentioned. It takes a very long time to improve rural housing, especially in what are generally called "out-by" positions, where you can only get certain tradesmen to take the work. There is another thing which is quite disregarded by the Government. It is the custom in Scotland to have larger rooms than in English houses. In England people prefer more rooms and smaller rooms. That may be right or wrong, but there it is. If the Amendment is not accepted, I think it will have a very serious effect on a class of people for whom I think your Lordships will agree that a very strong effort should be made—that is, the man in rural employment, the ploughman or shepherd or whatever he may be, who has a large family—because, after all, it is these men with large families who work on the land who are going to make the future of this nation.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

There are several reasons why I think my noble friend should press the concluding portion of this Amendment. All who have had anything to do with agriculture in Scotland know that the engagement of married men is for one year. Therefore, it is possible that in one year the house will be overcrowded, and next year it will not be overcrowded. It is obvious, I think, that you cannot deal with the problem of farm servants' houses in Scotland so long as the present custom is maintained without special legislation, for the simple reason that you have a changing population from year to year. It is the custom to engage a married man for one year, and a single man for six months, so that you may easily come across cases where the unmarried men's quarters are also affected. The whole question requires special treatment, and I press the Government to realise that.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I think the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, put a question to the Government which has not been answered. The case for the Amendment as it stands seems a very strong one, but I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether there are not provisions in Clauses 4 and 5 which would enable some relief to be obtained. If noble Lords will look at the marginal note to Clause 4, they will see that it reads "Power of Department to increase the permitted number temporarily to meet exceptional conditions," and the marginal note to Clause 5 is "Power of local authority to authorise the temporary use of a house by persons in excess of the permitted number." I think we should all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, that under the Bill as it stands these particular houses cannot be dealt with, but I do think that the more desirable course, rather than the omission of these houses from the operation of the Bill, would be to put in a clause, as my noble friend suggests, to allow the operation of the Bill to be suspended. It comes to the same thing, as far as I can see.

LORD MARLEY

If a mere Sassenach may be allowed to intervene for a moment, I would like to say it is rather difficult sometimes for us to understand the actual effect of some of these Amendments. Is it not possible that this Amendment may have the effect of tempting the local authority to take no action because by not taking action they will not have to apply the terms of Clause 1? It looks to me as though, since it says "until legislative provision has been made enabling the local authorities to remedy overcrowding in these houses," that nothing need be done. They might be tempted to do nothing in order not to have to remedy the overcrowding. That seems a possible effect of the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

There seems to be a great deal of force in the argument with which my noble friend has supported the Amendment. On the other hand, in my judgment there is much in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, will not press this matter to a Division at this stage.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

May I ask the noble Lord a further question, more by way of elucidation than for any other reason? I understand that the general purpose of this Bill is to prevent overcrowding and to enable local authorities to make provision for new houses. As I understand Clause 29, whereas the central administration undertake to make contribution towards providing housing accommodation required for the purpose of putting an end to overcrowding, yet they are to be specifically debarred from doing it in the case of the houses now under consideration, houses tenanted by farm servants as a part of their remuneration. In other words, the Bill makes it impossible for the Government to make provision for those houses which we all want to see, although it is possible to make provision for houses in urban areas. If that is so, it is a very serious disadvantage of the Bill. Some provision should be made to enable local authorities to remedy this overcrowding instead of leaving us in the position of having large numbers of houses tenanted by large families while, because the Government has said that they are not going to allow people to live in them, the local authorities are unable to make financial provision whereby the evil can be remedied.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I understood from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that he would answer my question when I moved my Amendment in Clause 4. I suggest that he should answer it now and, if it meets with his approval, I need not move my Amendment, but if he does not approve, then I shall be able to move.

LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE

The Marquess of Aberdeen put his finger on the spot when he said that the real trouble is that you cannot make any arrangement under Clause 4 whereby you can meet the changing population from year to year. This is a real difficulty which is not met in this Bill.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

I cut short my answer on this Amendment because I see on the Paper an Amendment in the name of the noble Duke" the Duke of Atholl, later on in Clause 2: and also the one to which the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, has referred dealing with the question of rural areas. Now, with regard to the question which has been raised by a great many noble Lords, about the difficulty of forcing a situation wherein unemployment would be caused among rural workers, I think there are these two safeguards. First of all, on the general point, from information we have received as a result of investigations which have been made, we do not see any reason to believe that there is a much larger proportion of farm labourers with large families than there is among the urban workers. The percentage shows a very small increase. Secondly, there are the provisions to which the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, referred.

In addition to that I was going to tell the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, when I came to his Amendment, that the question of the relaxation of safeguarding under Clause 4 cannot arise until the standard itself has come into operation; that is to say, upon the appointed day to which I have already referred. After that there is a duration order made under Clause 4, which provides that relaxation of the standard after the appointed day must not, exceed three years. Moreover, there is power under Clause 5 for local authorities to grant licences to permit the standard to be exceeded in individual cases. There are obvious difficulties, from the point of view of keeping in proper touch with the different parts of a district, in the way of making an order postponing the provisions for as long as ten years, which is what the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, suggests. No local authority, however, is likely to take the risk of bringing the standard into operation before ample accommodation has been made for their people, and I hope that the noble Earl will rest assured that every application made under that clause for extension of the period will be carefully considered.

LORD POLWARTH

Will the extension of time be made for any particular class of house? We are anxious to bring in the decrowding provisions as soon as we can. I speak for a county that has an industrial population as well as a rural one—even perhaps greater. We do not want the appointed day postponed for a long time. It is only in regard to this particular class that I am anxious to see the Government bring in provision to enable us to deal with the rural houses as soon as possible. I am not anxious to postpone it for ten years or longer for all classes of houses.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

The noble Lord and are in agreement that the Government want to provide new houses as soon as possible where they are necessary. In the rural areas the operation of the Bill must be postponed beyond the appointed day, as long after it as necessary, but in the urban areas, the provision must be made as soon as possible.

LORD POLWARTH

That does not answer my question. I am anxious to see the appointed day quite soon for urban areas, but we have to wait for it in rural areas and may have to wait a long time.

THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE

The Bill says that the order may specify different classes of houses.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

Will the noble Lord answer my question? I understand that this Bill makes no financial provisions for meeting the particular difficulty with which the noble Duke dealt. Whereas financial provision is made for any other situation, it does not make any for this particular difficulty; is not that the case?

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

I should like to look into that question which the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, has raised, but I am afraid I cannot give an answer at the moment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (3), after "overcrowding," to insert "or otherwise living under unsatisfactory housing conditions." The noble Lord said: This Amendment was put down to implement a promise given in another place. The subsection is designed to secure that, in framing the proposals for the relief of overcrowding, local authorities shall make provision for dealing with the worst cases of overcrowding first. The question was raised in another place whether, in considering what was the worst case of overcrowding, the local authorities were able to look merely at the numbers of persons in the different houses. It was pointed out that there were other factors which could be taken into account. For example, it might be more urgent to re-house a family containing a number of members suffering from a disease such as tuberculosis; it would be difficult to re-house a large family under such conditions. Again, there might be two families of the same size and different sex composition, and from this point of view one family might be regarded as more overcrowded than the other. The intention of this Amendment is to secure that local authorities shall not be restricted to looking at mere numbers. The Amendment will enable them to take other relevant factors, such as those I have mentioned, into account.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 28, after ("overcrowding") insert ("or otherwise living under unsatisfactory housing conditions").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Might I ask the noble Lord if this is in accordance with the preamble of the Bill?

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

I think it is quite in agreement with it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Definition of overcrowding.

2.—(1) A dwelling-house shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be overcrowded at any time when the number of persons sleeping in the house either—

  1. (a) is such that any two of those persons, being persons ten years old or more of opposite sexes and not being persons living together as husband and wife, must sleep in the same room; or
  2. (b) is, in relation to the number and floor area of the rooms of which the house consists, in excess of the permitted number of persons as defined in the First Schedule to this Act.

(2) In computing for the purposes of this section the number of persons sleeping in a house, no account shall be taken of a child under one year old, and a child who has attained one year and is under ten years old shall be reckoned as one half of a unit.

THE DUKE OF ATHOL had given Notice of an Amendment, in subsection (1), at the beginning of paragraph (b) to insert "in the case of a house situated within a burgh" and of another to insert in subsection (2): Provided that paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to houses of farm workers or of other workers who as a condition of their employment are required to occupy a particular house.

The noble Duke said: On Clause 2 I have two Amendments and, although I feel strongly that this Bill should not apply to rural areas, I do not propose to move the first now, because it is late and we have not much time, and also because I know perfectly well that the Government have not the slightest intention of accepting it. But I am going to move my next Amendment to insert a proviso at the end of subsection (2). As the Government have not agreed to the omission of the rural areas as a whole, or rather as I have not moved my Amendment, I beg to move the omission of those houses which must be occupied by farm workers and others as a condition of their employment. These others are, of course, shepherds, gamekeepers, head gardeners, lodge keepers and so forth, whom I might call generally estate servants, who are given these houses as Dart of their wages. It is obvious that here we have a problem which is totally different from anything in the towns. A man has to live in a particular house, and if the house provided in relation to a particular job on a farm or estate is not large enough for the applicant and his family, according to the standards here laid down, it must inevitably make it very improbable that he will be given the job, or retain it if, like a ploughman, he has to go away and be again engaged.

A large proportion of ploughmen's houses in particular consist of only two rooms, with a third room too small to be counted, and the Bill would only allow for three people to sleep in this—a married couple, that is, with one child of ten or over. The estate owner may well find it difficult to enlarge the house, and in consequence will prefer to take a man without a family, or with a smaller family, in order to avoid pressure from the local authorities, in which case he will, of course, be quite within the law; or the farmer may wish to avoid being urged by the local authorities to put pressure upon his landlord. It seems to me unquestionable that unless tied houses are excluded, young married men with families still at school or families which are likely to increase, will be handicapped in finding employment, and they are the last people one would wish to see handicapped. The handicap may not be so serious in the case of shepherds and gamekeepers, as this work can be done by older men, although I think we should legislate for them just the same. Ploughmen, however, by reason of their work, have to be men in the prime of life. That means that they will probably have large families, or be at a time when they are having families, and it will be a serious matter for many of them if tied houses are not exempted.

It will also be a serious matter for the farmers, as they will necessarily be restricted in their choice of workers, and this is assuredly not the time to place any obstacle in the way of farmers getting the best men they can to work on the land. I therefore fear that this clause, unless it is amended, will place a serious handicap on the employment of married ploughmen, and in doing this will seriously handicap the farmer and also Scottish agriculture at a difficult moment in its history. We are told that this will not come in until the appointed day, but we are not told when the appointed day may be, and if there is going to be an appointed day then in that case when it does come it will mean that half of these men will lose their jobs. If, on the other hand, there is not going to be an appointed day, why trouble to deal with this matter at all? It seems to me that it is utter humbug to waste our time in dealing with this matter if the Government have not the slightest intention of trying to work the Bill in rural Scotland.

My point is this. Most of these houses are two-roomed houses with possibly a bed closet at the back, very airy as a rule but very small. The Act only allows three people to sleep in that house. Most of these ploughmen's houses are of that description. There are two large rooms both well within the Bill and bigger than most rooms outside. It seems to me that if we allow these ploughmen's houses to have four people sleeping in a house which at present is scheduled for three, then you would get over a great deal of the difficulty with regard to ploughmen. I think the matter is so important that I am going to press this Amendment in the ploughmen's interest. Surely we want to see their houses improved if we can, but as the Bill stands many people will be very careful not to take men having families or who are likely to have families, and so bring them under the Bill. If the excuse is that that they are not restricting the employment of these married men, because they are not going to bring the Bill into operation, then it is waste of time to discuss these matters.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 44, at end, insert the said proviso.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD BALFOUR, OF BURLEIGH

I hope the noble Duke is not going to take this Amendment to a Division, particularly as it is a manuscript Amendment, of which none of us have had any notice.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

It has been on the Paper for a week.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Amendment before the House is that on the Paper, to line 44 of page 2.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am sorry that I misunderstood the noble Duke. I thought he had withdrawn that Amendment. The Amendment being on the Paper, it entirely removes that objection. At the same time I think this Amendment was debated on the Amendment of Lord Polwarth. I do not see anything in the Bill to prevent the giving of the subsidy which is provided. I see no reason why the Bill should not be worked, and during the delay which is provided by the clauses adequate houses be provided for this class of worker. The subsidy of £6 15s. for forty years is an adequate subsidy.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Is this subsidy to be given to the owner, or to the local authorities? If it is to the local authorities, then they will have to take over all the private houses everywhere, and they will be responsible for making those houses big enough for the biggest family any proprietor wants to put in.

THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE

The point is that the farm servant would in these circumstances be the tenant of the local authority.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

I must point out that my question has not been answered. These houses vary in the number of people they have to accommodate every year. You build on, say, two more rooms, and next year those rooms may be empty. We must be practical 'and try to help agriculture at the present time, and not thwart it. I would ask the Government to back up the agricultural policy of the Secretary of State for Scotland by making things as easy as possible for those who work the land. If you tie the farmer's choice to a farm servant who possesses a family which meets the accommodation of the house, you are really practically enforcing uneconomic business on the farmer, on the landlord, and on everybody concerned. I think we need, a little common sense as to how we treat these houses in Scotland, and we must face facts as they are. Do not pass legislation which cannot be enforced, and which brings the law into disrepute.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

I do not quite understand how this £6 15s. Is paid. Is it paid to the local authority? If it is, does the local authority take over the house? And supposing the local authority declines to take it over: what is the position then? Is the house left with the landlord, and has the landlord to assume the responsibility of including the house with the land?

LORD POLWARTH

Speaking as one who has very extensive practical knowledge as to what the local authority can, and does, do, may I say that it is impossible for the local authority to take over these houses. They cannot keep them as tied houses. We have been asked by coal companies to build houses and let the companies have those houses for their employees, but we cannot do it. I confess I do not altogether like the Duke of Atholl's Amendment, because it seems permanently to exempt these houses from the operation of the Bill. It seems to me that the noble Duke's object would be better obtained by some alteration of the standard, allowing people to go into these two-roomed or three-roomed houses, as the case may be; and that was the re commendation made by the County Councils Association and rejected by the Government. If we have a clear understanding that this exemption is to be only for a time until legislation is granted, or if the Government will undertake to introduce legislation, then we could accept this in the meantime. Failing that, I think we must rely on the clause mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, endeavouring to get a postponement for a particular class of house.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

If the Government can give us a definite period of years, then I should be quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

I am not in a position to name any definite period, but I think it is fairly obvious that the appointed day is a very long way off. It will give us time to get the situation cleared up in the rural districts. The standard in the Bill will not be applied in any district until the greater part of the additional accommodation required for decrowding purposes in the locality has been provided. Even after the appointed day the application of the standard can be relaxed in connection with particular classes of houses in a district, and therefore if, when the time comes to apply the standard, it is still necessary for some time to exclude farm workers' cottages, that can be done within the provisions of the Bill as it stands. Moreover, there is power, under Clause 5, for local authorities to grant licences to permit the standard to be exceeded in individual cases. This power can be used in exceptional circumstances to allow a particular farm cottage to be occupied in excess of the standard until suitable arrangements can be made for the proper accommodation of the family.

The provisions of the Bill are, therefore, sufficiently flexible to enable local authorities to deal with the peculiar difficulties connected with the housing of persons living in tied houses. The Government realise, however, that the housing of these persons constitutes a special feature, and they intend to seek early advice of the Rural Sub-committee of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, to be set up under Clause 22 of the Bill, with regard to the further steps which should be taken in the matter. In the meantime the grants available under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts for the reconstruction and improvement of agricultural workers' houses are being continued for an extended period up to June, 1938, and it is proposed to secure that these grants will, as far as possible, be used for the enlargement of farm workers' houses. That, I think, answers the point which one noble Lord raised that there was to be no grant made to the landlord himself. I may add that no one is more desirous than I am of seeing better agricultural conditions in Scotland. I hope the noble Duke will not press his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I should point out that the ploughman is a migratory person. He goes away, and you cannot tell what size of family the next man has. It is very difficult in such circumstances to determine what size of house is wanted. I am prepared, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said, to withdraw this Amendment, but I shall divide later on on a manuscript Amendment which I have handed in to a later clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Offences in relation to overcrowding.

3.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, if after the appointed day the occupier of a dwelling-house causes or permits it to be overcrowded, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty shillings.

(3) The occupier of a dwelling-house shall not be guilty of an offence under this section in respect of any overcrowding thereof which is occasioned by the residence therein for a period not exceeding sixteen days of a person to whom lodging is afforded by the occupier otherwise than for gain.

LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (1), after "day," to insert "or prior to the appointed day in the case of a house which has ceased to be overcrowded through the action of the local authority. "The noble Lord said: This Amendment was put down in consequence of a question that was raised at a recent conference held with the Secretary of State for Scotland, attended by a very large number of local authorities, both rural and urban, and the need for such an Amendment was supported by a large number of representatives. As the Bill stands, there is nothing to prevent the house, once it has been decrowded by the local authority from being again let by the owner to a large family, again becoming crowded, and the local authority having again to step in to provide another house for this new family. Of course, that does not apply to the case of a house owned by the local authority, but cases of the kind are common. Perhaps we have a colliery company's house, or a private owner's house, with a large family. We are asked to begin with the worst cases of overcrowding as soon as we can. We are even now in my county making plans for building sufficiently large houses, and we shall as soon as the houses are ready endeavour to get the people moved into those houses out of the smaller ones, but we shall have no control over a house which has been emptied. The moment it is empty, the owner will be besieged by applicants to let it again, and there is nothing to prevent him letting it again to a large family, and very likely that family will come in from a neighbouring district.

If it were one of our own families, it would not much matter, because we should have to provide for their accommodation in any case. But if a family comes from another district and fill up that house, it will again be the duty of the county council to provide accommodation for that family.

So I propose to insert the words: or prior to the appointed day in the ease of a house which has ceased to be overcrowded through the action of the local authority. We have just been told that the appointed day may be postponed for a long time. We are not anxious to see a long postponement. We are anxious to begin with decrowding as soon as we can, but we do not want to decrowd the same house again and again. That will be the case unless some such provision as I suggest is made. At the conference we were told that the Government would take this into consideration, and I should have thought some proposal would have been submitted to us to meet this very real objection.

We may be told it is dealt with under Clause 8, but that does not to my mind remove the difficulty at all. If the owner wishes to let the house again to a large family after it has been decrowded, there is nothing on earth to prevent his doing so. All sorts of appeals will be made to him to do so. I myself have had a case in which an appeal was made to be allowed to occupy just such a house on behalf of a large family. The larger the family, the more urgent the plea will be. I suggest this as a perfectly simple. way of meeting the difficulty, so that once a house has ceased to be overcrowded through the action of the local authority, it shall be an offence for the occupier of that house to overcrowd it again. The alternative, which of course would be rather absurd, would be to say that the local authority shall not be called upon to decrowd a house once it has been decrowded.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 2, after ("day") insert ("or prior to the appointed day in the case of a house which has ceased to be overcrowded through the action of the local authority ").—(Lord Polwarth.)

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

The noble Lord's Amendment appears, on the face of it, rather attractive at first, but there are one or two reasons which I should like to give for resisting it. It would have the effect of bringing the penal provisions of the Bill into limited operation sooner than otherwise need be and before there is a sufficiency of houses in the local authority's district as a whole to warrant penal action against particular tenants. It is the policy of the Government to use the penal provisions, not as an instrument of punishment, but in the last resort as a compulsitor to secure the removal of recalcitrant occupiers from overcrowded conditions. Further, the Amendment would lead to anomalies in that a situation would arise under which it would be an offence to overcrowd some houses and not an offence to overcrowd others in the same local authority's district. It would be difficult to justify penalising one occupier for overcrowding his house when his next-door neighbour, living under exactly similar conditions, might be immune from prosecution.

In the third place it is surely better to avoid any piecemeal introduction of the "appointed day" provisions and, indeed, having in view the Amendments made on Clause 8, the proposal in the present Amendment is not necessary. Clause 8 (3), as amended in another place, gives the local authority power before the appointed day to obtain an order from the Sheriff for the removal of a tenant from an overcrowded house which has been overcrowded for at least six months, if the Sheriff is satisfied that the tenant's removal is reasonable and an offer of suitable alternative accommodation has been made to him. This provision will give the local authority all the control they need until the appointed day has been fixed for their district. For these reasons I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD POLWARTH

I do not see how that provision will meet the case if a house becomes overcrowded again. We can move the first large family but, if it is let to another large family, have we to go to the Sheriff again for an order? We hope to get over this overcrowding by offering alternative accommodation.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 27, leave out ("passing") and insert ("commencement").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved in subsection (3), after "person" to insert "or persons (not exceeding two units)". The noble Duke said: This clause means that people can stay for a holiday of sixteen days provided "lodging is afforded by the occupier otherwise than for gain." This clause brings home to one how serious may be the interference, because of this Bill, with family life. It will allow one person more than the standard number to sleep in a house for sixteen days if "lodging is afforded by the occupier other than for gain." This would allow an elder son or daughter who had gone away to work to come home for a holiday, which is an excellent idea, but it would not allow a married daughter to come home and bring with her a child of over twelve months. A child of two or three could not be left behind, and therefore a married daughter would never be able to visit her parents in certain circumstances and bring her child with her for the grandparents to see. This Amendment would enable her to come with two small children or with her husband. As such an interference with family intercourse seems to be likely to be much resented., I am moving this Amendment, and I think it is one the Government ought to accept.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 37, after ("person") insert ("or persons (not exceeding two units)").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

I am informed that this Amendment is not really necessary. I understand that under the Interpretation Act, 1899, the singular includes the plural, and therefore the word "person" includes "persons" That being so, the provisions of the subsection are not limited in the manner which the noble Duke suggests.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Do I understand that under this clause, in spite of all that there is in the Bill, a married daughter can go home and bring her children with her, even if her children are in excess of the number allowed, for a period of sixteen days?

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

That, I understand, is the case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 [Power of Department to increase the permitted number temporarily to meet exceptional conditions]:

THE EARL OF AIRLIE had given Notice of an Amendment to enable the application of the First Schedule to be suspended in the rural areas for ten years in certain circumstances. The noble Earl said: In view of what the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has said, the more one hears about this Bill, the more it prompts one to believe it was "cooked up" in England and does not apply to Scotland at all in any way. The fixing of the appointed day seems to be a matter of some surmise, rather like the Day of Judgment. We should all like to know when the Day of Judgment will be. We should all be better, and probably better off, if we knew. It seems we may have to wait for a long time for the appointed day. The time factor is a very strong factor in the case, because it affects the landlord as well as the farm worker with a large family. I believe, myself, that in a great many cases the landlord will wish to do the work that may possibly be done by the local authority, for the reason that he will do it much better and more suitably. The question of practicability has already been discussed, and I cannot believe that the local authority can possibly make a practical affair of the whole thing. I do not move my Amendment.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Information with respect to the permitted number and certification of number and floor areas of rooms.

(4) The Department shall prescribe the manner in which the floor area of a room is to be ascertained for the purposes of the First Schedule to this Act, and a certificate of the local authority stating the number and floor areas of the rooms in a dwelling-house, and that the floor areas thereof have been ascertained in the prescribed manner, shall, for the purposes of any legal proceedings, be evidence of the facts stated therein.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (4), after "Act, and," to insert: the regulations may provide for the exclusion from computation, or for the bringing, into computation at a reduced figure, of floor space in any part of a room which is of less than a specified height. (5)

The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been put down to implement a pledge given by the Secretary of State in another place. It has, throughout, been the intention that the rules of measurement to be prescribed by the Department under Clause 7 (4) of the Bill should provide that in certain cases, for example, rooms with sloping roofs, only so much of the actual floor should be measured for the purposes of Table II of the First Schedule as was more than a minimum distance from the ceiling. This intention has been declared in the House of Commons and elsewhere, but it is now considered doubtful whether the present wording of the Bill would authorise the Department to take such action and for that purpose the Amendment has been put down.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 21, after ("and") insert the said words.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Duty of medical officers to furnish particulars of overcrowding]:

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to insert: (2) Before furnishing particulars under the foregoing subsection the medical officer of health shall consult with, or obtain a report from, the sanitary inspector of the authority.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment proposes to leave the duty to report on the medical officer of health, but it provides that, before reporting, he must either consult the sanitary inspector or obtain a report from him. The Amendment in this form is acceptable to the representatives of the Sanitary Inspectors Association with whom a conference recently took place on this matter.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE

This Amendment certainly makes the clause more feasible than it was previously. The clause as it was originally printed in the Bill was one which seemed to me to be in controversy with Clause 1 of the Bill, which left on local authorities the duty of carrying out inspections and making reports. Then in Clause 11 it is the duty of the medical officer, quite apart from his responsibility to his local authority, to make a report in accordance with instructions from the Department of Health. I know that this is a procedure which is adopted in other Public Health Acts, but it is a procedure which is certainly not conducive to very harmonised work on the part of a local authority. Over and over again the Department of Health may issue instructions to the servants of the local authority, quite regardless of their terms of appointment to that authority, to make reports direct to the Department. I merely wish to enter a protest, but, as the Amendment has included the sanitary inspector also, it has made it more workable than it was previously.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:

Definitions for purposes of provisions relating to overcrowding.

12. In the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, and in the First Schedule to this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively:

"Suitable alternative accommodation" means, in relation to the occupier of a dwelling-house, a dwelling-house in which the occupier and his family can live without causing it to be overcrowded, being a house which the local authority certify to be suitable to the needs of the occupier and his family as respects security of tenure and proximity to place of work and to be suitable in relation to his means.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I have been handed a manuscript Amendment to line 14 in page 8 to insert the words "'Local authority' means county council or town council or burgh council or any special committee to whom a county council may delegate its powers."

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE

I beg to move the Amendment to which the Lord Chairman has referred. This Amendment has been handed in because it was not thought to be quite clear what was meant by the term "local authority" If this Amendment is adopted "local authority" would mean "the county council, or town council, or burgh council or any special committee to whom a county council may delegate its powers." County councils, I may remind your Lordships, do delegate powers over roads, education, public health, and other matters to special committees, and I think that in order to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act efficiently in distant parts of counties we should include "district commitees." When I say this I am particularly thinking of the Islands. It is in their interests particularly that I am anxious to get this special committee included. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 14, insert (" 'Local authority' means county council or town council or burgh council or any special committee to whom a county council may delegate its powers").—(The Duke of Montrose.)

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

This is the first time I have seen or heard about the Amendment in question. I would like to postpone it to a later stage, and I hope the noble Duke will agree to that being done.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in the definition of "suitable alternative accommodation," after "work," to insert "and otherwise." The noble Lord said: The point of this Amendment can be stated in very few words. "Suitable alternative accommodation" is defined in the definition as relating to three specific things—security of tenure, proximity of buildings and work and suitability in relation to means. With the definition, as it stands, it is quite possible that the alternative which would have to be certified as being suitable might in fact be much less suitable than the accommodation already occupied by the family. The object is to give a wider discretion to the local authority. I think it would be a useful addition.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 33, after ("work") insert ("and otherwise").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

The words "and otherwise" used by the noble Lord are in the opinion of the Government too wide for what is a definition clause. If the noble Lord can produce more specific words, or if he would agree to act consultation with the officials at the Scottish Office and would like to have suitable words added, I shall be glad, and will put down any agreed words on Report, but I cannot accept the words "and otherwise" as they stand. I agree with the sense of the Amendment entirely.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am much obliged to the noble Lord and in view of what he has said I will consult with the Scottish Office. In the meantime I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

EARL STANHOPE

I do not know what the wishes of your Lordships are. I suggest that we should resume the House now and adjourn the debate on the Committee stage of this Bill until either Monday or Tuesday of next week. It is obviously going to take a considerable time to get through the Amendments on the Paper, and I think we should find ourselves very late if we tried to get through them to-night. I suggest that Tuesday is probably the best day on which to resume the Committee stage. The Government of India Bill is likely to take the whole of to-morrow both before and after dinner, and it may take a good deal of Monday as well. There are two other matters on the Order Paper on Monday which take precedence. These are the Unemployment Insurance (Crediting of Contributions) Bill, Second Reading, and the Diseases of Animals Bill, consideration of Commons Amendments. I suggest that we should adjourn the Committee stage of this Bill until Tuesday and that it should be the first Order for that day. If that is your Lordships' desire I will move accordingly.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I cannot be here on Tuesday and I know one or two other noble Lords who cannot attend then. If we could have the Committee stage resumed on Monday, there is little left to be done, and I think we could do it on Monday evening.

EARL STANHOPE

I might suggest that we put it down for Monday and see how we get on with the Government of India. Bill to-morrow.

NOBLE LORDS

Yes.

EARL STANHOPE

I move that the House do now resume and that the Committee stage on the Housing (Scotland) Bill be resumed on Monday next.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.