Lords Sitting of 22 July 1935

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands upon the Paper in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being suspended, and that for the remainder of the Session all Government Bills which are entered for consideration on the Minutes of the Day shall have precedence over other Bills and Notices.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS CONSOLIDATION ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Leith Harbour and Docks, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7), deemed to have been read 2a and to have been reported from the Committee.

AYR COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Ayr County Council, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private

641
Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7), deemed to have been read 2a and to have been reported from the Committee.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CROYDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (EASTBOURNE) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HARROGATE) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HUNTINGDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (METROPOLIS WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MORLEY) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
CRIMINAL LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
BRITISH SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFI CATION (DECLARATION OF LAW) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SCARBOROUGH) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CREDITING OF CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill it will not be necessary to crave more than a very few minutes of your Lordships' time. It is a short Bill; a little technical, but very simple. It seeks to amend in one particular the Unemployment Act of last year which has since been incorporated in the Unemployment Consolidation Act of this year. When I moved on behalf of the Government the Second Reading of last year's Bill in your Lordships' House I said that "the Bill makes the terms of insurance much more generous," and I added inter alia:
"It wipes out the present gap between the school-leaving age and the beginning of the insurance age."
Later in the same debate I used these words:
"Provision is made by which juveniles under sixteen who continue in whole-time education voluntarily, for at least a year, may receive a free credit of contributions."
I ask your Lordships to notice specially those last few words.
Again on the following day, on the resumed debate in your Lordships' House on the same Bill, my noble friend Lord Sankey, speaking from beside the Woolsack, said:
"The problem of unemployment is one which, it is to be feared, will engage not only many Governments but many countries and for many years to come. In such circumstances it is best to endeavour to settle a structure which will stand the test of time, but to be quite prepared to fill in or

643
alter details according to needs and situations which may arise."
Such a course therefore as we are pursuing now is almost foreshadowed in those words. I think it is common knowledge that previous to the introduction of last year's Unemployment Bill, when proposals for lowering the insurance age to the school-leaving age were under discussion, it was the general view, and one held particularly strongly by the local education authorities, that if the age were to be lowered there ought to be a "credit" of contributions for attendance at school beyond the school-leaving age of fourteen years. As your Lordships are aware, this was conceded and the concession is represented by Section 75 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, under which regulations have to be made for crediting with contributions juveniles who voluntarily continue their education after reaching the school-leaving age.
The Act provides that the regulations shall not come into force until September 3, 1935,
"but as from that date shall apply to persons who, having previously (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) attained the age aforesaid, have continued and are then continuing to receive whole-time education."
That provision was in a slightly different form when the 1934 Bill, which first contained the provision in question—the 1935 Act, as I have said, is a consolidating Statute—was going through the House. The relevant clause provided that the regulations about crediting contributions should not come into force until the expiration of twelve months after the coming into operation of the provision lowering the age of entry into insurance, and the date fixed for this latter provision to come into operation was September 3, 1934, or such earlier date as the Minister might by order direct.
When the Bill was going through Parliament, in response to an appeal made by the Party represented by my noble friends opposite, an undertaking was given in another place on behalf of the Government in the following words:
"Children who leave school in July, 1935, will have the advantage of this particular section of the Act. In spite of the fact that they will not have been in school for two years, but only one year, after the coming into force of the Bill, they will become entitled to the full credit of contributions."
644
At that time it was hoped that the lowering of the age of entry would be effected at the beginning of July, 1934. Had that been the case the regulations about crediting contributions would have applied to children who, twelve months from that date—that is, early in July this year—were continuing their education. Subsequent events, however, resulted in the date for the lowering of the age of entry becoming September 3, 1934, instead of the first week in July, 1934. A consequence was that the regulations about crediting contributions could not come into operation until the corresponding date in 1935, and accordingly, on a strict interpretation, those children who finish their continued education at the end of the 1935 school year—that is, in July, 1935—would not be covered. I may say in parenthesis that actually schools in the West of Scotland close down in June. These children would not have been covered even had the earlier date been possible. The present Bill covers them as well as the others, so that noble Lords from Scotland will appreciate that there is no injustice to Scotland here.
It has been suggested that by a generous interpretation of the words of the Statute the making of a regulation would cover the children in question. That, we are advised, is impossible. Benefit is not payable before the age of sixteen and, moreover, in order to qualify for benefit boys and girls must pay actual contributions—ten or more—sufficient to bring their total of contributions up to thirty. But some of them will have reached sixteen before leaving school this summer, others will be approaching that age, and it is certain that unless the law is altered the pledge will have been broken by the early autumn in some cases, and in an increasing number of cases in succeeding months. With that explanation I am sure your Lordships would desire the appropriate credits to be given to boys and girls leaving school this summer. In all the circumstances it has been decided to put the matter right by a brief Bill which is obviously uncontentious.
Perhaps I should just say a word in explanation of the expression used in lines 14 and 15—namely, "the period of four months ending with the said third day of September." It has been thought desirable on the whole to include in the scope of the Bill all children who have been at school at all during the summer

645
term of this year. The expression "term" or "school term" is not regarded as sufficiently established to be used for this purpose. An alternative would have been to mention a fixed date, say, June 1, but on the whole it was thought that the expression actually used in the Bill would have a less arbitrary appearance, and consequently it has been adopted. I would only add that the Bill involves no Exchequer charge. Any expenditure which may arise from its provisions will fall upon the Unemployment Fund and such expenditure, while it cannot be precisely estimated, will certainly be quite inconsiderable. I am glad to have the opportunity of submitting this Bill to your Lordships before the difficulty which it seeks to remedy has caused any hardship to the boys and girls concerned. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Rochester.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a Bill which affects a large number of the working classes, but as it is largely concerned with finance and as, moreover, it has been welcomed as far as it goes by all Parties I think it would be unnecessary for me to give more than the broad outlines of what it does. Your Lordships may remember that in 1931 the Third Report of the Government Actuary revealed that there was a grave danger of the financial breakdown of the whole scheme of national health insurance. A number of measures had been passed previous to that year designed to keep within insurance a number of the unemployed who, because of their unemployment, were unable to pay their contributions; but as unemployment rose it became increasingly obvious that some more drastic step had to be undertaken. Accordingly, in 1930, 1931 and 1932 Bills were passed which relieved the approved societies, partly by putting a limit on the time during which the unemployed could draw benefits without making any contributions and partly by increasing the burden on the Exchequer.
646
These Bills were admittedly emergency measures, and it was contemplated then that a further review of the situation would take place before the year 1936. This review has now been made. If no Amending Bill were passed about 200,000 people would go right out of insurance at the end of this year, and about 5,000,000 would suffer reductions or suspensions of cash benefits unless they paid up their arrears. Fortunately to-day the economic position of the country is much stronger than it was in 1932, and so is the position of the approved societies. The income of these approved societies in 1934 was greater than was the income of the same societies in 1932 by reason of the increased contributions to the extent of £2,375,000—or put in another way 30,000,000 weeks more work was done in 1934 than in 1932.
Briefly, this is what the Bill does. Firstly, it maintains the existing provision whereby all insured persons who become unemployed and cannot pay their contributions by reason of unemployment may continue to enjoy full pension and insurance rights for a period of twenty-one months. After the expiration of the twenty-one months they are differently treated according to how long they had been insured before becoming unemployed. Those who have a period of ten years full insurance to their credit continue to enjoy for a further unlimited period all their pension rights and all their medical benefits; all they lose are cash benefits connected with sickness or disablement. Those who have only four years insurance and 160 contributions to their credit are entitled after the first twenty-one months to a further period of one year during which their pension rights are maintained. I need hardly mention that all persons who get work again during these periods and pay the statutory number of contributions are immediately restored to full insurance and pension rights.
There remains a further class of persons who, by reason of the casual nature of their employment or for other reasons, become in arrears with their contributions, although they do pay when they can. At present half these arrears are excused, but unless the other half is made up either by the insured person or his society cash benefits are reduced on a sliding scale. Now it is proposed, as from June, 1934, to excuse all arrears in

647
full. This concession will ensure, firstly, that any person who remains unemployed throughout a pre-insurance period will suffer no reduction of benefits during that period by reason of unemployment; and, secondly, prevent any reduction from the benefits of the very large number of persons who, though in fairly regular employment, have varying periods of unemployment in the course of a contribution year. That is a very rough sketch, but I think it indicates the nature of the major provisions of the Bill. There are other minor amendments in the existing law.
I have one addition to make, which has arisen owing to the debate in another place. I must refer to a question relating to the powers of the referees under the Contributory Pensions Act, which, as I said, was raised in another place. It was there stated that the effect of an alteration by this Bill of the phraseology which has appeared in previous Acts was to withdraw certain types of cases from the pension referees. The representations made have been considered, but the matter is not so simple as was suggested. A question of interpretation is involved, and the English referees have adopted one interpretation and the Scottish referees another. It is obviously desirable that the Act should be applied in the same way in the two countries. The interpretation adopted by the English referees is in accordance with the intention of the framers of the Contributory Pensions Act of 1925, and the changes in phraseology to which exception was taken in another place were adopted to make the legal position conform beyond question with the intention. I think it will be seen from an examination of the Bill that it is a Bill which bristles with technicalities, and in offering to answer any questions that may be put I do so with a certain reserve. I think I have said enough to show that, even if the position of the unemployed from a health insurance point of view is not yet ideal, it is immensely better than it was, and in those circumstances I confidently recommend the Bill for Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC HEALTH (WATER AND SEWERAGE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the object of this Bill, which is a very short one, is to extend the maximum period of repayment of money borrowed by Scottish local authorities for the purpose of water supply and sewerage schemes. Under the general law contained in the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, the maximum period of repayment is at present thirty years. This Bill proposes to extend that period to sixty years, subject to some degree of Departmental control. Schemes are now being developed in the interests of efficiency and, ultimately, of economy, on a regional basis, and the present period of thirty years is often unnecessarily short, especially as the effective life of the capital work under regional schemes is considerably in excess of that period. Certain local authorities that desire to proceed with important and much needed schemes have made representations that the restriction to thirty years is proving a barrier to the carrying out of their proposals. The Bill will give Scottish local authorities substantially the powers that local authorities have in England and Wales, and it will give to the authorities by general legislation powers that a number of authorities have in fact obtained under Local Acts. The Bill proposes in the interests of future ratepayers that the Department of Health for Scotland shall fix the actual period of repayment in excess of thirty years. The position of local authorities under existing legislation is not, however, altered in any way. If a local authority does not desire to borrow over more than thirty years it will not require to come to the Department at all. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona, and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 9 [Licences to mark bottles]
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move, in the proviso in subsec-

649
tion (1), to leave out "for the purposes of this subsection," in order to insert the words "by virtue of this section. "This is a drafting Amendment. The word "subsection" at the top of page 10 should obviously read "section" and I am advised that the proper way to amend this word in order to get the sense that is required is to move the Amendment which I have just indicated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 9, page 9, line 41, leave out from ("prescribed") to ("shall") in line 1 of page 10 and insert the words ("by virtue of this section").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments (Privilege) made.
Bill passed, and seat to the Commons.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order)
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 13
Duty of local authority to secure redevelopment of areas in certain cases.
13.—(1) If a local authority are satisfied, as a result of an inspection carried out under Section one of this Act or otherwise, that their district comprises any area in which the following conditions exist, that is to say,—

(a) that the area contains fifty or more working-class houses;

(b) that at least one-third of the working-class houses in the area fall within any one or more of the following categories, that is to say—

(i) overcrowded and with less accommodation than three apartments;

(ii) unfit for human habitation, and not capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered so fit; and

(iii) so arranged as to be congested;

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out sub-paragraph (i). The noble Duke said: The effect of this Amendment would be that a working-class area could be scheduled for redevelopment on account of one-third or more of the houses in-eluded in it being unfit for human habitation, and being so arranged as to be congested, but not merely because one-third of the houses are one- or two-roomed houses which are overcrowded according to the standards of the Bill. That would seem to be unreasonable. They may contain every up-to-date convenience, they
650
may be in the best of repair, but if at the time that they are inspected the persons living in them exceed by the smallest number those permitted under the Bill, the whole of an area of not less than 50 working-class houses must be scheduled for redevelopment, and the local authority are to be compelled to do this however uncrowded and however up-to-date and admirable in all other respects the other houses in the area may be. I think the Government, in an. Amendment to Clause 14, desire to make it possible that some of the houses in an area proclaimed for redevelopment should be retained for their existing purpose instead of all of them having to be pulled down as appeared formerly to be the purpose of the clause. Even so, Clause 13 will surely provide an inducement to an extravagant authority to embark upon schemes that are not really necessary, and are extremely costly to the Exchequer, to the ratepayers and to the owners concerned.
If one-third of the houses in an area are overcrowded surely the most sensible thing to do is to move the occupants at the earliest possible moment into bigger houses and then to offer the one-roomed or two-roomed houses to single persons or old couples. Our main problem is a shortage of houses, and although the chief demand may be for three-roomed or four-roomed houses, we cannot afford to give local authorities the temptation to pull down one-roomed or two-roomed houses that may be in excellent condition and quite up-to-date. The Government, I know, made a concession on this subsection in another place so that it only refers now to one-roomed and two-roomed houses, but if there were good reasons for making that alteration in another place I think there are equally good reasons for doing the thing handsomely. Even now the Government can oblige local authorities to embark on numerous schemes of redevelopment. I hold that all house property in good condition is so valuable to the community that no inducement—still less an obligation—should be placed on anyone to destroy it.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 4, leave out ("sub-paragraph (i)").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The noble Duke referred to the Amendment made in another place

651
which secured that the houses we are now concerned with should not only be overcrowded but should have not fewer than three rooms. I cannot help feeling that that—as he has admitted to a certain extent—should remove his fears. As the paragraph now stands it must be shown by the local authority that redevelopment is necessary for the reason that the houses are too small to accommodate on an uncrowded basis the families who because of the social and industrial conditions of the locality must continue to live there. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, because to eliminate overcrowding as a factor in the determination of a redevelopment area would to a very large extent wreck the purpose of the whole redevelopment provisions of the Bill. It would reduce the basis for determining a redevelopment area to one containing only unfit and congested houses. But the aim is not merely to clear away unfit and congested houses. If it were, local authorities have already sufficient powers under the clearance area provisions of the 1930 Act for that purpose. The aim is to secure redevelopment of an area on lines which will adequately meet the industrial and social requirements of the district.
That is made clear by the following paragraphs in the clause, paragraphs (c) and (d), under which a, local authority is required to show, before redevelopment can proceed:
"(c)that the industrial and social conditions of their district are such that the area should be used to a substantial extent for housing the working classes; and
"(d)that it is expedient in connection with the provision of housing accommodation for the working classes that the area should be redeveloped as a whole."
For this reason overcrowded houses must be included in the redevelopment operations. If overcrowded, they are manifestly too small to provide accommodation according to the standard for the families who on account of the industrial needs of the district roust continue to live in that area. The only solution, therefore, is to replace them by larger houses more suited to the needs of the families in question. Our object is to get rid of the small, badly arranged, insanitary houses, and if we accepted this Amendment our object would be put back.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am not at all satisfied with the reply given by the noble Lord. It does seem absurd to pull down small houses which can house small families properly. It is perfectly ridiculous to say that every family in a rural area is a large one. As I have said, I am quite certain that the proper thing to do is to put the bigger families in the bigger houses and the smaller families into smaller houses which are quite big enough for them. There are quite a lot of rules and regulations to ensure that they are good and sanitary houses. It is only waste of public money to pull down these houses, and it is bad luck for small families, when the household consists perhaps of only husband and wife and no children, that houses which would suit them are to be pulled down. I must ask your Lordships to divide upon this Amendment.
On Question, Whether sub-paragraph (i) shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 12.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Denman, L.

Stanhope, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Strafford, E.

Greville, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Mersey, V.

Newton, L.

Northumberland, D.

Playfair, L.

Alness, L.

Polwarth, L.

Bath, M.

Alvingham, L.

Rennell, L.

Bayford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Breadalbane and Holland, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Munster, E. [Teller.]

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Morton, E.

Lamington, L.[Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Sandys, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rothes, E.

Lindsay, E.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.) [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amend-merit disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Redevelopment plan]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: All the Amendments to this clause are purely drafting and consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 38, leave out from ("indicating") to the end of the subsection and insert ("the manner in which it is intended that the defined area should be laid out and the land therein used, whether for existing purposes or for purposes requiring the carrying out of redevelopment thereon and in particular the land intended to be used for the provision of houses for the working classes, for the erection of shops, for streets, and for open spaces")
Page 10, line 18, leave out ("to the redevelopment indicated by the plan")
Page 11, line 10, after ("redeveloped") insert ("or used")
Page 11, line 20, after the first ("redevelopment") insert ("or use")
Page 11, line 21, after ("redevelopment") insert ("or use").—(Lord. Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Purchase of land for the purposes of redevelopment.
(2) It, shall be the duty of the local authority within the appropriate period specified in this subsection either to enter into agreements with the approval of the Department for the purchase, or to make and submit to the Department orders for the compulsory purchase, of all land in the redevelopment area other than land in respect of which the local authority have within that period made arrangements with other persons for the carrying out of redevelopment in accordance with the redevelopment plan.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (2), after the second "redevelopment," to insert "or for securing the use of the land." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is practically consequential. The subsection as drafted enables the local authority, instead of acquiring a piece of land in a redevelopment area, to arrange with other persons to carry out the proper redevelopment. The Amendment extends this provision to cover the case where redevelopment is not required and all
654
that is necessary is to secure that the existing use of the land continues unchanged.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 9, after ("redevelopment") insert ("or for securing the use of the land").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 42, after ("redeveloped") insert ("or used").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
"(6) When the Department's approval of a redevelopment plan has become operative and the plan comprises any land of the local authority, the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to that land as if it had been land in the redevelopment area purchased by the authority under this section."
The noble Lord said: The powers of a local authority to deal with property in a redevelopment; area are expressly related to land in the area purchased by the authority, by Clause 15 (4) and Clause 16 (3). There will often be cases where a redevelopment area contains property already belonging to a local authority, and, unless the authority have the same powers—for instance, of closing streets and removing pipes, cables and so on—in relation to the land already belonging to them as they have in relation to the land they purchase, they would be hampered in carrying out the redevelopment. This Amendment therefore puts all the land in the redevelopment area belonging to the local authority, whether by purchase under the Act or by previous acquisition, on the same footing.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 43, at end insert the said s bsection.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Application of certain provisions of the Acts of 1925 and 1930 for purposes of redevelopment provisions]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to insert at the beginning of the clause:

655
"(1) The provisions of Section thirty-two of the Act of 1925 (which relates to expenses incurred in connection with certain orders) shall have effect in relation to a redevelopment plan and to a new plan and to the Department's approval of any such plan and in relation to a compulsory purchase order made under the last foregoing section, as they have effect in relation to the orders mentioned in the said section."
The noble Lord said: Section 32 of the Act of 1925 enables the Department to award expenses to objectors who have appeared at public local inquiries in connection with clearance orders and compulsory purchase orders and whose objections have later been sustained by the decision of the Department on the order. It is desirable that the Department shall have a similar power to award expenses in the case of a person who successfully objects against a local authority's proposals in regard to redevelopment, and this Amendment gives the Department that power.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 1, at the beginning insert the said subsection.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: These are two drafting Amendments.:
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 23, after ("mentioned") insert ("and to publication of notice thereof under that Act")
line 27, at end insert ("and to publication of notice thereof under this Act").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Scottish Housing Advisory Committee.
22.—(1) The Department shall appoint a Committee, to be called the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, for the purpose of—
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"(d) considering the operation of the enactments relating to housing and making to the Department such representations with respect to matters of general concern arising in connection with the execution of those enactments as the Committee think desirable."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It is designed to give the Advisory Committee some initiative. As the Bill is drawn, I am advised that the Committee can only deal with matters referred to them and cannot exert any initiative in enquiring into conditions other than those referred to them. Therefore, if the Committee are to have any real use in looking into questions of housing in Scotland and also advising the Department on the various points that come along in relation to this Bill, it is necessary to have this Amendment included.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, lima 11, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The appointment of advisory committees is a familiar feature of modern legislation, and in fact much use has been made of these committees by the Government in Scotland. The functions of the Advisory Committee have hitherto been limited to the giving of advice on matters Which are specifically referred to them for consideration. The Amendment, which seeks to give the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee to be set up under the Bill the power to initiate recommendations, therefore raises an entirely new principle. After careful consideration, however, the Government are prepared to accept the principle, but they would like to have an opportunity of considering the exact wording of the Amendment. If, therefore, the noble Lord will withdraw it, the Government will undertake to put down another Amendment for consideration at the Report stage which will embody the proposal that he has in mind in a more convenient form.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: I thank the noble Lord for his consideration, and under the conditions which he has mentioned, I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I beg to move the next Amendment on behalf of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. I think his object is explained by the words in print.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 11, at end insert:
("(d) reporting to the Department as to the effect of this Act on the housing of rural workers who occupy houses as part of their remuneration").—(Viscount Mersey.)
LORD POLWARTH: I hope the Govern-merit may see their way to treat this Amendment in the same way as the preceding one. If so, it will be quite unnecessary to say anything in support of it. It is pretty well admitted that the position of the rural workers occupying their houses as part of their wages is exceptional and that it is not provided for in the Bill.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The Government appreciate the object of this Amendment and the anxiety of those noble Lords who support it to secure that the very difficult problem of dealing with the tied houses under this Bill will be adequately provided for. This matter was raised on a similar Amendment moved in another place. The Government could not accept that Amendment having in view that it was already covered by the general terms of paragraph (c) of the subsection which enables the Department of Health to refer to the Advisory Committee any question whatsoever arising in connection with the administration of the Housing Acts. What the Government did do, however, was to go even farther than is now proposed, and amend the Bill to provide for the appointment of a special Sub-Committee which would deal with the rural housing problem in all its aspects. This provision is to be found in subsection (2) of the clause. With this explanation, and with the assurance that it is definitely the Government's intention to seek the advice of the Committee at an early date with regard to the further steps which should be taken in connection with rural housing, including the housing of farm servants and others living in tied houses, the noble Marquess will probably see his way not to press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Definition of housing association]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to leave out "For the
658
purposes of the three next succeeding sections of this Act the expression 'housing association' means" and insert "For references in the Act of 1925 and in the Act of 1930 to a public utility society shall be substituted references to 'housing association,' that is to say."
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 21, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("any") in line 23, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Power of local authorities to make arrangements with housing associations]:
LORD HUTCHI SON OF MONTROSE LORD HUTCHI SON OF MONTROSE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"(5) If a housing association represent to the Department that they have submitted to the local authority proposals for arrangements under this section and that the local authority have unreasonably refused to make arrangements in accordance with the proposals, the Department may require the authority to furnish them with a report as to the matter stating the reasons for their refusal."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is a simple Amendment. It deals with the question of a housing association which has been unfairly met by the local authority when it asks to make certain arrangements. The Amendment allows the association to appeal to the Department for adjudication on the matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 43, at end, insert the said subsection (5).—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The Government accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after Clause 26, to insert the following new clause:
"Unification of conditions affecting housing associations' houses.
27. Where the Department have undertaken to make in respect of any houses under the management of a housing association contributions under more than one enactment and the association are required

659
to observe in the management of the houses varying special conditions or terms imposed by those enactments, the Department may, on the application of the association and after consultation with any local authority who are under obligation to make grants or contributions in respect of any of the houses, make a scheme specifying, as conditions to be observed in the management of all the houses in substitution for the conditions or terms imposed as aforesaid, such conditions as they think fit, and in specifying the conditions to be so observed the Department shall have regard to the provisions of Part IV of this Act with respect to the conditions which a local authority are required to observe in relation to their houses."
The noble Lord said: This new clause will enable housing associations to obtain the advantages of consolidation of subsidies and unification of rent conditions, which the Bill confers on local authorities. The consolidation and unification are not compulsory, as in the case of local authorities, but are to be effected by a scheme made by the Department on the application of the association, and after consultation with any local authority making contributions to the association. In framing the scheme, the conditions which attach to the unification of local authorities accounts will be applied to the association as far as feasible. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Amendments of the Act of 1925, as to public utility societies, etc.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The first Amendment to this clause is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 5, leave out from ("association") to the end of the subsection.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 23, leave out from ("persons") to the end of line 26, and insert: ("the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2):
('(2A) An advance for any of the purposes specified in subsection (1) of this section shall be secured with interest thereon by a heritable security over the land
660
and dwelling-houses in respect of which that purpose is to be carried out and of such other land and dwelling-houses (being houses which have been constructed or made suitable for the working classes by the company, society, association or person receiving the advance) if any as may be offered as security for the advance.')
(5) In the said Section seventy-three the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (5):—")—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My other Amendment is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 42, leave out ("a heritable security over any land or dwelling-houses") and insert ("such a heritable security as is mentioned in subsection (2A) of this section").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Review of Exchequer contributions in case of new houses provided at future times]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 35, leave out ("alterations") and insert ("alteration").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33:
Amendments of 16 & 17 Geo. 5 c. 56. 21 & 22 Geo. 5c. 22.
33.—(1) Subsection (2) of Section two of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926 (which relates to the power of local authorities to make grants or loans under the said Act), as amended by the Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment Act, 1931, shall have effect as if the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, were therein substituted for the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, and Section four of the said Act (which relates to Government contributions to expenses of local authorities under the said Act) shall have effect accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight" and insert "the first day of October, nineteen hundred and forty."
The noble Marquess said: I propose by

661
this Amendment that the duration of the Act of 1926, the Rural Workers Act, shall be extended from June 24, 1938, to October 1, 1940. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill told us last week that the appointed day is a very long way off and he also told us that the grants are being continued for an extended period up to June, 1938. It does not sound a very long extension, especially if the appointed day is not going to be for a long time, and it seems to me a great pity that the advantages of the 1926 Act should not be continued during the whole time before the appointed day arrives. I rather gather also that June 24, 1938, is not quite consistent with the statement of the noble Lord that the appointed day is a very long way off. I therefore suggest that we should get the advantages of the Rural Workers Act of 1926 up to October 1, 1940, which practically gives us five years from what will be the passing of this measure.
I do not like the suggested date, Jane 24, 1938, which has no sense at all in Scotland in relation to building operations in Scotland. Obviously October 1 is a far more satisfactory date for completing buildings in the course of construction, in time for the term day. My main point is that the period during which the 1926 Act enables authorities to help the improvement of existing houses shall be extended at any rate as late as the appointed day, and as the appointed day cannot be very soon I suggest 1940 instead of 1938. I am aware that this involves more expenditure by the Government, but. I venture to think that if the principle is accepted in this House the Government would have no difficulty in moving consequential Amendments in another place.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 20, leave out ("the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight" and insert ("the first day of October, nineteen hundred and forty ").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. As the noble Marquess has just stated, the grants under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act were instituted in 1926, their operation was continued in 1931, and the Bill as it stands proposes a further extension till June, 1938. Undoubtedly, as noble Lords would all agree, the grants have been of the utmost
662
benefit for the improvement of rural housing, but the Government could not at this stage undertake to continue their operation until a date so far ahead as October 1, 1940. Perhaps I may remind the noble Marquess that the whole question of the revision of subsidies under this Bill is to come up for review in any case in 1938, and in that year the position will be reviewed in respect of subsidies payable for slum clearance and decrowding as well also as for the improvement of rural housing. The noble Marquess will, I hope, agree that, having regard to the proposals for the consolidation of subsidies under the Bill, any review should extend to the whole field of housing finance, which should be dealt with as a whole at the same time. The Government have made no financial provision for this proposal, and a new Financial Resolution would be necessary for this purpose. In these circumstances, I hope the noble Marquess will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I thank the noble Lord for his sympathetic reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:
"(In paragraph (e) of Section eight of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, there shall be substituted for sub-paragraphs (ii), (iii) and (iv) the following:—

(ii) If at any time within the period during which conditions apply by virtue of this Act in relation to the dwelling, compensation becomes payable by the landlord to the landholder under the said Small Landholders Acts in respect of permanent improvements including the dwelling, such compensation shall on the application either of the landholder or of the landlord or of the local authority be assessed by the Land Court;

(iii) In assessing such compensation the Land Court shall fix the proportion thereof, if any, which is in their opinion attributable to the grant, and the proportion so fixed shall not be payable to the landholder, but shall (a) if the holding is let to a new landholder be treated as a grant to such new landholder, or (b) if the holding is to be held otherwise than by a new landholder be treated as a grant to the landlord.

Provided that—

(a) If the holding is let to a new landholder who has not paid the compensation payable by the landlord to the outgoing landholder the new landholder shall be

663
entitled notwithstanding the rent agreed between the landlord and him, and notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) of Section six of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, and subsection (6) of Section seven of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, as amended by the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, to apply to the Land Court to fix the rent payable for the holding and the Land Court in fixing such rent shall not during the period during which conditions apply by virtue of this Act in relation to the dwelling allow any rent in respect of such proportion of the compensation as is attributable to the grant; or

(b) If, and so long as, the holding shall be held otherwise than by a new landholder, the dwelling shall be subject to the conditions prescribed by Section three of this Act."

The noble Marquess said: I think this is an important Amendment. Clause 33 seeks to amend in certain regards the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, as amended by the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1931. That Act relates, among other matters, to the power of local authorities to make grants or loans to owners of a certain class of dwelling houses in order to permit the improvement of the house on account of which grants are made. Under paragraph (d) of Section 8 of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, when the occupier of the dwelling is a statutory landholder it is for such landholder, and not the landlord, to apply for a grant from the local authority, and for all other purposes in question the landholder or his statutory successor, and not the landlord, is deemed to be the holder of the dwelling. "Statutory successor" means any person who has succeeded, or may succeed, to a holding as heir-at-law or legatee to the landholder.
The matter to which this Amendment is directed arises only when the person to whom a grant is made by the local authority is a landholder. Even then, so long as the original landholder to whom the grant was made or his statutory successor remains in occupation of the holding, no difficulty arises, but when the landholder or his statutory successor renounces the holding, then the question may arise of compensation by the landlord to the landholder on account of permanent improvements effected during his occupation. But, a part of such improvement having been paid for by the grant made by the local authority to the outgoing landholder, plainly such outgoing
664
landholder is not entitled to claim compensation from the landlord for that part of the improvement for which he, the landholder, has paid nothing.
As the matter now stands, and as it will remain if this Bill as at present drafted becomes law, the position is governed by Section 8 (e) of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. That Act provides that where a landholder or his statutory successor renounces his holding, and compensation to the landholder falls to be paid by the landlord, the amount of such compensation shall be fixed by the Land Court, which has also to determine the proportion of the compensation attributable to the grant. The Act further provides that the landlord is not to pay such proportion to the landholder, but then, surprisingly enough, the Act goes on to say that where the local authority demands it, that grant shall be paid forthwith by the landlord to the local authority. Those of your Lordships who may be unfamiliar with the matter will now see what may occur, and is in fact already occurring, and will understand the grave injustice that is being done and will continue to be done in increasing degree unless Clause 33 of this Bill is amended.
Without reference to the landlord, and often enough without even his knowledge, the landholder in occupation goes to the local authority, submits his proposal, obtains a grant and carries out the improvement. In course of time the landholder renounces his holding and the landlord finds himself mulcted in the extent of the grant, given not to him but to the landholder, which the landlord is forced to pay back to the local authority. That kind of thing is going on to-day, and, having regard to the large number of grants made to landholders, it will be realised that landlords find themselves confronted by very heavy contingent liabilities which, if they mature, may inflict severe financial straits upon those who have done nothing to deserve them. By this Amendment I am not seeking to make a present to the landlord of the values represented by the work paid for by the grant. What I propose is, in effect, that the grant, or rather the improvement by which the grant is represented, shall continue to be enjoyed by the person for whose benefit Parliament and the local authority

665
authorise the making of it—namely, the occupier of the dwelling. In other words, it is almost true to say that I am suggesting that the grant should be given, not to any landholder or other person, but as it were to the house itself—that it should be attached to the house.
Let me summarise quite briefly the contingencies which may arise if this Amendment is accepted, and the manner in which they would be met. First of all, if a new landholder can be found to take over and pay for the outgoing landholder's improvement, he will pay for the loan a proportion attributable to the grant, that is to say he will get the benefit of the grant in the same way as if the grant had been made to him. Or again, if the landlord is unable to find a new tenant to take over and pay for the improvement and has, as a consequence, to let the holding as an equipped holding, then the landlord will pay for the improvement, under deduction of the proportion attributable to the grant, and the new tenant can immediately demand to have the rent fixed by the Land Court who, in fixing the rent, are to disregard any improvement attributable to the grant. In this way again, the new tenant will get the full benefit of the grant. Again, if the landlord cannot let the holding under the Small Landholders Acts then the position is this. He will have to pay the outgoing tenant for his improvement, under deduction of the proportion applicable to the grant, and the grant will be regarded as having been given to the landlord, and the house, if let, will be a controlled house under the previous Housing (Rural Workers) Act.
There remains one further contingency which, although I do not think it likely in practice to arise, is one with which I think I ought to deal. What will be the position if the landlord himself takes over the holding? Under such circumstances it will appear there are but two ways in which the croft could be farmed. Either the landlord will live in the dwelling-house himself and farm the croft, or he will put into the dwelling-house a, servant who will farm the croft for him. If the landlord occupies the croft, and if he is not in the financial position of an agricultural worker, then under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act he would require to repay the loan, so the position there is secure. If, on the other hand, the landlord puts in a servant to farm the
666
croft, such servant would certainly be, one would imagine, of the agricultural class, and therefore a perfectly suitable occupant for a house in respect of which a grant has been made.
If the Bill, as drafted, becomes law, two things will, I submit, happen, neither of which ought to happen. The first is that in certain cases grants that have been properly and lawfully given will, for no sufficient reason, be withdrawn, and to that extent the declared policy of Parliament will be stultified. The second is that a real and substantial injustice will be done. I have in this Amendment suggested what I consider is a reasonable and practicable manner of removing that injustice. I hope very much that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will be able to say he can meet me by accepting this Amendment, or by making some suggestion perhaps at a later stage of the Bill to deal with a situation which I am perfectly certain is not at this moment in this Bill in a condition at all satisfactory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 23, insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
THE EARL OF BREADALBANE AND HOLLAND: I should like to support what the noble Marquess has so ably said. This is a very important Amendment, particularly to the North of Scotland, and unfortunately certain noble Lords who intended to speak in support of it have not been able to get here. As the noble Marquess said, the gist of the Amendment is that the grant should be attached to the holding and not to the man who happens to be there for the moment. If this Amendment is not accepted it will throw a very heavy and very illogical liability on the proprietor, because at any moment the landholder may give up his holding after statutory notice and, as things stand at present, the Land Court may call on the proprietor to refund to the local authority the grant that has been made, but in the genesis of which he had no say and in the details of which he was not necessarily consulted. I hope very much that noble Lords will support this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I should like to add my support to this Amendment.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The speech delivered by the noble Marquess in moving this Amendment will have revealed to your Lordships the extraordinarily complicated state of affairs which exists regarding this question in Scotland. I cannot, I am afraid, accept the Amendment as it stands, for various reasons into which I need not enter because I want straight away to assure my noble friend, first of all, that the Government are grateful to him for moving this Amendment and for drawing attention to this anomaly. As he stated at the end of his speech, it is quite obvious that something has got to be done to remedy this state of affairs. The Government recognise that the application of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts in relation to the cases of small-holders requires revision, but they feel that the Amendment of the noble Marquess would leave the position still unsatisfactory in that the conditions imposed under Section 3 of the Act of 1926 cannot possibly be applied in these cases. This is equally true in the case of all cottages where no rent is paid by the occupier, as, for example, farm servants' cottages.
The Government, however, intend to take the earliest opportunity of making the necessary Amendments in the law for the purpose of clearing up the whole position and putting the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, so far as these matters are concerned, on a proper footing. In the meantime they do not anticipate that very real hardship will result to landowners, since the cases involving the return of grants under the Acts to local authorities and the Exchequer are few in number and the sums at issue are small. With this assurance that the Government realise the urgency of this problem, I very much hope that the noble Marquess will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I am most grateful to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for his reply. I should like to say this in parentheses, that I am not attracted by the excuse that the injustice is likely to be confined to a few cases and the sum involved is small. I greatly hope that the Government will see their way to expedite the legislation required to correct this matter, and I hope they will carefully consider the practicability of making
668
such provision retrospective in order to ensure that the injustice already done, or which may be done between now and the time the legislation becomes effective, will be remedied. With these words, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:
"() Where assistance has been given by a local authority under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931, and the local authority are satisfied that the dwelling-house is maintained in an adequate state of repair no further works shall be required to be executed by the owner during the remainder of the period during which the conditions laid down in Section three of the said Act of 1926 apply to that dwelling-house."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is very similar to the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Polwarth on Clause 1, but it is considerably wider in scope. That Amendment affected only tied farm cottages. This Amendment applies to everyone who has taken advantage of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. These Acts have been, as was pointed out on the Second Reading, of immense benefit to Scotland, more especially in the Lowlands and the Central Highlands. Under these Acts, owners and owner-occupiers can receive from the local authority grants or loans or grants and loans in order that they should recondition their cottages if the cottage does not exceed a value of £400. For these privileges these houses are "thirl," as we say in Scotland, to the local authority for twenty years. The local authority can fix the rent, if rent is payable, and they can decide the class of occupant, who must be a rural worker or a worker in similar circumstances; and it has been held that that definition, which is a very wide one, includes miners. It will surprise some of your Lordships to know that under these two Acts miners are held to be rural workers.
In any case for twenty years the houses belong practically to the local authority. The local authority have to see that they are kept in good repair. The loans are repayable generally in twenty years by instalments of interest and capital. Surely it is not fair to ask the owners of these cottages, who have spent considerably more on reconditioning their houses than they have received by way of grants and

669
loans, to undertake additional expenditure in providing extra accommodation until the twenty years have elapsed and the houses are coming back to the owner. That, simply stated, is the object of my Amendment, which I hope my noble friend in charge of the Bill will see his way to accept.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 23, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Mar and Kellie.)
THE EARL OF LINDSAY: I should like to add my support to what my noble friend the Earl of Mar and Kellie has said. The Rural Workers Act has been of great benefit in Scotland and has been largely made use of by many of your Lordships, including myself. When we undertook to spend money on our cottages we had no idea that they might at some future date, within twenty years, be interfered with, and that we might be called upon again to spend more money. The noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, sought to extend it for a very short period, namely, to 1940. I think that is all too short; indeed twenty years is quite short enough for the owners of these houses to be free from interference. The whole trouble seems to arise upon the question of the appointed day, which is like the clay of judgment, a very unknown quantity. If only we could get some statement or assurance from the Government as to when that day is likely to come about, it would be of great assistance.
All the criticism that has been made against this measure, your Lordships will have noticed, really hinges on the question of farm labourers' houses and estate cottages. It seems to me it would have been much better—and I make this suggestion—if they could have been excluded from this Bill altogether and have been left to be dealt with under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act of 1926. The work of improvement is going on in Scotland as fast as it can. In my own County of Fife some cottages cannot be repaired and reconditioned because the work has been going on so fast that there is a shortage of labour, and the owners of the houses cannot get on as fast as they would like with the work. One must also remember nowadays that proprietors in Scotland—I dare say it is the same in England—are living in very difficult times. These are very difficult days indeed for farming. With all the
670
expenditure that landowners are called upon to bear and with concurrently reduced rentals, it is very difficult for them to find the money for improvements. I very much hope that the Government will give every consideration to the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend.
LORD POLWARTH: I should also like to support the Amendment which is now under consideration. It has been rightly said that the Housing (Rural Workers) Act has been a very great help in improving the conditions of housing in Scotland, but this is a Bill dealing with overcrowding. I think your Lordships must remember that the grants which have been given were grants from national funds as well as from local rates, and that in almost all cases they have been grants for house; of either two rooms or three rooms. In my own county we began very early, and we have improved some 1,400 houses under the Act and only some 200 remain to be done. We made a stipulation that in the case of a farm to which several houses were attached one half were to be of three rooms and the remaining half might be of two rooms; but, if you consider the standard laid down in this Bill, you will see that many of these houses on which public money has recently been spent with the approval of the Department will inevitably be overcrowded under the standards of the present Bill. I do not say that a larger proportion will be overcrowded than in the urban areas, but a considerable proportion will, under the standard of this Bill, be overcrowded, and somehow or other some of thorn will have to be enlarged.
If the owner has already received a grant under the Rural Workers Act he cannot, as the law now stands, receive another grant, while the counties and the owners who have not yet acted may possibly receive grants enabling them to increase the number of rooms in a house. The cost bas been so heavy that in most cases the owners have not been able to provide additional rooms beyond three or, in some cases, four. But immense improvements have been made, for in most cases not only have additional rooms been provided and the condition of the rooms improved, but a bathroom and water closet have generally been added

671
and water introduced into the house, so that in all respects these houses are up to the level of or even better than many that can be obtained in the cities. The rural workers, and their wives particularly, have abundantly testified to the improvements which they now enjoy.
I support this Amendment because I do not think that as it stands it would preclude assistance from being given for further improvements to the houses that have already been improved. It says that the owner is not to be called upon to execute further works, but no doubt if, by future legislation, additional grants can be given for the provision of additional rooms, I do not think this Amendment would bar that from being done. If it did I should like words to be added to prevent it being a bar. Unless an additional grant is forthcoming for the purpose, I do not see any way in which this problem of increasing the accommodation in these rural houses can be solved. It can only be solved, in my opinion, by giving some additional grant enabling the owners to make the additions. Owners have spent in almost every case much more than they have received by way of assistance, and to ask them to spend another £100 or so in adding to these houses would, I think, be unreasonable. I hope sympathetic consideration will be given to this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to add one word to what we have heard on this question. I can perhaps better than anyone give your Lordships the origin of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. I know a village, a relic of the time of Charles II, in Scotland, which was very beautiful but perfectly impossible from a sanitary and habitable point of view. A lady Member of another House spent every penny she got of her payment as a Member of Parliament in trying to improve the houses in that village, especially in bringing sanitation to houses which had no sanitation at all. She was so successful in what she had done that a very prominent member of the Government some years ago—and he is still in the Government—came to look at the village and, as a result, I believe what eventually became the Rural Workers Act was born.
This village had had no sanitation. The rooms were of all shapes and sizes, without sculleries or sanitary arrange
672
ments of any sort. By degrees, not only were they made habitable, but the people living in them were delighted with their rooms. It surely is wrong for the Government to encourage people to do things of that kind and then let them down immediately afterwards, an excuse for which my noble friend in charge of the Bill will have to find in a moment. It does seem rather hard when we have done this, and have been told how wonderfully good it is, that we should then be told a little later that there is overcrowding and that the people are living in pigsties when we have made really nice houses for them. They are houses which are not really overcrowded. We may perhaps be told that there is no need to fuss about it because it does not really mean anything, and that it will not be brought into force; but if that is the case why bother to put it in?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I can say with complete honesty that like those noble Lords who have supported this Amendment I fully appreciate the value of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, and I have also some conception of the difficulties under which landlords in Scotland are carrying on. I wish, however, to assure the noble Earl that it is impracticable to give the degree of immunity suggested by the Amendment, without regard to the standard of habitability to be achieved by the reconstruction, the extent of the repairs effected, and the period during which they are likely to remain effective. A grant may be obtained under the Act if the total cost of the works, shared by the State, the local authority and the owner, is not less than £50. But an expenditure of this small amount might well not be sufficient to put a house into such a condition as to warrant immunity from further works for so long a period as twenty years. Preferential treatment of rural areas in this matter is the less justifiable for the reason that rural owners have already the advantage of being able to obtain grants for reconditioning which is not open to owners in urban areas. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE: I am sorry that the noble Lord's answer is so unsatisfactory. He has not even offered to make a concession. If he had offered a concession of some period less than

673
twenty years we might have felt inclined to accept it, but as it is I think we had better go to a Division.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved to insert after subsection (4) the following new subsection:
"(Assistance may be given under and subject to the conditions of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931, for the erection of houses or buildings to replace those which in the opinion of the local authority are injurious or dangerous to health by reason of their situation or unsuitable for reconditioning."
The noble Marquess said: In the absence of the two noble Earls who put down this Amendment I beg leave to move it. Under the Amendment it is proposed that grants should be made available for the replacement of existing houses by new houses where the former are so situated as to be injurious or dangerous to health or unsuitable for reconditioning. Representations have been made by many people for a sounder policy where houses are badly situated or badly constructed. The policy, they say, should be to build new houses rather than tinker with old ones. These old cottages are often very badly placed, in a damp hollow or too close to a byre. In the old days they were erected as a shelter from the weather near other houses, which would not be considered desirable to-day.
It does seem right, however, that in order to enable good houses to be put in good positions when existing houses are
On Question, Whether the proposed new subsection shall be there inserted
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Morton, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Rothes, E.

Lamington, L.

Breadalbane and Holland, E.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Polwarth, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Rankeillour, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

St. Levan, L.

Lindsay, E. [Teller.]

Exmouth, V.

Stonehaven, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Bayford, L.

Lytton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwillilam.

Vane, E. (M Londonderry.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Munster, E.

Peel, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Plymouth, E.

Greville, L.

Northumberland, D.

Stanhope, E.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Newton, L.

Bath, M.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Playfair, L.

Salisbury, M.

Halifax, V.

Rennell, L.

Seaton, L.

Feversham, E.

Alness, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal. L

Iddesleigh, E.

Alvingham, L.

Templemore, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

declared to be unfit or in an undesirable position, there should be an opportunity for the owner, with the help of the local authority and the Exchequer, to replace them by houses in a desirable position and, of course, up-to-date in other respects. That is all that this Amendment asks for, and I suggest that if under the Act you require unfit houses which are necessary for the rural workers to be demolished or rendered uninhabitable by being closed or cleared, then it is only reasonable to give opportunity for those rural workers to be put into houses in places where their work is. In other words, their bad houses should be replaced by new houses with the same assistance as that which is given when you improve a house which is in a satisfactory position and surroundings and which by its position can be made better still. When you have a house which is not able to be made fit, then surely, in order to keep your rural workers on the land, you should encourage the building of new houses in place of those which are declared unfit under this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 23, insert the said subsection.—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD POLWARTH: I should like to support this Amendment in a few words.

675
Until the Act of 1930, or 1931, it was competent for local authorities to give a grant for the construction of new houses below a certain rent, and it was our practice to give grants of £100 towards a new house. That proved a very useful feature indeed in providing houses rather than reconditioning where they were too bad to make it worth while. It was really better sometimes for an owner of a house which was condemned by the sanitary authority to build a new house altogether at a cost of perhaps £300, of which he got £100 from the public funds, rather than to recondition the house at a total cost of perhaps £320 of which he had to spend over £200. Even if it was less, it was better economy for him to spend £200 on a new or good house rather than spend £150 on his own behalf and get the other £100 from the local authority. That power was taken away, and was a very great loss. I saw a case in the country where an owner was given a grant of £100 under the Rural Workers Act to recondition a house, but when he set to work on the repairs the walls turned out to be so rotten that they fell down completely, and he got this grant practically towards a new house, as only the foundations of the old one remained. That is not what the Act contemplates, and I think it would be a very real power if this grant could be given towards a new house instead of a grant, as under the Act, for reconditioning.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The conditions which this Amendment seeks to remedy are known to us all, and the Government are quite aware of those difficulties, but I am afraid, for reasons which I will state, that I cannot accept this Amendment. First of all, the Government have made no financial provisions for the proposal contained in this Amendment, and a new Financial Resolution would be necessary for the purpose. This course was taken deliberately in view of the policy adopted by the Government so recently as in 1933, when an Act was passed to terminate the payment of grants to private owners for the erection of new houses for the working classes. The Government are, therefore, unable to accept the Amendment, which would involve a reversal of that policy. They quite recognise, however, that in asking county councils to erect houses for farm
676
workers who, under existing agricultural arrangements, live on the farms and are given the occupancy of houses as part of their remuneration, raises a difficult question. Admittedly to build such houses off the farms may frequently not be very practicable, and it remains to be seen whether, when these special circumstances arise, the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts in their present form will meet the need.
In view of the difficulties which are involved the Government propose, immediately after the passing of the Bill, to refer the whole question of rural housing to the new Rural Sub-Commitee of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, who will be asked to consider the matter and make recommendations for the solution of these difficulties, though the solution may not necessarily involve a reversal of the policy which has been so salutary in the development of private building through the cessation of grants to private enterprise. In view of this assurance I hope that the movers will not press the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I do not think that is at all a satisfactory answer. Under the existing Rural Workers Act you can get up to £100 if you put down £100. Surely you are only allowed to use that in renovating the house. The noble Lord said that it would cost a lot more money to the country. Why should that be? If a proprietor is prepared to put down £200 or £300, why should he not get up to £100? It means exactly the same to the country, and I cannot see where the excuse comes in. It is rather a pity that the noble Lord was not able to accept the Amendment. As he talked about workers who sometimes did not live on their farms, I should like to point out that, unlike the position in England, there are no villages where the ploughmen live; the men have to live near their horses. That is the great difficulty that comes in here. But I do not Appreciate why, if a proprietor is stupid enough in the financial sense, or goodhearted enough, to wish to rebuild the whole house at his own expense, he should not receive the whole sum which he would have got under the new Housing Bill—though it is pretty inadequate—for reconditioning it.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I am rather disappointed with

677
the noble Lord's reply, but I understand that he is prepared to give an assurance that this matter will be referred to the Rural Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee which is going to be set up. If he could assure us that this Committee will be set up before the end of this year, and if he will also say that the Government will give very serious attention to basing legislation on the advice of the said Advisory Committee, we should feel rather more happy; but we should like to be a little more certain before we definitely give up all rights to contesting this Amendment. I admit of course that it is a privileged Amendment, and if the Government were sympathetic I should have no hesitation in asking leave to withdraw it.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Perhaps I may repeat the assurance that I gave just now, that the Government propose immediately after the passing of this Bill to refer this matter to the Scottish Rural Housing Advisory Committee, and as soon as the Bill is through the work will be taken up.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
Credits and debits in Housing Revenue Account.
39.—(1) In the financial year beginning on the sixteenth clay of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and in each subsequent financial year a local authority who are required by virtue of the last foregoing section to keep a Housing Revenue Account shall carry to the credit of the account amounts equal to—
and shall debit to the account amounts equal to—
(i) the loan charges for that year in respect of monies borrowed by the authority for the purpose of the provision by them after the twelfth day of February, nineteen hundred and nineteen, of having accommodation for the working classes under Part III of the Act of 1925, or under any enactment relating to the provision of housing accommodation for the working classes repealed by that Act, or for the purpose of the execution of works in respect of which the Department have undertaken to make a contribution under Section thirty-four of this Act;
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, at the beginning of para-
678
graph (i) in subsection (1), after "the loan charges," to insert "which the local authority are liable to pay." The noble Lord aid: This Amendment should be read together with those which follow. Their object is to cover the case where there has been a transfer of houses from one local authority to another, consequent, for example, on an alteration of boundaries. The local authority now owning the houses may not be the authority which originally borrowed the money, but the liability to pay the loan charges will have been transferred with the houses.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 10, after ("charges") insert ("which the local authority are liable to pay").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 32, line 11, leave out the first ("the") and insert ("a local")
Page 33, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert ("borrowed moneys in respect of which the authority are required to debit loan charges to the Housing Revenue Account").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 30, leave out ("the Housing Revenue") and insert ("that").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Housing Repairs Account]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 30, leave out ("Except as in this section provided") and insert ("Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act"). (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 42 to 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Conditions an sale of local authorities' houses]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 12, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, after Clause 48, to insert the following new clause:
". For the purposes of any enactment relating to valuation or rating the gross annual value of any dwelling house in respect of which a contribution out of monies provided by Parliament is payable under the Housing Acts, 1925 to 1935, shall not exceed the rent (exclusive of occupier's rates) under deduction of rebates charged in respect of that house."
The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment is perhaps a little complicated. It is to clear up any doubts which may arise as to entry in the valuation roll of houses provided under this Bill. This Amendment refers to subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 46. Subsection (5) states that in fixing the rents the authority shall take into consideration the rents ordinarily payable by persons of the working classes in the locality, but may grant to any tenant rebates from rent, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, with a view to ensuring that rebates are granted only in such cases and of such amounts as may be necessary having regard to the financial circumstances of the tenant; and subsection (6) provides that the authority shall from time to time review rents and make such changes either of rents generally or of particular rents and rebates as circumstances may require.
At first sight it may seem that this is a matter of comparatively little importance or interest, but I am assured, after making careful inquiry, by those in my county who are responsible for the financial working of the Housing Acts, that it is really a matter of very considerable importance. We have to consider with regard to new houses the rent ordinarily payable by persons of the working classes in the locality. I have had that examined, and I found that the rents ordinarily payable may be taken as, say, £16 for a three-room house and £20 for a four-room house. We have
680
found already under the 1930 Act, when moving people out of slum dwellings, that while many of the dwellers are comparatively well off, others are so poor that we have had to let houses at a very great reduction in rent. Quite a number have been let at £8 to £10 per annum, whereas the rent which we have to fix under this Bill would be £16 for a three-room house and we are required in future to give rebates according to the means of the people.
Under the 1930 Act, we fix our rents by imposing a means test, reckoning the number of persons in the family, and we have reduced rents down to about £8 and £10. The occupier's rates vary from 4s. 6d. to 7s. in the pound, including water rate. For the purpose of calculation, let us say 5s. in the pound, and I think I shall best make my point if I endeavour to give a concrete case. I thought myself at first that the rent to be entered in the valuation roll would have to be the standard fixed rent. In Scotland the valuation roll is made up every year at the end of May, and therefore there is no difficulty in changing the entry in that roll according to the actual letting of the house. I would further remind your Lordships that the Act of 1930 provided that the actual rental is to be the rental entered and I would like to see that precedent kept up now.
The Government will perhaps say that the rent to be entered shall be the standard rent and that the tenant is to be given a large rebate to enable him to meet the rent. I would point out this. Supposing the rent is £16, and a man can only pay £10, and the rates are 5s. in the pound, you will find that the rent will have to be brought down to about £6, because 5s. in the pound on £16 makes £4. Therefore you will have to make the rent £6, because the tenant can only pay £10 in all, and I am sure you would never in Scotland be able to collect rates based on what for the tenant is a fictitious rent. If, by reason of the size of his family, we have to give him a four-room house, to prevent overcrowding, the absurdity of the thing became even more apparent, because on a similar calculation if you give a four-roomed house and you have to take off 5s. in the pound on £20, you would have to let him a four-room house at £5 a year. I think it will be far better to enter the actual rent at which we let the house, after reduction by rebate.
I fancy that in practice we do not change the rent more than once a year. Circumstances may vary a little, and even if we had to give a little smaller or a little larger rebate there would be no great hardship. The man or even the local authority may get a small benefit, but it is not practicable to be always changing the rent according to circumstances. For instance, a man may come and say that his daughter, a servant girl, has come home and is living with him, that she is another person in the house, and that his rent must be reduced. He does not tell them when the daughter goes away again and say, "I ought to pay more rent again." It is impossible to work changes on such a footing as that and we must base a really workable system upon an annual rent fixed in accordance with the means of the person concerned. Otherwise it will be impossible to work your budget in a county like mine. Your valuation will be largely fictitious; you will have hundreds of houses entered in a valuation roll at £20 or £15 and you will be getting a much smaller rent. It will put a burden on the Housing Act which will make it altogether bankrupt.
I regret to have to move an Amendment on a somewhat complicated matter like this, but I hope the Government will give it serious consideration. I can assure your Lordships that it has been considered very carefully by the officials who have to deal With this matter, and that they strongly feel that the entry in our valuation rolls should be the actual rent paid, not the nominal rent from which a large rebate has been taken off. I do not know what the attitude of the Government is, because it is not explained in the Bill one way or the other.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 48 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Polwarth.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I think my noble friend has apparently overlooked the provisions already in the Bill on this subject. On page 78, at line 6, it is proposed to amend Section 43 of the Act of 1930 to make it read as follows:
"For the purposes of any enactment relating to valuation or rating the gross annual value of any dwelling-house to which the requirements of Section 46 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, apply, shall not exceed the rent (exclusive of occupier's rates) charged in respect of that house."
682
That is to say, the Bill proposes that the rent to be shown in the valuation roll for rating purposes will be the market rent and not the rent as reduced by rebates—contrary to what is proposed by the noble Lord. I think it would be an unworkable arrangement to take the rent as reduced by rebates in individual cases as the basis of rating.
Take, for example, a case where the market rent of a house is fixed by the local authority at £15 and where it is decided to give the tenant a rebate of £5. Under the noble Lord's clause the figure to be entered in the valuation roll for rating purposes would be £10 and this would be the rent upon which the occupier would pry rates for the year to which the valuation roll applies. But in the course of that year the circumstances of the tenant might so change as to induce the local authority either to increase or reduce the rebate or to withdraw it altogether. In these circumstances the figure in the valuation roll would cease to have any relation to the precise amount of the rates which the occupier should pay. Alternatively, the house might be let in the course of the year to another tenant or even to a succession of tenants. If these tenants were able to pay the market rent of £15 it would be the duty of the local authority to charge that rent but, nevertheless, rates would be payable in respect of only the reduced rent of £10 shown in the valuation roll—an anomalous result which, incidentally, would be unfair to the general body of ratepayers who would require to make good the deficit in rates.
The Government feel that it is better to show the market rent in the valuation roll, that is, that the rateable value of the house should be fixed in relation to the house itself, and not in relation to the circumstances of the tenant for the time being. On this basis, taking the same example, the figure which would be entered in the valuation roll would be the market rent of £15, and if the local authority felt that the payment of rates on this figure would impose too heavy a burden on the tenant it would be open to them to increase his rebate by whatever amount might be necessary. Instead of giving him a rebate of £5 as before, they might, for example, give him a rebate of £6 which would provide an additional £1 to meet the extra rates

683
payable on the £15 level, leaving the tenant's net position the same. I think the great merit of this method is that it attaches a definite rateable value to the house which is not disturbed by the accident of changes in tenancy or in the financial circumstances of a particular tenant, while at the same time it provides a flexible means through the rebate system of dealing with these changes as they arise. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD POLWARTH: I quite recognise that it is a very difficult matter, and there are points on both sides.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50:
Exclusion from Part V of premises in clearance or redevelopment area.
50.—(1) The provisions of the last foregoing section of this Act shall not have effect in the case of premises comprised in a clearance order or compulsory purchase order confirmed by the Department under Part I of the Act of 1930 or in the case of premises comprised in a redevelopment plan approved by them.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (1), after "1930", to insert "or in the case of premises comprised in a demolition order thereunder which has become operative." The noble Lord said: This is not much more than a drafting Amendment. Clause 50 (1) is intended to provide that where the future of property has been definitely settled by action already taken under the Housing Acts, the owner cannot claim to reopen the matter under Clause 49. In enumerating the various forms of action which settle the fate of property, the case of the demolition order was omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 20, after ("1930") insert the said words.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 26, leave out ("such an order or plan") and insert ("a clearance or compulsory purchase order or redevelopment plan").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.
Clause 54:
Application of certain provisions of Acts of 1925 and 1930 to resolutions for demolition under this Part.
54. The following enactments in the Acts of 1925 and 1930 shall, subject to any necessary modifications, have effect in relation to a resolution passed under this Part of this Act and to a building or part of a building to which such a resolution applies, as they have effect in relation to a demolition order under Part II of the Act of 1930 and to a house, building or premises to which such an order applies, as if the references therein to a demolition order included references to a resolution passed under this Part of this Act, that is to say—

(a) Section one hundred and twelve of the Act of 1925 (which excludes the appliation of the Acts relating to rent restriction);

(b) Section twenty of the Act of 1930 (which relates to appeals against orders and the date of coming into operation of orders); and

(c)Section twenty-seven of the Act of 1930 (which relates to the recovery of possession of buildings), except subsection (2) thereof.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to leave out "in the Acts of 1925 and 1930." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the other two Government Amendments on Clause 54 are to be read together. The Act of 1925 contained provisions with regard to obstructive buildings which were repealed in 1930 and are now being reenacted in a modified form in Clauses 51 to 54 of the Bill. Their re-enactment necessitates the application of certain provisions in Sections 23 and 25 of the 1925 Act on the subject of notices, appeals, etc., which were applicable under the previous code relating to obstructive buildings and also of provisions in Section 29 of the Act of 1930 dealing with the power of the Sheriff to determine leases in certain cases. The application of these provisions is effected by the three Amendments on the paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 3, leave out ("in the Acts of 1925 and 1930").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The other Amendments to this clause are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 44, line 12, leave out ("that is to say") and insert ("and the references

685
therein to Part I of the Act of 1925 or to Part II of the Act of 1930 included references to the foregoing provisions of this Part of the Act, that is to say,—

"(a) Section twenty-three of the Act of 1925 (which relates to notices and to applications to the Sheriff in relation to demolitions);

"(b) Section twenty-five of the Act of 1925 (which relates to remedies of owners for breach of contract);")

Page 44, line 21, at end insert ("and (f) Section twenty-nine of the Act of 1930 which relates to the power of the Sheriff to determine leases in certain cases).").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55:
Amendment as to premises in clearance area on ground of bad arrangement, &c., and repeal of provision for reduction of compensation.
55.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in Part I of the Act of 1930, there shall be excluded from a clearance order made thereunder any dwelling-houses or other premises properly included in the clearance area only on the ground that by reason of their bad arrangement, or the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets, they are injurious or dangerous to the health of the inhabitants of the area, and, if a compulsory purchase order is confirmed with respect to any such dwelling-house or other premises the compensation to be paid there for shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II of the Third Schedule to the Act of 1930.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE moved, in subsection (1), after the first "arrangement," to insert "in relation to other buildings." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which I move on behalf of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, affects urban property only. Under the 1930 Housing Act it was possible for a property in itself perfectly sound to be condemned and paid for at site value merely, only because it was unfit for human habitation on account of other obstructive buildings. As a matter of fact, in practice it has always been arranged by administrative effort to pay compensation a market value, and not merely at site value, for these particular properties, and I am informed that the Government, in drawing up this Bill, wanted to bring the law into line with practice in these particular circumstances. It is the old question which is known in Scotland as the "bad neighbour grievance." I think this clause goes
686
too far. "Bad arrangement" in subsection (1) will mostly certainly be interpreted as referring to internal bad arrangement, and not to external bad arrangement. The reason for this Amendment is to avoid making an unnecessary payment to the owner of a really bad slum property and giving him compensation which he does not deserve to get. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 28, after the first ("arrangement") insert ("in relation to other buildings").—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, but I should just like to make it clear that "bad arrangement" in Clause 55 refers only to bad arrangement of the whole house in relation to other buildings on the site. That was the intention of the Government, and there is therefore no objection at all to these words being inserted which make the original intention clear.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after Clause 55, to insert the following new clause:
"Obligation of the Department to state reasons for deciding that a building is unfit for human habitation.
56. Any person who objects to a clearance order on the ground that a building included therein, being a building in which he is interested, is not unfit for human habitation, or who objects on the like ground to a compulsory purchase order made under Part I of the Act of 1930, or under Part I of this Act, and who appears at the public local inquiry in support of his objection, shall, if the building is included in the order as confirmed as being unfit for human habitation, be entitled on making a request in writing to be furnished by the Department with a statement in writing of their reasons for deciding that the building is so unfit."
The noble Lord said: This new clause has been put down to implement an undertaking given by the Secretary of State in another place during the Report stage. The new clause gives to any owner whose property is to be compulsorily demolished, or is to be compulsorily purchased at site value, the right to know the reasons of the condemnation of his property, provided that he appears at the public local inquiry.
Amendement moved—
After Clause 55, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56:
Payments in respect of well-maintained houses.
(2) A payment under this section shall be of an amount equal either—

(a) to the amount by which the aggregate expenditure which is shown to the satisfaction of the local authority to have been incurred in maintaining the house during the five years immediately before the date on which the order was made exceeds an amount equal to the rateable value of the house, or

(b) to one and one-fifth times (or, if the house is occupied by an owner thereof and has been owned and occupied by him or by a member of his family continuously during the three years immediately before the date on which the order is confirmed, two and two-fifth times) the rateable value of the house, whichever is the greater.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The first Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 12, after ("order") insert ("whether").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "if," to insert" at that date." The noble Lord said: Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) determines the amount of the allowance to be made to an owner-occupier in respect of the good maintenance of his house. It is necessary, however, to fix a date by reference to which the fact, or otherwise, of owner-occupier-ship is to be determined. The Amendment has the effect of determining the matter in relation to the date on which the order affecting the house is made, which seems an appropriate date for the purpose.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 33, after ("if") insert ("at that date").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 37, leave out ("the date on which the order is confirmed") and insert ("that date").—(Lord,Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
"Provided that a payment under this section shall not in any case exceed the difference between the full value of the house (that is to say the amount which would have been payable as compensation if it had been purchased compulsorily but not as being unfit for human habitation) and the site value thereof (that is to say the amount which is payable as compensation by virtue of its being purchased compulsorily as being unfit for human habitation? or which would have been so payable if it had been so purchased), and any question as to such value shall be determined, in default of agreement, as if it had been a question of disputed compensation arising on such a purchase."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to prevent the owner of a property which has been condemned getting more than the market value. Under subsection (2) of Clause 56 an owner may recover the moneys expended on the property by way of maintenance for the last five years. That may be, in some of the bad areas, largely in excess of the real market value of the house. For that reason we move this Amendment. I do not press the Amendment very strongly, but I think there is a chance here of the undeserving getting out of the public authority what they ought not to get.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 40, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am informed that this Amendment is really unnecessary. The object is already achieved by the terms of the clause itself, since clearly no owner or owner-occupier would spend more in the maintenance of a house than he would expect to get out of it in its use either by himself or by the sale of it to some other person. Accordingly the sum spent on repairs in excess of the rateable value of the house can in no case be more than what the noble Lord proposes by his Amendment to limit the payment to. In these circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: I thank the noble Lord for his observations, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57:
Arrangements where acquisition of land in clearance area found to be unnecessary.
(2) Where an agreement has been entered into with the local authority for the purposes of this section, the authority shall have the like power to enforce it as they would have had by virtue of Section ninety-one of the Act of 1925 if they had sold the land to the other party thereto.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is introductory to the Government Amendment to insert a new clause after Clause 66. The two Amendments are little more than matters of drafting. The subsection which the present Amendment proposes to leave out secures that where an agreement has been entered into with a local authority for the purposes of the section the authority shall be in a position to enforce it against the persons deriving title from the person who has entered into the obligation. This is achieved by applying Section 91 of the Act of 1925. It has since been noted that there are two other clauses in the Bill—namely, Clauses 58 and 15 (2)—for which a similar provision is required, and consequently the subsection should be given a wider application. In order to avoid legislation by reference this is effected by omitting the subsection and inserting a new clause which will cover all the various cases and will repeal and replace Section 91 of the Act of 1925.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 5, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58 [Power to exchange clearance area land in lieu of sale under s. 4 of Act of 1930]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 19, leave out ("exchange") and insert ("excamb").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Amendment of Act of 1925, s. 51, with respect to statutory undertakers]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 17, leave out ("statutory") and insert ("public").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 63 to 66 agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after Clause 66, to insert the following new clause:
Power of local authorities to enforce obligation against owner for time being of land.
"(1) Where—

(a) a local authority have sold or excambed land acquired by them under the Act of 1925, or any enactment repealed by that Act, or under the Act of 1930, or this Act, and the purchaser of the land or the person taking the land in exchange has entered into an agreement with the local authority concerning the land; or

(b) an owner of any land has entered into an agreement with the local authority concerning the land for the purposes of any of the provisions of the said Acts;

then if the agreement has been recorded in the appropriate register of sasines, it shall be enforceable at the instance of the authority against persons deriving title from the person who entered into the agreement: Provided that no such agreement shall at any time be enforceable against any party who has in bona fide onerously acquired right (whether completed by infeftment or not) to the land prior to the recording of the agreement as aforesaid or against any person deriving title from such party.
(2) Section ninety-one of the Act of 1925 shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: This is the new clause which was referred to in connection with the Amendment to delete subsection (2) from Clause 57 of the Bill. The clause is really consequential on that Amendment. It repeals and substantially re-enacts Section 91 of the Act of 1925, dealing with the enforcement of agreements entered into between local authorities and owners in connection with the sale and exchange of land. The clause avoids legislation by reference which would otherwise be necessary.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 66, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67:
By-laws.
67.—(1) A local authority may, and if required by the Department shall, make, with respect to houses used or intended to be used for human habitation, by-laws regarding any of the following matters and applying as follows, that is to say—
(iii) by-laws applying to new houses and, so far as is reasonably practicable, to existing houses, regarding—
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE moved at the end of paragraph (iii) of subsection (1), to insert "(n) the height of ceilings." The noble Earl said: This is a clause which deals with the power given to local authorities to make bylaws in connection with the erection of houses, to ensure that they are properly erected, sanitary, well ventilated, and satisfactory in every way for human habitation. It deals with a large number of points to effect this, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that one of the most important points in the planning and construction of a house is to ensure that the ceilings are of a proper height. There is no mention of this. That is the purpose of my Amendment—namely, to give power to local authorities in making these by-laws to put in a limit which would be considered satisfactory for the height of a ceiling. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 21, at end insert ("(n) the height of ceilings").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment because, if it were inserted at the place proposed, it would enable local authorities to make by-laws regarding the height of ceilings for application to new houses and, so far as is reasonably practicable, to existing houses. The Government take the view that this would not be a suitable provision to apply to existing houses. They are, however, prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment so far as concerns new houses and, if the noble Earl will withdraw the Amendment, the Government will undertake to move an
692
Amendment on the Report stage for this purpose.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I thank the noble Lord, but I am sorry the Government cannot agree to the principle that, where practicable, it should be applicable to existing houses. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68:
Provisions as to caravans and other movable forms of shelter.
68. The provisions of Part I of the Act of 1930 relating to buildings included in an area. to which a clearance order relates, and of Part II of that Act relating to dwelling-houses, shall have effect in relation to any hut, tent, caravan or other temporary or movable form of shelter which is used for human habitation and has been on the same site or a site in the immediate vicinity for a period of two years next before action is taken under those provisions, in like manner as if it had been a building or dwelling-house.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE THE DUKE OF MONTROSE moved to leave out "or a site in the immediate vicinity" and insert "and continuously lived in." The noble Duke said: By leave of the Lord Chairman, I have extended the Amendment that stands in my name on the Paper. My object in doing so was to draw attention to the fact that this clause seeks to give compensation in respect of dwellings or forms of dwellings which are of a purely temporary and movable nature like tents, caravans, and huts. I feel that unless we can attach some idea of a proper habitation to them it is really an extravagance. The words "or a site in the immediate vicinity" indicate mobility. A hut or caravan may be here to-day and gone to-morrow. That is mobility. If it can be moved, it is very little more trouble to move a hut a mile than to move it 500 yards, and it seems to me an extravagance. Unless you can give the shelter some form of fixture I think we ought to alter this clause. I think also we ought to indicate that these huts or tents or shelters must be properly inhabited. A few weeks of the simple life in summer time ought not to qualify them for compensation. Therefore, if my Amendment is accepted, it will mean that the temporary shelter or hut must be actually occupied on the

693
same site for a period of two years. The effect of my Amendment will be that a movable shelter which has been on the same site for two years should be eligible for compensation.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 5, leave out ("or a site in the immediate vicinity") and insert ("and continuously lived in").—(The Duke of Montrose.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I had not seen the noble Duke's Amendment in its new form, but I take it that its purpose is still the same—namely, that the period during which all these huts and so forth should stand should be still further reduced to one of six months. The Government's view is that this is too short a period for the purposes of the clause. The fundamental basis of the clause is that the structures with which it is desired to deal have become permanently rooted to their sites. It would be too soon, and in many cases we think unreasonable, at the end of so short a time as six months take action for the demolition of a structure on this basis. Having in view the fact that the period has already been reduced as far as in the Government's opinion it would be equitable to do so, I hope the noble Duke will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clauses 69 to 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Interpretation]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The Amendment in my name on this clause is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 41, at end insert:
("'Housing Association' has the meaning assigned to it by Section twenty-five of this Act").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Number of persons permitted to use a house for sleeping.
For the purposes of Part I of this Act the expression "the permitted number of persons" means, in relation to any dwelling-house, either—
694

(a) the number specified in the second column of Table I in the annex hereto in relation to a house consisting of the number of rooms of which that house consists; or

(b) the aggregate for all the rooms in the house obtained by reckoning, for each room therein of the floor area specified in the first column of Table II in the annex hereto, the number specified in the second column of that Table in relation to that area,

whichever is the less:
Provided that in computing for the purposes of the said Table I the number of rooms in a house, no regard shall be had to any room having a floor area of less than 50 square feet.
ANNEX.

Table 1.

Where a house consists of—

(a) One room

…

2

(b) Two rooms

…

3

THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Duke of Atholl has handed in a manuscript Amendment. It is on page 65, line 25, leave out ("3") and insert ("4").
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in Table 1, in reference to a house consisting of two rooms, to leave out "3" and insert "4." The noble Duke said: I am sorry that, probably owing to my own fault, the Amendment as originally put down was inaccurate, and there was not time to get it printed again. The two Amendments appear to be similar in character, but really they are very different. I had originally an Amendment on the Paper dealing with rural areas only, but, on making inquiry in the usual way as to whether this was likely to be accepted, I gathered that the official view in some quarters was that overcrowding was more injurious to health in rural areas than it was in town areas, and that, therefore, it was absurd to have a law that was more lax in country areas than in town areas. The reason alleged was that town children apparently are supposed to have a great advantage as far as fresh air is concerned over country children because they can always go to the cinema in the evening and thus leave the house to get properly ventilated. This may be all right in theory, but probably in practice every window would be shut up in the town and every door locked in case burglars got in while the family were at the pictures. I still have to learn that the possibly polluted air of the cinema

695
and the general morale of its surroundings are better as regards fresh air than is the case in the country, but that no doubt the noble Lord who is to reply can explain.
There is not one of us here that does not know that four people, say, a husband and wife and their small girl over ten and her still smaller sister, do not mean overcrowding in the country in a good two-roomed house, with possibly a small bed closet as well, and realising from the Scottish Office that the differences in size are apparently better in town than in the country, I thought I would give the Secretary of State for Scotland or his representative here an opportunity of putting into practice what are apparently the views of the Scottish Office in opposing this Amendment. That is why, frankly, I put the Amendment down in spite of the views of the Scottish Office, though I do not think it is probable they are likely to accept my Amendment however good it may be, because it would mean accepting an Amendment which would be quite wrong under present circumstances. Further, I understand that generally speaking there is a desire in the Scottish Office not to have differences, and, as I have another Amendment down to deal with the rural areas, I thought it was only right to put this Amendment down first for the sake of obtaining the official uniformity which is so necessary in cases of this sort, although to my mind the circumstances are different. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 25, leave out ("3") and insert ("4").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD ALNESS: I hope my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill will not accept this Amendment, for, in effect, though of course not in intention, it constitutes a frontal attack upon the basic principles upon which the Bill is founded. I think that can be demonstrated very shortly and very simply. In the first place, the Amendment which the noble Duke has moved seems to ignore entirely the fact that the standard of overcrowding which the Bill contains is based first upon separation of the sexes and secondly upon space considerations. This Amendment entirely ignores the first of these considerations, and it seems to me that, as the Government have
696
announced that the Schedule which they have propounded contains in their considered judgment the minimum provision which will ensure that sex separation, anything which interferes with the Schedule as it stands will render that separation very difficult, if not indeed impossible. Such would be the effect, as I see it, of the Amendment which the noble Duke has just moved.
But that is not all. In addition to that, the Amendment which has been moved clearly postulates that the standard which the Bill contains relating to overcrowding is too high. I very respectfully but very emphatically desire to dissent from that view, especially when. one remembers that the standard which the Bill contains is not one which is for to-day or to-morrow merely, but for the next fifty or sixty years, during the lifetime of the houses which are to be constructed, and when one also remembers that overcrowding in Scotland, as I ventured to remind your Lordships on Second Reading, is ten times worse than it is in England. If these things be so, as they undoubtedly are, and if further I remember that four or five responsible public bodies in Scotland which were referred to by the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place, having full knowledge of housing conditions and housing requirements in that country, were all for stiffening rather than relaxing the standard which the Schedule of the Bill contains, then I feel that my humble opinion receives support which makes it much more valuable than if it were an opinion expressed by myself alone. Further, I remember that in England the pressure brought to bear upon the Minister has been in the direction of raising the standard rather than lowering it, and I remember also that in England, where rooms are smaller, generally speaking, than in Scotland, this standard will press more heavily on this side of the Border. It appears to me therefore that no case has been, or can be, made out for lowering the standard which the Bill contains, which is a minimum standard and would be accurately so described.
The noble Duke's second Amendment seems to me objectionable on quite different grounds, which I shall presently express. On this particular Amendment I would like to add that it

697
seems to ignore what the Secretary of State said in another place with reference to the interplay of the subsidy and the standard. As I understood the Secretary of State's observations, they came to this—that there is a direct relation between the standard in the Bill and the subsidy payable under the Bill. Any tampering with the standard, any lowering of the standard might logically be followed by a lowering of the subsidy, which I venture to think would be entirely deplorable it the view of every responsible public body and private person on the other side of the Border. For myself I shall be no party to adopting a standard in this particular matter for Scotland which is lower than the standard adopted for England. In that view I resist the Amendment, and I would respectfully urge the noble Lord in charge of the Bill not to accept it.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The noble Duke has altered the form of his Amendment but I hope he will allow me to make my answer to the original Amendment because by so doing I shall cover both his Amendments. As he has already anticipated the Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment. Apart from temporary modifications of the standard which may be necessary in particular areas in the early stages, for which provision is made in Clause 4, it is essential, as the noble Lord, Lord Alness, said, that the standard should be nation-wide in its application. From the point of view of health, decency and comfort there is no reason for enacting a lower standard for two-apartment houses in the country than is to apply to houses of the same size in the towns. The rural community is entitled to as good a standard of housing accommodation as the urban.
The noble Duke referred to the opportunities that exist in the country for enjoying fresh air, but I would like to point out to him that the Bill is not merely one to regulate sleeping space but also living space. In bad weather and in the winter time—and no one who has not been to Scotland can realise the dark nights in the winter in the country—country people are obliged to live more indoors than people in the towns to whom amusements and methods of spending their time outside their homes—but under cover—are available. From this point of view it is
698
important that living space in rural houses should be at least as great as that in town houses. The Amendment would however operate in the other direction.
Apart from these considerations there is the very strong objection to the Amendment that it would not adequately secure the fundamental principle of sex separation upon which the standard is based. The standard in the Bill is the minimum standard which, in the Government's view, will permit the proper separation of the sexes in all cases. As that standard is lowered, sex separation becomes increasingly more difficult or impossible. It would be impossible, for example, under the Amendment if a two-apartment house were occupied by a family consisting of a father, mother, a grown-up son and a grown-up daughter. The fact that rooms in country houses are sometimes large—and this is by no means the general case throughout the country—does not in any way affect this aspect of the question. For purposes of sex separation it is not the size of the rooms that matters but their number.
On the general question the Government are firmly opposed to any proposal which would have the effect of lowering the standard in the Bill. They take the view that it stipulates the minimum accommodation which must be provided for reasons of health and decency and for the provision—especially in the smaller houses—of adequate space to working-class families in which not only to sleep but to live and move about. The Government have, indeed, received representations that the standard is too low. This view is held by the Scottish branch of the Society of Medical Officers and the Institution of County and Municipal Engineers. Similarly, the Royal Sanitary Association of Scotland have urged that if any change is to be made it should be in the direction of raising the standard rather than of lowering it. These opinions show that the views of responsible bodies in Scotland, in close touch with the housing requirements of the country, are averse to any alteration of the Bill such as is proposed in the Amendment.
The standard in the Bill is admittedly not an ideal one and, looking to the demand for better living conditions among the working classes, the trend in the future will almost certainly be towards something better. But in the meantime the Government think that the standard

699
proposed is a reasonable and practicable basis for the improvement of housing conditions at the present time. The financial assistance which is to be given to local authorities for the provision of the additional accommodation necessary is based on the standard contained in the Schedule, and if that standard is lowered a subsidy at the high level contemplated in the Bill would not be required. On the other hand, any proposal to reduce the subsidy would not meet with the approval of local authorities or of Scotland as a whole. For these reasons the Government cannot accept the noble Duke's Amendment. I might repeat what I have said on other occasions that the standard will not come into operation until after the appointed day and that there are provisions in Clauses 4 and 5 which will permit it to be relaxed temporarily to meet exceptional circumstances.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in Table I, in reference to a house consisting of two rooms, after "3", to insert "in rural areas 4". The noble Duke said: I have had the advantage of hearing the considered reply of the noble Lord to what I am going to say and I have also, of course, had the great advantage of listening to the eloquence of a great lawyer, who has, if I may say so, taken up the brief of the Government and is here as a special pleader. The noble Lord, Lord Alness, and I are good friends and so he will not mind my saying that. I regret that the Amendment which I now move is not printed on the Paper; it is, after "3", to insert "in rural areas 4". That is to say four would be the number in big roomy rural houses, consisting of two large rooms and possibly a bed closet.
My last Amendment was moved to show how ridiculous the situation can be under this Bill, and I think that the noble Lord who spoke against it was quite able to prove that point. This Amendment is to show how serious the position is. My opinion is exactly the oposite of that which pertains in the Scottish Office, and of what was said by my noble friend Lord Alness. While I think that the suggestion that more than three people mean overcrowding in a two-roomed house in an urban area, is in most circumstances possibly exaggerated, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying
700
that four people in a fairly spacious two-roomed house in a country district is not overcrowding, more especially when the question of the sexes can be properly adjusted. On the question of overcrowding, I think the noble Lord who is moving the Bill said, touching the question of the sexes, that you might have a father, a mother, a daughter and a grownup son in the same house. There does not seem to be much reason, as they are pretty old, all of them, by this time, I take it, why the father and the grownup son should not sleep in one room and the mother and the grown-up daughter in the other. Still, that shows how very little the Government know about the shifts to which people who are hard-up are going to be put.
I have been given various reasons why the Bill has been drafted in this way. The first, and one that leaves me perfectly cold, is that there is an English Bill, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Alness, and it must not be said that Scotland is less careful of her "weans" than England. Probably, if the English Bill had never been started, this one would not have ended where it is now. This is an inferiority complex in the minds of certain people who are not quite sure of themselves. The second reason is in order to force proprietors to add a third room to all these houses under the Rural Housing Act, which will not be allowed to operate in future unless this condition is made. It is unnecessary to point out to your Lordships that it is more than likely that the amount of money allowed under the Rural Housing Act to be given in assistance will not be sufficient, and that the proprietors will then be forced to pay a contribution which is entirely out of proportion to the scale at present laid down. Failure to do this will cause a house that is otherwise perfectly good to be condemned, and the farm will have to do without the ploughman's cottage, although perhaps a little renovation to make the house watertight, a water supply, sanitary arrangements, and perhaps better ventilation, would have been good enough.
The third point is that it is intended to use all possible Departmental pressure to do what they call "force" people not to sleep in the living rooms, which is a general custom in Scotland. That room probably contains the only fire in the

701
house, and certainly the only fire that the inhabitants in certain cases can afford to light. It is all very well for the Secretary of State for Scotland. to propose that the future holders of that high office are to live at Government expense in a centrally-heated house in the Castle at Edinburgh, but it is a very different thing for a ploughman with a family on a so-called living wage of thirty-five shillings per week to furnish a house, and provide light and fire in three rooms, and feed and clothe his bairns as well, during the rigours of a Scottish winter. We were told, however, in making this protest that nothing would be done until the appointed day, which, as far as I can make out, is as distant as the Greek Kalends. They tell us, which I think is absurd, that we need not be alarmed at all, and that it will not be enforced at once. That being the case, what on earth was the good of putting these tied houses into the Bill? We are told that it will get the people accustomed to the future proposals—what I may call "parlour-minded"; but it will also be the means of setting up nervousness and irritation all over the country, and a feeling of insecurity. It is not only a waste of your Lordships' time; it is also politically dishonest.
I cannot quite make out why the noble Lord in charge of the Bill states one case—that this thing will never happen, it is a long way off—and then at another moment he says that it is the first thing they are going to do when the flag drops. He cannot have it both ways. It would be far better to say that in the meantime these houses do not come under the Act, though it is hoped that special legislation may be introduced with regard to them later on. The Rural Housing Act as it at present exists is quite sufficient to deal with these cases, and should be continued indefinitely. Possibly it needs to be strengthened and urged in some respects, but it is unnecessary to put these rural tied houses within the Bill for the purposes of this Act. In any case, if they do have to be put under the Bill for the purposes of what I may term "English symmetry," let it remain there, and let us allow in the meanwhile that it is not an actual or potential offence for four people to live in an airy two-roomed house in a. country district. If you stated which of the two rooms they were to sleep in, we might understand something about
702
it. The two rooms are of exactly the same size in most cases, yet it is lawful to sleep in one and unlawful to sleep in the other—I am assuming that the sexes are correct. The bed closet at the back of the house is not to count as a place to sleep in unless has an area of fifty square feet, but if it is properly ventilated I am not at all sure that it is not the best place in the house for sleeping purposes.
I hope that noble Lords will support this Amendment, upon which I am going to divide, because it is perfect nonsense to say that the two children of a working man cannot sleep in one room, provided they are of the same sex, and that is what this Bill says. The reason given for it by my noble friend Lord Alness is that we must copy England. I venture to say that our rooms are, as a rule, rather bigger in Scotland than in England. But there it is. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, is going to blaze the trail, I suppose, for the English platoons that are to follow him into the Lobby; every Scottish Peer here, with the exception of one, whipping up the rear. He is going to lead them on, while the whole of the other Scottish Peers—and they are very knowledgeable, most of them, on this subject—have spoken against, it. It seems very strange that this Amendment, if it is rejected, is going to be rejected by English Peers, who know absolutely nothing, or very little, about these conditions in Scotland. They are doing a very ill turn indeed to the people of Scotland in the country if they do not support this Amendment. It makes no difference to the Bill at all. I am not in the least ashamed of being inferior to England. on something which I feel rather strongly about, and I suggest that noble Lords here from England should leave Scottish Peers to settle this business themselves, without having to be tied to what I may term my noble Lord's tail on this occasion.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 25, after ("3") insert ("in rural areas 4").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE EARL or MAR AND KELLIE: The noble Duke has said that no other Scottish Peer is against this Amendment, but I may say what I said on the Second Reading, that it is very undesirable that

703
we should have in Scotland a lower standard than that which prevails in England. If the noble Duke goes into the Division Lobby I shall vote against him.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Supposing in the English Bill they said you were only to have two people in a house, I suppose the noble Earl would do the same.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Wait and see.
LORD LAMINGTON: I speak with some knowledge of Scottish housing in rural districts, and I know that there they bring up large families in health and strength, without any illness, and I do not consider that the standard will be lowered by the Amendment of the noble Duke, whereas I believe that hardship will be entailed on many families if the Schedule is adopted as it stands. I trust that the Committee will accept the Amendment.
LORD ALNESS: Before we proceed to a Division, I hope I may be allowed to say two things. In the first place, it seems to me extraordinarily difficult to set up and apparently stereotype differential treatment of two sections of the Scottish community—those on the one hand who live in the towns, and those on the other hand who live in the country—and to impose on the former a higher standard of comfort, decency and health than is imposed on the latter. Secondly, so far as I can judge from a study of the Bill, all the elasticity and all the relaxation for which the noble Duke pleads will be found within the four corners of the measure, if he will read Clauses 4, 5 and 83.
LORD POLWARTH: Before we divide, I would like to say a few words. I agree that the question of sex separation is essential. So far as I understand the Amendment, there is no proposal to alter the provisions which deal with the sex question; but surely it is quite absurd to say that supposing a husband and wife are living in a house with two children over ten, a little child over ten is to be counted as a grown up person, and the parents may not put two children to sleep in the same room. It would be quite absurd to make such a strict provision as that. There is another point which has not, I think, been referred to. The noble Lord spoke about a higher standard of comfort and so on, but
704
is it giving a higher standard of comfort to compel a working woman to keep a house with many more rooms than are required, or than she and her husband are able to furnish? I have again and again found in two-room houses that the tenants were not able to furnish more than one, and have stored potatoes and the like in the other room.
Then with regard to the standard differing from that in England, I deplore this attempt to make everything Scottish fit in and follow what is done in England. We in Scotland have our own customs and habits, which are ingrained in the people, and you cannot change them. Why should you do so? It is not many weeks since owing to a motor breakdown we went into a cottage and the woman there who knew me, although I did not know her, gave us a most excellent tea, and it was none the worse because there was a bed on the other side of the room. It does not make it inconsistent with comfort or cleanliness that you have people occasionally sleeping in the kitchen. I support the Amendment, and I do not think, having regard to the much larger rooms we have in Scotland as compared with those in England, that by accepting this Amendment we shall be lowering the standard in Scotland. The conditions are different in the two countries, and I therefore think that we ought to have different regulations.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: As the noble Duke allowed me to give my answer to his Amendment, I will not repeat it, but I only want to reaffirm the view of the Government. I would also like to say that it is very difficult to come to any satisfactory definition of rural areas. If the noble Duke means county areas lying outside burghs, there are areas falling within the jurisdiction of county councils which are definitely industrial and urban in character. In Lanarkshire, for example, there are areas like Cambuslang and Bellshill, with populations between 10,000 and 20,000. It would be anomalous to permit two-apartment houses in these places to be occupied on a lower standard than similar houses in many small burghs which are little more than villages, with populations of only some hundreds.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Provisions as to the compulsory purchase of land in connection with redevelopment in accordance with a redevelopment plan]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: There is a consequential Amendment to this Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 42, leave out ("the redevelopment") and insert ("redevelopment, or for securing the use of the land, in accordance with the redevelopment plan").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Local Authorities' contributions]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: There are one drafting and one consequential Amendment to this Schedule.
Amendments moved—
Page 74, line 42, leave out ("paragraphs") and insert ("paragraph").
Page 75, line 6, leave out ("paragraphs") and insert ("paragraph").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.[Teller.]

Strange, E. (D. Atholl)[Teller.]

Kinnaird, L.

Lamington, L.

Polwarth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Exmouth, V.

Morton, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Faringdon, L.

Plymouth, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller]

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)(L. Privy Seal.)

Stanhope, E.

Greville, L.

Strafford, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Northumberland, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Newton, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Bath, M.

Halifax, V.

Rennell, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Mersey, V.

Rushcliffe, L.

Reading, M.

Sanderson, L.

Alness, L.

Seaton, L.

Breadalbane and Holland, E.

Arnold, L.

Snell, L.

Feversham, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Stanmore, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Bayford, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Berwick, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Darcy (do Knayth), L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine)

Templemore, L.

Munster, E.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Fifth Schedule [Consequential, drafting and minor Amendments]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 31, column 2, insert:
("In Section seventy-three, in subsection (3) for the word 'same' there shall be substituted the word 'advance'; and in subsection (4), in paragraph (b), the word 'solely' shall be omitted, and in paragraph (c), the words upon the security of any land or houses solely' shall be omitted after the words 'proposed to be burdened there shall be inserted the words 'in pursuance of subsection (2A) of this section and for the words the houses on the land burdened' there shall be substituted the words 'houses or other work on land so burdened')." (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment; moved—
Page 80, line 18, after ("be") insert ("and always to have been").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Enactments repealed as from the commencement of this Act]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: There are two consequential Amendments here.
Amendments moved—
Page 82, line 45, column 3, at end insert ("Section ninety-one")
line 48, column 3, at end insert ("In Section one hundred and nineteen, the definition of 'Public utility society' ").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

THE MINISTER FOR LEAGUE OF NATIONS AFFAIRS.
LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government for information as to the distribution of activities and responsibilities between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Minister in charge of relations with the League of Nations; whether those of the Minister are limited to issues which have been referred to the League at Geneva, and if not, what latitude he can exercise in his submissions to and exchanges of views with foreign Governments.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper was not prompted by any desire to provoke a discussion on the Ethiopian question which is occupying so much public attention at the present time. I, on the contrary, esteem it much more advantageous not to run the risk of prejudicing any new discussion which may be impending by the possibility of indiscreet utterances in either House of Parliament. But I cannot at the present time pretend that my Question is altogether unassociated with that issue, because it was the recent submission of certain tentative proposals for a settlement to the Chief of State at Rome which led me to ask for this information. The nature of these proposals has given me and, I gather, a very considerable number of other people, some reason to suppose that there may have been a lack of coordination between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister entrusted with negotiations which have encountered, as in my opinion they were foredoomed to do, an unwelcome negative reception.
Let me explain briefly my reasons for such a presumption, which I may, of course, be told is wholly erroneous. In the first place our Foreign Office could hardly fail to have been in possession of ample knowledge regarding the preparations for an African campaign on
708
a very extensive scale which had been in progress for many months before the particular frontier incident of December last and certain subsequent ones to the investigation of which the activities of the Conciliation Committee at The Hague have been restricted. That Ethiopia might be induced to contemplate cession in return for access to the sea of certain areas in the South which were not an integral portion of the old historic Ethiopian Kingdom was, in the actual circumstances, no doubt conceivable. What, however, was not conceivable to those who know something of the character of the Abyssinians was that the Emperor could make any concession which would satisfy demands as to the extent of which there has for some time past been no concealment; nor, as it seems to me, could our Foreign Office well ignore that the offer to Ethiopia of a rival landing place on the African coast only a few miles from Jibuti, which has for some fifty years enjoyed almost a monopoly of the export and import trade with the interior of Abyssinia, would hardly be welcomed by France any mole than by Italy, which has recently acquired an interest in the Jibuti railway.
The northern boundary of what is known as British Somaliland marches with the frontier of the French Colony, and this might seem to have suggested an additional reason for not proposing, without a previous understanding, the transfer to less accommodating neighbours of an area in which border incidents will be liable to arise. The sentiments of the fixed population at Zeila, would no doubt be regarded as a secondary condition. They number, I believe, only some seven thousand; and the hinterland towards Gildessa and Harrar is mainly waterless, and occupied by nomadic tribes. But news, often exaggerated and distorted, travels mysteriously fast down the African coast, and rumours of our intended withdrawal from areas of administration must involve a risk of fomenting unrest there. Transfers of native population may, of course, be necessary under certain special conditions, such as those which led to the transfer to Italy of Kismayu and a section of Jubaland. But the propositions presented by the cession of Juba and the proposed Zeila transfer are not analogous, and the latter presents, to my mind at any rate, other potential complications.

709
In making the cession of the Juba to Italy, we were clearly within our rights, and had only to think of ourselves. The old East African Protectorate along the coastal zone was, in 1920, annexed to the British Crown, and thereafter, except for a section which is held as a, Protectorate under lease from the Sultan of Zanzibar, became part of the Colony of Kenya.
The position with regard to Zeila, however, is different. There has recently been some correspondence on this subject in the Press in which its antecedent history has not always been quite accurately or, at any rate, completely stated. Harrar, which stands where the high lands begin, some one hundred miles from the coast, had been occupied by Egypt in the period of expansion under the Khedive Ismail. When, under the menace of bankruptcy, it became necessary to withdraw all the Egyptian garrisons from the Soudan, Harrar was evacuated. That was in 1882, and an independent Emir was established there as Ruler. He was, however, shortly after dispossessed by Ethiopia, and Ras Makunan, nephew of Menelek and father of the present Emperor, became Governor of Harrar, where there were not many Abyssinians established when I was there more than thirty-five years ago. The Somali coast zone, at that time valuable to Aden as a source of meat supplies, was then administered as a British Protectorate by the Government of India. The control was transferred in 1897, after the British Mission to Abyssinia, to the Foreign Office, and subsequently, in 1905, to the Colonial Office. Somaliland, however, always remained nominally a British Protectorate. If British protection were to be withdrawn from any part of it, the question might arise: To whom would that section revert? There is, I believe, no generally accepted definition of the status of Protectorates, and the question of their transfer by the withdrawal of the protecting Power might obviously lead to complications into which it would probably be more prudent not to enter. What, however, would be of interest would be to know if such issues had been carefully considered and studied before the proposal under discussion was contemplated.
For the reasons I have submitted, and perhaps others, your Lordships may wish to have some assurance that there has
710
not been lack of co-ordination among the various authorities now entrusted with the handling of foreign affairs. It is true that when, or if, these matters were deliberated, there had only recently been important administrative changes, and the new machine, it is quite possible, had not yet found itself. However that may be, it is difficult to refrain from asking why, if so delicate and, to my mind, so unpromising a proposition was to be advanced, resort should not have been had to the normal course of feeling the way tentatively through our Embassy at Rome rather than by the publicly advertised method of a Ministerial progress to the Italian Capital, with all the inevitable repercussions attending want of success.
One of the legacies of the Great War, at any rate in this country, has been the institution of what is known as the New Diplomacy. It means, as I understand it, that the discussion of issues which present themselves with foreign countries has been largely taken out of the hands of the experts, who have spent long years in studying the temperaments, susceptibilities, and aspirations of the various nations among whom they have been appointed to reside. The influence they might be able to acquire is necessarily diminished by so large a transfer of their former duties to Ministers, who may enter into office with little or no previous foreign experience, and who, moreover, having to advise His Majesty's Government on issues arising all over the world, can ill spare the time from the ever-increasing work of already overburdened Departments, supplemented by their Parliamentary duties. I have been told in explanation of these things that it has been found difficult in certain posts, especially what I may call dictatorial pests, for the Ambassadors to see a very great deal of the Head of the State, whereas, of course, a Minister going specially for the purpose has no difficulty. I cannot quite accept that as an adequate explanation. If there is a difficulty I think it could be managed; but it seems to me to create a vicious circle.
You send a special Minister out to see the Head of the State, and the man on the spot ceases to have any influence, and the Head of the State has less reason to see him. The publicity attend-

711
ing these journeys and the inevitable preliminary discussion of their object by critics of the Government do not always tend to create a more favourable atmosphere for deliberation, and the finality of pronouncements by a responsible Minister may easily enough prematurely close the door to reconsideration or revision. While I am not convinced that the position of Foreign Secretary is really strengthened by his being his own emissary and thus becoming responsible for errors of judgment in the methods of approach, I should be the last to contend that there may not be advantage in occacasional interviews of Ministers with those holding similar responsible positions in foreign countries. But I hold very definitely that such colloquies should be exceptional in exceptional circumstances and not, as they are tending to become, a general rule. Nor should I be disposed to dissent in principle from the appointment of a special Minister to deal with. issues at the League of Nations, so long as his attributions are clearly defined and understood.
The position may indeed before long become a very important one. For if the League is to survive its insuccesses and the withdrawal of several of the most important Members who dissent from collective decisions, if it is to free itself from the suspicion of becoming an instrument for the perpetuation of inhibitions imposed under exceptional circumstances, and if it is to regain the universal confidence we desire it to have, it is evident to me that it will have to be in certain respects considerably remodelled. In the meantime, as we are henceforth to have two Ministers and two Under-Secretaries dealing with foreign affairs, and as it is conceivable, if not in the present instance, that in future combinations there might well be a lack of co-ordination and unity, it therefore appeared to me to be legitimate to seek information as to their respective activities, responsibilities and limitations. Therefore, in no critical spirit but really with an honest desire for information, I have put down the Question which stands in my name.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the Question put down by my noble friend is a Question relating to the respective duties of the Foreign Minister and his new colleague, and he has taken the opportunity, which is often taken in this House, of
712
delivering a very interesting and instructive speech on foreign affairs generally. I do not propose to follow him in that direction, but to confine what few remarks I have to make to the Question which appears on the Paper. I should like to say at once without any hesitation that, with regard to this new appointment of envoy accredited to the League of Nations, I do not feel inclined to extend any welcome to it at all. To my mind, and I am rather reluctant to say so in the presence of my noble friend Lord Cecil, I think in the past, and at the present moment, we hear a great deal too much about the League of Nations. Personally, I am getting very tired of the constant protestations of Ministers and of public men of their entire devotion to the principles of the League of Nations and their firm determination always to act in consonance with that body. It almost seems to me that Ministers are afraid to admit that we possess any foreign policy of our own whatsoever.
That is not the only objection. The other objection which I have is that these statements about undying confidence and devotion to the League of Nations only give an opportunity to our critics to denounce what they are pleased to call our British hypocrisy. They say: "Is it not the fact that the League of Nations suits you admirably? You are a satiated Power. You have everything you want. Naturally you do not want to make war with any other nation. All that you desire is that peace should be kept somehow or other. Therefore, the League of Nations suits you admirably. But we are in a different position. We have not got all that we want; we should like to obtain a good deal more, and there are other nations who say they have not the smallest intention of allowing anything to be taken from them. Therefore you cannot expect us to look upon the League of Nations in the same light as you do." They might also add, if they are inclined to be ill-natured, that upon the whole there seems to be a certain amount of lip service about all these protestations "because," they might say, "when you have got any really serious business on hand you go straight to the parties concerned and you make arrangements with them quite independent of the League of Nations or anybody else." I quote, for

713
instance, the recent Agreement with Germany, and the attempt—the highly unsuccessful attempt—to come to an agreement with Italy. For that reason I do not welcome the appointment of this new Minister, or in fact the other appointments which have been made, but I dislike it also for another reason.
For a long time past there has been no more fertile subject of discussion than the continual growth of Ministries and the creation of fresh Ministers in this country. I do not know whether the fact is realised that since the War no less than sixteen different new Departments have been created. Two have gone. They went automatically. They were the two Irish Offices. That leaves a balance of fourteen. This outcry for the diminution of Departments and the stopping of the eternal creation of fresh posts and so forth had this effect, that some years ago the Prime Minister at that moment—I cannot remember now whether it was Mr. Ramsay MacDonald or Mr. Baldwin—actually made a definite promise that three Ministries should be abolished. Nothing of the kind has happened. Those three Ministries are still going and there is not the smallest prospect of their being abolished. If there is any change at all they will probably get larger.
But the mania for inflation starts, unfortunately, from the top. Look at the Cabinet. There must be noble Lords present who can remember, as I can remember well, the time when the Cabinet consisted of twelve. There are now, if I am not mistaken, twenty-two or twenty-three, and of these three or four Ministers have no definite duties to discharge. In the days when Cabinets were smaller the position of a Cabinet Minister was very different from what it is now. I remember the feeling of reverential awe with which I discharged those duties in the Foreign Office which drove the noble Lord opposite eventually from that office. They were distasteful to me. But I can still remember the feelings of reverence which I entertained for a Cabinet Minister. But who does entertain such feelings now? I do not like to appear disrespectful to noble Lords sitting upon the Front Bench, but I suggest that if they were to go out into the street and ask the first person they saw to name half-a-dozen members of the Cabinet, that person would be
714
perfectly unable to do so. He would probably say: "Oh, I suppose Lord Derby, or Lord Lonsdale, or Mr. Lloyd George or Mr. Baldwin." That is a question which does not interest him. The result of this multiplication of Cabinet Ministers is that their influence and their distinction have largely diminished.
The tendency to inflation has, unfortunately, now reached the Foreign Office, and I regret it very much, because the Foreign Office, contrary to general belief, is a highly efficient Department. I do not believe there is a more efficient Department. With a very small staff its duties were always admirably performed. But look what has happened now. The Foreign Office has been duplicated. Nobody has yet sucessfully defined the distinction between the Foreign Secretary and the gentleman who has just been accredited to the League of Nations. I should have thought myself that if it were necessary to do anything of the kind it would have been very much simpler to have appointed an Assistant Secretary, as was done during the War, when I think the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, acted in that capacity, and I fancy there was no friction at all. Of course it will be said: "Oh, these two Ministers are devoted to each other. They see eye to eye on every possible subject." Very likely they do, at all events for the time being, but I should be sorry to guarantee the future. I think it is quite conceivable that in a future Administration two gentleman with very different views might be called upon to work together.
Then there is to be still another instance of inflation in the appointment of another Under-Secretary. In former days when, as I say, the Foreign Office was just as efficient as it is now, the Foreign Office was represented by two men, one in your Lordships' House and the other in the House of Commons, and as long as there was a representative in each House things worked perfectly well. As a result of the new arrangement there will be no fewer than three representatives of the Foreign Office in the House of Commons. In addition to them there are Cabinet Ministers who have no definite work of their own and who are always on the spot to assist them, and there are other Departments also represented in Parliament which are closely allied to the Foreign Office and are in frequent communication with it.

715
I know we shall be told that these appointments are absolutely essential and that they are very small in number. That is what is always said, but the one thing of which you may be perfectly certain is that when such appointments are once made they become permanent whether they are required or not. It is almost impossible to dislodge a Department when once it has established itself. I was once head of a modest Department myself and there was considerable difficulty in get, ting rid of us. It is only in human nature. What I ask your Lordships to bear in mind is that every fresh Minister you create himself creates additional work, and it is not only a question of additional work but a question of additional staff and additional expense. In fact when appointments of this sort are being made it really seems to me that it is perfectly futile to talk about economy at all. As a matter of fact I do not believe that anybody here or in another place or outside cares a fig about economy. I did not rise, however, for the purpose of advocating economy. My main object in intervening in the debate was to express the hope that we shall get an assurance from my noble friend who replies for the Government that what I venture to call peripatetic diplomacy will now come to an end.
What I say is in no way meant to be hostile to Mr. Eden. I think if you want a gentleman of that kind he probably would fill the bill better than anybody else. He is already a sort of legendary figure, and in the Press and in the public imagination he appears as a sort of political Perseus who literally flies off to rescue incompetent British diplomatists from perfectly imaginary dangers. It is hardly necessary for me to point out that the ordinary British diplomatist is a competent man perfectly well able to look after himself and to discharge his duties if you give him a chance of doing so. I should like to ask anybody to tell me any single thing that Mr. Eden has done that could not be done equally well by the man on the spot. If the man on the spot is not capable then remove him, but for the life of me I cannot understand the frame of mind of people who think that a long-standing difficulty can suddenly be set right by sending a man out on a visit for twenty-four or forty-eight hours. It is about as sensible as to imagine that if you are
716
suffering from a serious internal disease you can cure yourself by putting on a new suit of clothes. There is nothing to be said for it at all.
Mr. Eden, as I have already remarked, is a man who has great qualifications, but what has been gained by sending him about in accordance with these new ideas? If you are going to have a peripatetic Minister you ought to ascertain before he goes anywhere that he is perfectly certain to succeed. If you are quite sure he will succeed you can pride yourself afterwards on what you have done, but if you are not sure and he fails then your failure is all the more clear, and we had an unfortunate instance of that in connection with what happened recently in Rome. What puzzles me is to know who is at the back of, and who originates, these ideas of sending these people abroad. It cannot be the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office is far too sensible a body to imagine that any good can be done by it. It cannot be the present Foreign Secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare, because he has announced that in the future lie intends to use the regular officials in connection with all questions that fall within the scope of their duties. Who is it? I can only imagine that there must be some person or persons in the Cabinet who have an insatiable appetite for sensationalism and for playing up to the so-called popular Press. I cannot account for it in any other way. By this time the idea must have been thoroughly exploded. I hope my noble friend will give me the assurance I ask. If he does I am perfectly certain that there will be many thousands of people in the country beside myself who will be only too thankful to hear that the present sensational method has been abandoned and that we shall relapse into our old methods.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, my noble friend who asked this Question based his inquiry chiefly on the offer made in connection with the Ethiopian question of the Zeila district. I am not going to discuss whether there was any prospect of that offer being successful, but I feel quite certain that however low you may rate the intelligence of Cabinet Ministers—and I am aware that my noble friend Lord Newton does not put it very high—
LORD NEWTON: The public do.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I cannot believe for a moment that they made any such offer without some ground for believing that it would be likely to produce an alleviation of the present very serious situation. I do not desire to express any opinion as to the wisdom or otherwise of that offer, because I do not think that, without knowing much more accurately than I can pretend to know the circumstances under which it was made, it is possible to form any judgment as to whether there was any prospect of success or not. But what I do say is that, if it had been successful, I have not the slightest doubt that my noble friends, both of them, would have welcomed it warmly—at least I hope they would—as an infinitely small price to pay for the liquidation of the extremely dangerous situation in which we now find ourselves. I hope that my noble friends will excuse me if I venture to say that, right through both of their speeches, it seemed to me that there was rather an inadequate appreciation of the very serious nature of the present situation. I am not going to say a word about it, for fear that even casual observations of mine might aggravate it, but I feel most strongly that the Government were fully justified and absolutely right in taking any steps they thought necessary, and I trust that they will continue to take any steps they think to be necessary, or to have any probability of success, to avoid the outbreak of war between Italy and Abyssinia.
I believe that war in itself will be a very serious matter, particularly for all those who have any possessions in Africa, but, quite apart from that, I hold that unless we can maintain the efforts we have made since the War to organise peace, the future for this country and for the world is very dark. Therefore I am prepared personally, for what little value my support may be, to give my whole support to any steps that the Government may think necessary in order to avert war between Italy and Abyssinia. I cannot believe for one moment that my noble friend Lord Rennell is right in his fear that there was a want of co-ordination between Mr. Eden and the Foreign Office. I cannot believe for one second that an offer of that importance was not made after full consideration by the Cabinet and with full Cabinet authority, and cer-
718
tainly with the full authority and support of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I quite agree with my noble friend that, if there is any doubt about that, it shows a most serious condition of the administration of this country, and one which would require the strongest possible condemnation by this House or the other House. But I cannot believe that there was any such want of coordination at all. The step was taken as a Government step; it has been supported and defended by all the members of the Government, and I have no doubt it was fully considered and authorised—I should think, before Mr. Eden left England, and certainly before he said anything to the Italian Government.
But my noble friend went on to complain of what he regards as the New Diplomacy. I am not quite sure whether I know what is meant by the New Diplomacy. I understand, of course, that the negotiations at the League of Nations itself are carried on under different conditions from the discussions and negotiations which have, before the existence of the League, been necessary for international affairs. In that sense there has been, no doubt, a New Diplomacy. But beyond that I know of no novelty in diplomacy except the practice which has no doubt grown, particularly in recent years, of sending Ministers—Foreign Ministers, usually—to various capitals to interview other Foreign Ministers. That practice both my noble friends deprecated in. the strongest way. I find myself much more in sympathy with them over that. I feel that there are grave objections to what my noble friend Lord Newton called the "peripatetic" action of Ministers. I see great difficulties about it. No doubt, to begin with, not the least difficulty, as. I shall show in a moment, is the immensely exhausting character of that work. Ministers of the Crown have, in my judgment, far too little leisure and far too little strength as it is; they want all the leisure and all the strength they can conserve in order to deal with the immense responsibilities which lie upon them, and particularly upon anyone connected with foreign affairs. I cannot think that it is a good preparation for those efforts that they should be sent, often under very difficult conditions, from one end of Europe to another to interview foreign Ministers in different capitals.

719
And there is this difficulty: that if you once begin it, you have to extend it. If you go and see the Foreign Minister in Paris, you will have to go and see the Foreign Minister in Rome, or there will unquestionably be a suggestion that you think more of French assistance and French opinion than you think of Italian assistance and Italian opinion. The same applies to Berlin, and the same applies ultimately to Moscow. Therefore, if you once begin this system, you are driven by the course of events to extend it first to one capital and then to another. That means a very great addition to the exhaustion of Ministers, and on that ground I hope that it will be confined to the narrowest practicable limits.
Then there is another difficulty about it. If a Minister goes from here to a foreign capital, it becomes "news" at once. Something is going to happen, some great move is impending, and the newspapers—very properly, from their point of view—treat it as a matter of great importance. Headlines are printed and all the rest of it, and a great anticipation is excited in the public mind that some new departure is going to take place which will have a great effect on international relations. If, as the result, nothing much happens—and that, after all, is the result which we must expect out of conversations of that character in most cases—the disappointment is extreme. You add to the depression which previously existed, you increase the impression that the difficulties are insoluble, and the situation is worse than it was before. In the same way I cannot exclude the fact that, owing to that very circumstance that the matter becomes a matter of great public interest, there is nearly always a considerable misunderstanding as to what has recently taken place. There are always the communiqués at the end, saying that much more cordial relations have been produced, and all the rest of it, which in fact means nothing at all; and definite understandings are sometimes arrived at, which are published. Those are clear enough, but in addition to those there is always a whole crop of rumours as to the assurances that have been conveyed, if not explicitly uttered, as to the attitude of this Minister or that Minister, and so on, all of which are exploited by the agencies of public information and, again,
720
usually cause considerable misunderstanding at the time and disappointment later on. Therefore—and I believe that every Minister of the Crown would agree with me in saying it—the fewer of these expeditions that can take place, the better.
At the same time, I recognise—as think everybody must recognise—that there are considerable advantages in the close contact of those great officials who are chiefly responsible in each country for foreign affairs. If I may venture on a personal recollection, I remember that when the late Lord Salisbury was going to the Conference at Constantinople, he broke his journey, if it can be called breaking it, by going round to the various capitals in order to see the responsible Ministers before he began his discussions at the Conference, and I have always understood that he found that a very useful and almost necessary preliminary to such a conference. That is only one of the examples when it is desirable for Ministers to see their opposite principals in foreign capitals. To my mind it is one of the advantages of the Geneva system that such meetings can take place within the ordinary routine of the Assembly of the League without exciting great anticipations or great movements of opinion, because they are just ordinary routine meetings, and I should have thought that, granted these opportunities of personal conversation, it was the less necessary to have special journeys and meetings on additional occasions. I feel quite sure, however, that both Mr. Eden and Sir Samuel Hoare would not desire—I cannot imagine anyone in his senses desiring—to make these journeys unless they felt them to be absolutely necessary, and I trust they will confine them to the narrowest limits in the future.
As to the main matter which is raised by this Question, namely, the creation of the League Minister as a separate Cabinet Minister, I find myself in considerable disagreement with both noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships. Lord Newton based his objection first upon his general dislike of the League. He did not, so far as I made out, desire to destroy the League, but he wished it to be kept in its proper place and to have very little said about it, and in any circumstances that the Government should express no desire for their policy to be framed in accordance

721
with the principles of the League. I do not agree with him. If the League exists it must exist as the sheet anchor of our policy, and it is certain that the more strength you give it the more probability there is that it will be able to discharge its duties. If your Lordships hold, as I do, that its efficiency is absolutely essential to the maintenance of peace, then I cannot agree that there is any undue attempt to exalt its position in the national sphere. I therefore cannot accept that as a good argument against the creation of a League Minister.
There is the other argument, that it is quite unnecessary, which my noble friend put forward. He said, in effect: "Why do you want a second Minister? We used to have fewer Ministers and got on very well." My Lords, the truth is that the work has increased enormously, particularly in the Foreign Office. I have not the figures, but the number of papers which go in and out of the Foreign Office is immensely greater than it was when I was young. I dare say my noble friend could give us the figures, and although I am a strong advocate of the League of Nations I do not deny that it must increase the work of the Foreign Minister, and must involve great additional exertion. Personally I have felt for a very long time that it would be desirable to have two Cabinet Ministers in the Foreign Office, in order to make it easier to discharge those duties.
May I just remind your Lordships of one fact, which seems to me of some importance? Since the War we have had a number of Foreign Ministers, and I think you will be shocked to recall how many of them have broken down in their health while they have been discharging those duties. In the case of Lord Grey unquestionably the serious evils to his health were largely due to overwork. Lord Balfour was continually ill while he was at the Foreign Office. I happen to know, because being in the Foreign Office I often had to take his place. When he was at Paris he was very seriously ill, and I have not the slightest doubt it was due to the very hard work which the Foreign Office involved. Then Lord Curzon died, undoubtedly, in a large degree as a consequence of the wear and tear of the Foreign Office, although he was not at the Foreign Office when he died. Then my old friend, Sir Austen
722
Chamberlain, while in the Foreign Office, had a very bad breakdown and had to be away for months. I do not want to deal with people who are now alive, but I think it is generally recognised, with regard to the Lord President of the Council, that the work at the Foreign Office—made much more severe by the fact that he was also Prime Minister—was one of the causes which led to the regrettable want of health from which, unfortunately, we are now told he suffers.
For all those reasons I think it is folly not to recognise that you must strengthen the staff of the Foreign Office if it is properly to discharge its duties. I believe strongly that you must have a second Cabinet Minister, not only because you want to send him to Geneva and elsewhere, where he ought to have the authority of a Cabinet Minister if he is to speak, as he must speak, in international councils, but also because if the Foreign Minister goes abroad it must be a great convenience and assistance to have another Cabinet Minister ready to take charge at home. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I venture to remind you that during the War a somewhat similar circumstance occurred, when the Foreign Office had to discharge, beside dealing with its ordinary duties, the duties of dealing with the blockade, and it became necessary—I think Lord Grey demanded it—to have two Cabinet Ministers in the Foreign Office. Various experiments were tried. At first the new Cabinet Minister was simply called an Under-Secretary, then Minister of Blockade, and then he became Assistant Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
If I may venture to express an opinion—I do not think any of the plans worked badly—I think the last one worked best. It emphasised the fact that the second Minister was, as he ought to be, strictly under the Secretary of State—not a coordinate authority in the Foreign Office but distinctly subordinate to the Secretary of State. It emphasised also that the Secretary of State must be responsible for all the great decisions, whether in the Department of the Assistant Secretary or not, and Secretary of State had always the right to take over from the Assistant Secretary any matter which he thought sufficiently important for him to deal with as principal Secretary of State. I believe that the system worked well, and although I do not wish to make

723
any criticism about it, because it appears to me to be a matter of terminology, I confess that I a little regret that when the new appointment was made the new Minister was not called Assistant Secretary of State in charge of League of Nations Affairs, or something of that kind. I think that would have relieved the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Rennell to a large extent, and would have been an improvement of the actual organisation.
I am afraid I have detained your Lordships for too long, but I wish to say, both with reference to the recent conduct of affairs—even the Zeila incident—and with reference to the arrangement that the Government have made for the conduct of foreign affairs, I do not desire to express any criticism, but merely to express my earnest hope that they will not be discouraged by any criticism from going forward with a really vigorous and energetic foreign policy, for I am quite certain that, without that, we may be plunged into the most serious and dangerous difficulties that we have ever endured.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, may I express my general agreement with the noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships, on practically all the points which have been raised? I must say I deprecate the growing practice of journeys of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs abroad. I agree entirely with all the three noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships, but I agree also with what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said that there is an advantage in the Secretary of State getting in touch with his colleagues in other countries, not necessarily to negotiate agreements of the first importance, not necessarily for him to visit first Paris and then, in case it might be thought more polite, Rome, and—in case that gave offence—Moscow and Berlin; but that he should have an opportunity of meeting the Foreign Ministers of other States.
When I was in the Diplomatic Service I remember the gathering which used to take place at Marienbad. In those days his late Majesty King Edward VII used to visit Marienbad every year, and it became quite a general practice for the Foreign Secretaries and Prime Ministers of this country—Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was one—and others to go
724
to Marienbad. There they met one another and I remember perfectly well talking not only with members of our awn Foreign Office but also with my foreign colleagues, and hearing what advantages were obtained for the Prime Minister and other Ministers from the interchange of conversation which passed with Foreign Ministers of other States. That Marienbad intercourse, which was entirely informal and depended upon whether any particular Minister chose to go there or not, has become stereotyped in the Assembly of the League of Nations, which takes place every September. Possibly there may be too many of them there—that I do not know. But at any rate it has been very highly developed since that date. But I do most strongly deprecate the Foreign Secretary being his own Ambassador. I do not think any worse system could be devised.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, will correct me if I am wrong, but I remember reading in the most interesting Life of the late Lord Salisbury that Lord Salisbury said that there is only one really important Minister in this country, not excluding the Prime Minister. The Foreign Secretary is the Minister upon whom the real safety of the country depends, and therefore to get the right man to fill that post is the most important duty of any Prime Minister. Well, what are the duties of the Foreign Secretary? I conceive that they are primarily to keep in touch with the Cabinet, to keep in touch with your Lordships' House and another place, and to keep in touch with the country, to understand how they are willing to be led, what their desires are, and what their conception of foreign policy may be, and to lead it as his wisdom suggests. It is the duty of members of the Diplomatic Service to carry out his instructions and. to keep him informed as to the state of affairs in the foreign country to which they are accredited. Those seem to me to be the paramount duties of the Foreign Secretary, and to carry them out he must, be constantly here in this country at the Foreign Office and in touch with the Cabinet and Parliament and with the country at large. He cannot, therefore, conduct his own foreign policy and his own diplomacy by travelling abroad.

725
To turn to another subject, I would like to ask what the actual organisation of this new system is going to be? The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has pointed out that the second Minister must be subordinate to the Foreign Secretary, even though he be in the Cabinet. If two men ride a horse one man must ride in front. That is obvious, and I hope that my noble friend will make that perfectly clear to your Lordships when he addresses you. But there is another point on which I should like to ask for information. How is the old Department to be reorganised? Is the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, who, as your Lordships know, ranks in the Foreign Office above the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, to be the Permanent Under-Secretary of State to two Departments, the League of Nations Department and the Foreign Office proper or is the Foreign Secretary to be the head of the whole thing and the Minister for League of Nations Affairs to be his Deputy-Foreign Secretary and Minister for League of Nations Affairs—I suppose deputy in that too if the Foreign Secretary is to direct the whole policy—and then the Permanent Under-Secretary to follow, and then the two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries to run behind in a couple? I wonder if that is the organisation which is contemplated. If not, perhaps my noble friend when he addresses your Lordships will tell us.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, nobody could have been better qualified to raise the Question that is on the Paper than the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, whose distinguished career in the Diplomatic Service makes him an authority on these questions. I feel that it is very pertinent at the present time that the organisation of our diplomacy should be examined very closely, because undoubtedly it has been one of the weakest spots in the Government, and since the reconstruction of the Government we seem to have an entirely new system, which it is right that Parliament should examine very closely. It has produced a certain amount of bewilderment, both in this House and in another place, and we are asking questions to-day, as they asked questions the other day in another place, in order to try to understand how this organisation is to function and why it came about.
726
My reading of it is that the present Prime Minister—who, as Lord President of the Council, as your Lordships will remember, made a most moving and eloquent speech about two years ago on aerial warfare, what it meant to civilisation, and how there was no possible adequate defence against it, and then two years afterwards had to make another speech in which he advocated large additions to the Air Force as a defence of this country—felt that such a volte face on his part would condemn him as a bad guide and that he must see to it that the Foreign Office was overhauled. His first idea, apparently, was that it should have a qualitative change, and for that purpose he asked Sir Samuel Hoare, who had made a very great reputation for himself over his handling of the Government of India Bill, to take the reins at the Foreign Office. Nobody has a greater admiration than I have for Sir Samuel Hoare's abilities, but a Minister who has been devoting the last five or six years to the most careful day-in-day-out, year-in-year-out examination and study of the problem of Indian government is not necessarily somebody who can be pitch-forked into the Foreign Office to deal with the complications of foreign affairs which, unlike any Bill or Act of Parliament, unlike any domestic duties which have to be undertaken by the Ministers, is not a matter which can be "mugged up" in a week or a month or a year. It is a matter that has to be studied very closely, with a very close knowledge of foreign countries and foreign character. However that may be, the qualitative change was made, and then it occurred to the present Prime Minister that he should also make a quantitative change.
He proceeded to appoint Mr. Eden as Minister for League of Nations Affairs. I agree with What has been said by my noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood that the League of Nations, and the attention given to it, is a question of the very greatest importance, but I think it should be done by an assistant. This idea of coordinating two Foreign Secretaries really seems to be a sort of Spenlow and Jorkins arrangement, because it comes to this, that in the House of Commons, if you put down a Question to the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for League of Nations Affairs gets up and says: "This does not actually concern my Department, but I shall answer as best I can,

727
as the Foreign Secretary is not here." Then you put down a Question to the League of Nations Department, and the Foreign Secretary answers and says: "This is really not my concern, but as my right honourable friend is away, I shall do my best." It is a very convenient way of getting out of the difficulty of Questions in the House of Commons. I know how difficult they are. I happen to have gone through the three various processes—of drafting answers to Questions as a clerk in the Foreign Office, of asking Questions as a private member in the House of Commons, and of answering Questions as a Minister—and the last function was the least pleasant of the three.
But this quantitative method is to be carried a step further. Two Under-Secretaries are to be appointed. I do not know if they are going to be turned into "The Lords Commissioners of the Foreign Office," but there are now four of them, and I am uncertain how they rank. But it is not going to end there. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister for League of Nation Affairs are both going to fly to Geneva quite shortly. Who is going to be in charge? We could all wish that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, would be in charge, but he will not be in charge, because, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, he ranks below the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office for some mysterious reason, because in the Colonial Office that is not so. Therefore, the noble Earl cannot be in charge. The noble Lord, Lord Cranborne, who will shortly be appointed, will not be able to be in charge either. I am a little uncertain as to the respective ranks of Lord Cranborne and of the noble Earl who is Under-Secretary in your Lordships' House. I do not quite know who is the senior. It will be a very difficult problem for the noble Earl to settle whether he will get up from his seat and go into Lord Cranborne's room, or whether Lord Cranborne will get up and talk to him. That is a problem which is before him. But, however that may be, who is going to be in command of the Foreign Office?
There will be four Ministers, and yet no one will be in command unless it is the Permanent Under-Secretary. What is going to happen is that probably the Prime Minister will take over the Foreign Office in the absence of the two Foreign
728
Secretaries, so that there will be five in command of the Foreign Office. I do not believe for one moment that this method of multiplication in the Foreign Office makes for efficiency. I disagree with the noble Viscount when he thinks that the failure of the recent negotiations about Zeiler was not due to want of co-ordination. I am perfectly certain it was. I am perfectly certain that the matter was not fully discussed. I am convinced that if it had been more carefully gone into this impetuous flight would have been stopped. When you have got four or five Ministers who are going to arrange foreign affairs, what you lack is a central, personal, single authority, which is the one thing that is wanted in foreign affairs, the one thing that is respected by foreign Governments It makes a difference when a foreign Government thinks that not only is it going to have a call from our Ambassador and a telegram from our Foreign Office, but may see Mr. Eden arriving over their heads, and they are not sure that some other authorities are not going to come and interview them as well.
I am perfectly convinced that the ease with which we travel now, the ease with which we can communicate with one another, is tempting us to multiply offices, to produce a lack of co-ordination in the various duties, to get a duplication and overlapping and a consequent confusion. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, when he wants to put an end to this spectacular and sensational form of diplomacy. I believe, with other noble Lords who have spoken, that our Diplomatic Service is quite efficient. The great tradition in the Diplomatic Service has always been that they have been self-effacing, they have kept themselves out of the newspapers, they have not been heard of, they have only been satisfied because the work was done. Now we get a series of headings in the evening newspapers, we get flights, we get failures, we get confusions. At a moment like this, when our attention must be drawn with the very greatest care to the intricate difficulties which beset Europe and the world, I feel it is of the very utmost importance that this country should feel assured that our diplomacy is being conducted in such a way as to inspire real confidence.
I do not want to pepper the noble Earl who will answer for the Government with

729
a lot of questions of detail. He knows better than I do how all these questions of detail will arise; not only questions of rank, but questions of rooms. It has always been a difficulty in the Foreign Office to find a room for anybody. How room is going to be found for all these people I do not know, unless the enormous rooms in the Foreign Office are going to be divided, not only perpendicularly but horizontally too. That might be a way out. However that may be, I do not want to question the noble Earl with regard to the smaller details, but I do hope he will give us some assurance that there is going to be a Head, a responsible Head, of the Foreign Office, and that whatever subordinates and assistants he desires shall be all subordinate and assistant to him; that this one individual is to be the responsible Foreign Secretary and that through him the negotiations with foreign countries are to be carried on; that these negotiations are to be carried on by Ambassadors, and that he is not to travel about the world doing what is the job of other people. If the noble Earl can give us that assurance, it will make us feel there is some system in all this change, and some determination on the part of the Government not to allow the confusion of offices to interfere with the successful conduct of our diplomacy.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I confess that I attempted to get a member of the Cabinet to reply to this Question, because it seemed to me somewhat difficult that I, an Under-Secretary in the Foreign Office, should have to make remarks in regard to two Cabinet Ministers who are obviously my superiors in my own Depart-merit. However, I understood that the Question would concern itself a good deal with detail in the Department itself, and therefore I have to do my best to answer the questions which have been put. May I start by saying that there is no doubt whatever as to who controls the foreign policy of this country. It is the Cabinet and nobody else. I was amazed that the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, should have thought that on an occasion such as the recent visit of my right honourable friend Mr. Eden to Rome, he should have gone out without any instructions apparently from anybody. Of course he went not only after
730
full discussion with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but he went to carry out the instructions of the Cabinet. That always happens, at any rate it does under this Government, when any Minister is sent out or an Under-Secretary is sent out to deal with a matter abroad. In my own experience at Geneva I went out to carry out the instructions which I had been given.
In regard to Mr. Eden's visits in this particular case, I can at any rate say from my personal knowledge that we had a conference in the Secretary of State's room at which both Mr. Eden and I were present, with several of the officials of the Foreign Office whose names, obviously, I cannot mention. The matter was fully discussed before the visit was paid. As regards the visit itself, what originally happened, as I think your Lordships know, is that the signing of the Naval Agreement between this country and Germany led to a considerable amount of misunderstanding both in France and in Italy, and it was felt advisable that my right honourable friend Mr. Eden should go over to Paris and explain, he having been present here when these conversations were taking place leading up to the Agreement, knowing exactly what bad been done and why is was that the Agreement was signed. It is, I think, obvious that as a result of that visit a good deal of misunderstanding was removed. The French Government and the French people began to realise that we were acting not only in our own interests but in the interests of Europe and in the interests of peace as well. That would have been much less effective if it had had to be dealt with at second hand through an Ambassador, however able he might be. To have someone who was present at the discussions and knew what was going on, who had been in touch throughout at the Foreign Office, to be able to go over and explain personally was, obviously, a much more effective thing to do than to have had it done second hand through anybody else.
For the same reason he went on to Rome. It was decided that, as lie was going to Rome, it was a suitable moment to put forward this proposal with regard to Zeila. The noble Lord went into the question of Zeila at some length. I am bound to admit, as was said by the noble

731
Lord, Lord Newton, that it is a very long way outside the terms of the Question on the Paper, and I am certainly not prepared to go into it. I do know, however, that the matter was only put forward in a provisional way, and that if it had found any acceptance in Rome it would then have been discussed fully with the French in regard to Jibuti and in regard to the natives who inhabit that part. I believe the population is a good deal less than the noble Lord said. There is a maximum of some 7,000 in winter, but during the rest of the year it is much less than that. That, however, as I have said, is outside the Question on the Paper.
LORD MELCHETT: May I ask the noble Earl, could not Mr. Eden have mentioned this Abyssinian project when he passed through Paris?
EARL STANHOPE: I believe that it was not mentioned until he got to Rome because, obviously, the proposal had to begin to be made somewhere and it was of no use discussing it with anybody else until it was found whether it was likely to be acceptable to Italy. Perhaps I might also explain, though it really needs no explanation, that the Foreign Office is not in a position to give away sections of British territory, or even a British Protectorate. Quite obviously such a matter would have to have a very full discussion with the Department concerned. The Colonial Office, of course, knew all that was going to be done before the visit was paid. I am bound to say that I think the criticism that has been made should have been directed not so much against the Government or even against the Foreign Office as against the Press. What has really happened in this case, as the noble Lord has said, is due to the headlines and the publicity.
But the question of visits by Secretaries of State abroad is no new thing. I am not an historian, but I do happen to know something of the history of my own family. The first Lord Stanhope, when he was Secretary of State, visited, I think, most of the capitals of Europe during the seven years for which he held the position of either Secretary of State for the North or Secretary of State for the South, and he succeeded in making peace with most of those countries. Not only his biographer, but also a great historian like Professor Trevelyan, described him
732
as not the worst Foreign Secretary we have had but as one of the best, and as having laid the foundation of the peace of Europe on which, subsequently, Walpole was able to build the whole financial reorganisation of England and the subsequent prosperity of this country.
The same is equally true, I believe, of an ancestor of my noble friend who leads the House, the great Lord Castlereagh. I think I am right in saying that he also travelled abroad on various occasions with great success and with great advantage to this country. Then there was the mission of the father of the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood) to Constantinople which your Lordships will remember. If we are to be asked to give a pledge that such a thing should come to an end for ever, that is something which I am not prepared to do. The Secretary of State made it quite clear in another place that the addition of a new Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office was not going to entail additional visits, and that he was very conservatively minded in that matter, and felt that those visits should be exceptional, as in fact they usually have been.
There is another point I should like to clear up. It seems to have been thought, not by your Lordships but by some of the public, that it is quite a new thing to have two Cabinet Ministers at the Foreign Office. It is nothing of the kind. My noble friend on the Cross Benches is too retiring in his disposition to explain, but he himself was working at the Foreign Office, and I think sitting in the same room as I now sit in, from 1924 to 1927 or 1928, and then, when he retired from that position, he was succeeded by the late Lord Cushendun. Therefore, for the whole period from 1924 to 1929, the Government had two Cabinet Ministers working in the Foreign Office.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My noble friend is not quite right. When I was in that position, though I was working for the Foreign Office, I was not, to my regret, allowed to sit in the Foreign Office. I Always thought it a great pity, because I was not really able to get in full touch with the Foreign Office, though working for the Foreign Office. I was a Cabinet Minister—my noble friend is right in saying—during the War. I sat in the Foreign Office as an Under-Secretary in

733
the Government, and secondly as Minister of Blockade in the Cabinet, and, thirdly, as Assistant Secretary in the Cabinet, and during that period, which extended—I am afraid I forget dates—from somewhere in 1915 to the end of the War, there were two Cabinet Ministers in the Foreign Office, but afterwards, though I was working for the Foreign Office as a Cabinet. Minister and doing very much the kind of work Mr. Eden is supposed to do now, yet I had not a. room in the Foreign Office. I always thought, with due respect to my chief, that that was a mistake. It hampered me and the Foreign Office in the work done.
EARL STANHOPE: I appear to be right except that the noble Viscount's poste de commandement was not in the Foreign Office. The work he did was connected with the Foreign Office.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I had a room in the Treasury, oddly enough. I do not know why.
EARL STANHOPE: The room is not of consequence. It is the work done that is of importance. Really in the previous Government my right honourable friend Mr. Eden was working there as Lord Privy Seal. He was not a member of the Cabinet, but he was at any rate going on with exactly the same kind of work as he is doing now. Therefore the only difference is that he has gone into the Cabinet instead of being outside it as he was before. I think your Lordships will agree that in view of the importance of the questions now arising in various parts of the world in relation to foreign affairs it is no disadvantage to the Cabinet that there should be two Ministers who have these matters at their fingers' ends and who can advise the Cabinet as to the situation and as to what should be done.
The Question on the Paper asks what would be the distribution of activities and responsibilities. The Minister for League of Nations Affairs will normally be the representative of His Majesty's Government at Geneva when the presence of a Minister is necessary. Of course that often is not necessary. As your Lordships know, we often have as representative there some member of the Diplomatic Service from the Foreign Office to represent His Majesty's Government on special questions. That does not mean, of course, that the Secretary of State himself will never go to Geneva.
734
In fact, as your Lordships know, it is proposed that he should go there in September. That is quite customary. The Secretary of State has usually gone to Geneva for the Assembly as well as some other Minister and usually two or three Under-Secretaries. The reason for that is that when the Assembly is sitting there is a large number of Committees also sitting and unless you have three or four Ministers there it is really impossible to have a representative of this country attending these various Committees which meet at the same time. Certainly I have found it, during the few times I have been in Geneva, an immense disadvantage when the meeting of a Committee had to be postponed because some other country had not a sufficient number of representatives. We have had to postpone a meeting of a Committee perhaps until the next afternoon so as to enable the representative of a country to finish one Committee before going to another. That has delayed procedure even longer than normally, and those who know Geneva know that the procedure is quite long enough.
The Minister for League of Nations Affairs when in London will normally concert with the Secretary of State in all matters that come before him, paying particular attention, of course, to anything that comes before the League, but keeping generally in touch with foreign affairs and indeed with home affairs also, because if the representative of this country at Geneva is to do his work adequately the more he knows about the general situation and about all matters necessary for a Secretary of State to know the better will be represent this country. I think there is no doubt as to who would control policy. My right honourable friend Mr. Eden has made that quite clear. He has said: "There are not two Kings in Brentford. The Secretary of State is King." Therefore, obviously there will be no question of lack of direction or lack of control, because the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will control policy and will get the very valuable assistance, as I think your Lordships will agree, of Mr. Eden to help him.
My noble friend Lord Newton referred to a statement made by Mr. Baldwin in regard to the abolition of Ministries. My recollection of what happened is that there was a tremendous outcry from

735
everybody because certain Ministries had been selected for abolition. Everybody agreed that the number should be reduced, but when it came to the point as to which Ministry should be abolished then at once everybody got up and said that that was the one Ministry which should be preserved. Eventually the agitation apparently was such that the abolition, certainly in one or two cases, could not be carried out. Then the noble Lord remarked that an appointment once made is liable to become permanent. The Prime Minister has said that he looks on this as a purely temporary arrangement, and I think it is obvious that it is likely to be so. The noble Lord said also that he thought that possibly hereafter there might be friction. If you get a Prime Minister who chooses his team badly and selects two incompatible personalities undoubtedly friction will occur. But at the present moment, with the two individuals he has selected, those who have seen them at work together realise that friction is quite out of the question and that they will definitely pull together. It may not be always easy in the realm of foreign affairs to find those who will have the same kind of personality and who will pull together, so for that reason only this is likely to be a temporary arrangement.
In any case the reason for it at the moment is obvious. Most difficult questions are coming up before the League of Nations very shortly and they really require that a Cabinet Minister should attend to represent this country. Everybody agrees that it is unfortunate if the Secretary of State himself is out of the country except on very rare occasions, and therefore the only alternative is to have a second Cabinet Minister. Normally, when questions are not of such complexity and difficulty as they are at this moment they will very likely be adequately dealt with by an Under-Secretary. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, talked as if the Secretary of State spent his whole time abroad.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Not all of it.
EARL STANHOPE: The greater part of it. As a matter of fact since June, 1929, there have been only fifteen visits abroad by the Secretary of State or by the Under-Secretary of State, and during that time ten capitals have been visited, so that the visits abroad have not been
736
very many and still less have they been prolonged. It may comfort the noble Earl to know that five of those visits were paid during the time that the Labour Government was in office. Who will be the senior of the two Under-Secretaries I have not the slightest idea, but I think we shall probably run in couples. If horses are properly harnessed in pairs they run together and neither gets in front of the other. I can assure the noble Lord who leads the Opposition that there is not likely to be the slightest difficulty as to who visits which room, because we shall probably quite often be going into each other's room. The incident he had in mind did not occur under a National Government or a Conservative Government. I know the occasion to which he refers and I can tell him the names of the two Ministers afterwards if he would like to hear them. I know the case quite well.
As to who will answer Questions in the House of Commons, I do not know whether the arrangement has been finally settled, but I think that what is likely to be done is what happened during the term of office of the previous Government when the Secretary of State answered questions on Mondays and Wednesdays and the present Minister for League of Nations Affairs on Tuesdays and Thursdays. That was what happened under the last Government, when Mr. Eden was Lord Privy Seal. I do not know whether that is going to be the future arrangement but I know it is being discussed. It is obviously an advantage that the Secretary of State himself should be present on certain days. It is customary in another place for Ministers to have definite days when questions relating to their Departments are directed to them. But with the Foreign Office the questions are so numerous that actually they have been directed to the Foreign Office at any rate four days a week, but Ministers have taken them on alternate days. I believe this is the policy which will probably happen again in the future.
I think I have nothing further that I can tell your Lordships on the matter. Certainly I can give one very definite assurance: that there will be no lack of co-ordination of any sort or description under the present arrangement. Visits are likely to be fewer rather than

737
more numerous. I entirely agree with those who say that the strain on those who hold the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is a very heavy one indeed; and it is not likely that the Foreign Secretary's Cabinet colleagues or
738
anybody connected with him will allow him to expend himself unnecessarily by making visits overseas which can be done without.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.