§ LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSEMy Lords, before the adjournment I was saying that in regard to the amount of refund from the Treasury to the local authorities for these houses three-quarters of the expenditure of local authorities on grants will be reimbursed by the Exchequer. County councils and town councils of small burghs and the Highlands and the Islands will receive an Exchequer contribution of seven-eighths instead of three-quarters towards any expenditure on grants for replacing houses 612 occupied by small landowners, owner-occupiers of small farms, statutory small tenants, cottars, and squatters. Clauses 4 and 5 lay down certain conditions which must be complied with by recipients of grants. The conditions are, in the case of new houses, that certain modern conveniences must be supplied, such as a scullery larder, bathroom, and water closet, but the council have power to dispense with the provision of a water closet where this is not reasonably practicable. That is quite understandable to anyone who knows the conditions in Scotland, but, personally, I think that the earth closet is often more sanitary than the water closet. The next point in relation to conditions is that these houses have to be maintained in a fit condition for a period of forty years. That in itself will, I think, do one thing: it will ensure that the houses which are built are good houses. The jerry-built house that we see so much of in the South is of no use to Scotland, and the cost of maintenance over the forty years of such a house would be very much too heavy.
There is an interesting condition under the clauses of Part II. Clauses 6 to 10 contain provisions connected with the schemes of assistance to private owners. Under the Bill the owner will be required to pay not the whole grant but a part proportionate to the unexpired period of the forty years. Care has been taken not to impose on the landlord of a small landholder who receives a grant the duty of repaying to the local authority a portion of the grant when the small landowner renounces his holding. It may he also worth mentioning that care has been taken in the Bill not to impose on the landlord of a small holder who receives a grant the duty of repaying to the local authority a portion of the grant when the small holder gives up his holding. I think that is an advance on our previous housing legislation and I understand that existing Acts are going to he altered to that extent in future legislation.
Part III of the Bill contains miscellaneous provisions largely dealing with machinery. Clauses 11 to 14 make certain minor amendments in the powers of the county councils to secure repairs or improvements to working-class houses. Some of the amendments, those for instance in Clause 12, are merely designed to remove doubts as to the meaning of existing provisions. Clause 15 will enable 613 the Secretary of State to withhold grants from a county council who failed to operate a scheme of assistance under Part II of the Bill. Clause 16 enables the Central Department to make an order requiring a local authority who are in default to carry out their duty. Under the present law if a local authority are in default the Central Department may exercise the local authority's powers for them, that is take over the job and do it, but this is a very drastic step and this Bill provides that there should be an intermediate stage at which the local authority will merely be ordered to exercise their powers. Clause 18 provides for the making of various by-laws. I think any one who has been in touch with Scotland in recent times will realise that these by-laws are wanted. In the past it has been in the power of local authorities to make by-laws, but in many cases they have not thought fit to do so. These by-laws are principally to deal with seasonal workers and people like those unfortunate potato lifters in Kirkintilloch who lost their lives in an awful fire. This Bill gives power to local authorities to make by-laws. Of course there will be no necessity for them in areas where there are no seasonal workers.
Another matter to which I would like to refer is the Bill extending the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts for a further period, and making some changes to increase the usefulness of their provisions, which was introduced in another place last week. I think that so far improvements have been completed in 25,000 cottages and work is under way for dealing with another 5,000. I do not think there is any real disagreement amongst your Lordships as to the general usefulness of the Bill. Those of us who know our Scotland know the very fine type of farm servant that we have there, and we want to see him sharing in better housing conditions. We have often felt that housing conditions, even leaving out of account the dreadful slum conditions in Glasgow, are not all that they might be in Scotland. Therefore we welcome any Bill such as this that will help local authorities and others to deal with the housing problem. In another place an amendment was made—your Lordships will find it in Clause 20, the interpretation clause—to indicate clearly the people to whom this Bill is to apply. It says that in the case of persons resident outside the large 614 burghs they are to be persons of the working classes engaged in agriculture. This Bill is to help the working-class population rather than the type of people who are able to pay higher rents. I am sure that your Lordships agree that the more we can do to produce a healthy, prosperous, contented agricultural population, the better it will be for our country. I have every confidence in moving the Second Reading of this Bill.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—.(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
§ LORD SALTOUN, who had given Notice that he would move, that the Bill be read 2a this day six months, said: My Lords, before I say what I feel bound to say on this Bill this afternoon I would like, if I may, to congratulate the noble Lord who has introduced the Bill on the extremely able way in which he did so. It may seem perhaps rather bold for a man of my years to congratulate anyone of the noble Lord's years and experience, but I hope that he will allow me to say that I was very deeply impressed with the way in which he introduced this Bill. He has said two things which I was very glad to hear him say. He admitted in the first place that this Bill was to house the agricultural population in villages, and in the second place he said that the present cottar houses of Scotland are bad. He said that twice, and I could wish that he had said it a hundred times, because there is nothing more true. In anything I say about this Bill, I do not want any noble Lord to think that I do not realise that fact. But this Bill is a revolutionary Bill, and I do not think it would be a proper thing for it to pass through your Lordships' House without that fact being pointed out and without your Lordships having a moment in which to pause to deliberate on what we are doing.
§ As a matter of fact, in his closing words the noble Lord proved to me that the Bill is even more revolutionary than I thought. In Clause 20 we are told that the Bill is to be confined to the working class. What is the working class? What can you call the working class? I do not know anyone who works harder than some noble Lords in your Lordships' House. Are not they the working class? If this Bill goes through, you must have a definition of the words "working class," and when you once define the 615 words "working class" you will bring about in this country a greater revolution than has even taken place since King Edward was driven out of Scotland. The real reason why I consider this Bill a revolutionary Bill is that for a thousand years and more the members of the agricultural population of Scotland have been accustomed to live in their own houses on the land. By this Bill we are going to change the habits of a whole people and bring them to live in villages all together, on the English model.
§ For nearly twenty years I have deplored both in public and in private the taxation, and in particular the Estate Duty, that has prevented the proprietors of agricultural land from fulfilling as completely as they ought to their duty of providing good cottar houses for farm servants on their estates. Moreover, every Government, including this one, informs proprietors tacitly but none the less effectively that they need not consider such expense as a proper expense of a landed estate. They do this by the stringent manner in which the officials of the Inland Revenue are directed to disallow all such expenditure in maintenance claims wherever they can detect any clement of improvement. I ask you, why should the uncompelled improvement of cottar houses not be a legitimate expense of a landowner in the running of his estate? In the Bible it says, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treaded' out the corn." Yet every British Government is alike in raising an outcry about the housing shortage while it hampers with blood-sucking restrictions everyone who tries to remedy that shortage.
§ Therefore, in criticising the Bill before your Lordships, I am not attacking the desire of the Government to remedy the housing shortage for which they themselves and their predecessors since 1910 are directly and mainly responsible. I think I should have said 1909, because it was, as your Lordships will remember, the Budget of 1909 and the taxation of land values which first began to create the housing shortage from which we are now suffering. I have heard various figures quoted, but the one with which most people have agreed is that houses, especially the houses for poorer people, began to fall behind from the year 1909 at the rate of 616 something like 20,000 houses a year. I am perfectly aware that the blame for this fall has been put upon the War. But it was not the War, it was the taxation of land values, that was responsible for it. The War really served in this matter the same purpose as the devil served for moralists, as a convenient subject on which to put the blame. As a matter of fact, I have a certain amount of personal interest in this matter, because I was sent up by the people for whom I worked to see that a certain house complied with proper building regulations. I think, though I am not sure—it was just before that Budget—that it was the last £99 house that was built in this country. It was a four-roomed, two-storeyed house of the kind which I think Facey Romford would have called "Four rooms with appurts." After that time, owing to taxation, it became impossible to build a £99 house, and I should say that such a house to-day would cost at least four times that figure.
§ The Bill before us is founded on a Report, and in case the noble Lord in charge of the Bill should attempt to ward off my criticisms by referring to the Report, I think I had better make some observations upon it to assist your Lordships to arrive at the measure of reliance that can be placed on that document. The system of government in Scotland by means of Acts founded on Reports of Committees nominated in general by the Secretary of State is one that demands constant watchfulness and criticism. But it does not receive it. I shall not attempt to develop this point to-day; I shall merely content myself with touching upon a few details that will serve my purpose equally well. The first point which strikes anyone on reading this Report is the number of references to the Scottish Land and Property Federation. This body is formed on almost as broad a basis as any other organisation connected with land, and possesses on its council admirable resources in knowledge and experience. I think perhaps I should add that I have not been asked to speak to-day by the Federation, so what I am saying is entirely my own. The Federation is referred to in the Report no fewer than eleven times. On four of these occasions it is referred to indifferently, while in the other seven the views of the Federation are criticised and condemned.
617§ Perhaps that is not altogether unaccountable. I understand that the Federation protested to the Secretary of State in reference to the composition of the Committee, and I believe it is a fact that no single member of the Committee can be truly described as a countryman well versed in the problems of rural society. I am not so stupid as to think that pique—some spretœ injuria formœ—dictated the attitude of the Committee to the Federation. I am not aware that they even heard the protest. But inexperience is the parent of confidence in criticism, and had the members of the Committee been more familiar with the problems and social structure of the country, there might have been a little less assurance in their dissent. There are at least a score of passages in this Report which seem to me to call for close examination and even for disagreement, but I will confine myself to one passage to which there may be no other opportunity to refer. In its Clause 3 the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, enacts that if after the appointed day the occupier of a dwelling-house causes or permits it to be overcrowded, he shall be guilty of an offence. As married farm servants are engaged for a year, and as the appointed day is in the discretion of the Minister, and as no one—possibly not even the Minister himself—can foresee the mind of the Minister, this passage makes it advisable for farmers, when engaging their men, to inquire how many children there are in their families. There has been considerable criticism of the Bill on this point in the country in Scotland, because it is felt that this tends to prevent the employment of men with large families.
§
In the Report before us on page 50, paragraph 105, we read:
The main reason given to us in support of the view that the overcrowding standard should not be applied to farm servants' houses was that the application of the standard would penalise workers with large families, since farmers would not engage them if the accommodation in the farm cottages was insufficient according to the standard. We think that the danger of discrimination against the worker with a large family as a result of the application of the overcrowding standard has been greatly exaggerated. In many areas farmers have for years preferred to employ workers with small families and we do not think that the application of the overcrowding standard will substantially worsen the position of workers with large families in these areas.
618
Your Lordships will notice that the application of the standard forces farmers, whether they will or not, to discriminate against men with large families unless a farmer happens to have an unusually roomy house.
§ Also the argument of the Committee has no force at all unless the discrimination, which they insinuate, has been universal in the areas to which they allude, and unless those areas include a large part of Scotland. If we examine the passage we must recognise that it is a very poor argument in any case to say that because an evil thing is done by an individual, there is no harm in making its performance obligatory by Act of Parliament. In any case the charge is extremely improbable. The children of the cottar house form a valuable source of light labour for the farmer at busy times, and your Lordships are familiar with the fact that in many areas the educational authorities feel obliged to set bounds to the eagerness of the farmers to avail themselves of this source of labour, which does not look as if this discrimination obtains in such areas. Besides that, most farmers have a great weakness for young creatures, whether human or otherwise. Before the Act of 1935 exposed the farmer to the risk of having his men fined, the practice was for the mm who were engaged to inspect the houses, and, if the houses did not suit them, they generally threw up the engagement. If the farmer objected to that the men in almost every case had the support of the Sheriff and so the question of children was hardly one that bothered the farmer at all.
§ If this charge were true, the farm servants of Scotland would have good ground for deep-seated and bitter resentment and I should be the first to take up the cudgels for them. But it is not true, and there can be no more offensive or infuriating provision than for one class of men to prescribe for another that they must have so many, and only so many, children in their families. In over thirty years experience, I have heard of but one instance and that was widely commented on -in the district in which it occurred. Another man whom I have consulted, with fifty years experience from the banks of the Tay to the borders of Morayshire, has not been able to recall a single instance, and it is the same in other parts of Scotland where I have consulted many men of ex- 619 perience. I do not know about the Lothians and the Border, but there are noble Lords here who can answer for that part of Scotland. If the charge has any foundation at all, which I doubt very much, it can only be true of those parts where relations between employer and employed are of the most exasperated and bitter kind.
§ I have said that I doubted whether the charge had any foundation, and no evidence is referred to in the Report. I have to remind your Lordships that on a previous occasion where the evidence was not published I applied to the Minister for a sight of it and was told that it was confidential and that I could not see it. I have asked for the evidence in this case in the ordinary way and have been told that it is not available. I trust that your Lordships will not lose sight of the danger of this departure from the principles of good government in the case of Scotland seeing how readily the system lends itself to the publication of such incorrect, insidious and dangerous statements. I should like to say that I am quite convinced that the last thing in the world which His Majesty's Government would wish to do would be to shelter themselves from legitimate criticism by such an innuendo against a class of people for whose interests, as for those of all of us, they are bound to take thought. Indeed I have brought the matter up to give the noble Lord in charge of the Bill an opportunity of dissociating the Government from this statement, for it is to be remembered that the Committee which has given it currency is a statutory body set up under the Housing Act of 1935 and the Government have approved the Report by adopting most of its recommendations in the Bill. This is the second time that attention has been drawn to the weaknesses of these Reports and I hope that the Government will devise some remedy for the evil.
§ I believe that the Bill before us is mistaken in policy since it has for its object the introduction into Scotland of the English village system. It has been suggested to me that the regulations which the noble Lord says only apply to seasonal labour under Clause 18 are not really so strong as the regulations in Part II. There is nothing in Clause 18 which makes those regulations, so far as I can see, apply only to seasonal labour, but the regula- 620 tions made there can hardly be less drastic than the regulations which have been prescribed by the Government for the standard. The introduction of the village system and the introduction of casual labour will undoubtedly lead to the farmer spending less money on labour than he did before, and I believe it is unsuited to Scotland. In fact most farmers are opposed to it, save perhaps in those districts where relations are notoriously bad. I do not know any such districts but there may be some. I speak for the rest.
§ Even on first reading this Bill shows evidence either of indifferent drafting or of a very imperfect knowledge of Scotland and Scottish agricultural conditions. Take, for example, Clause 4, subsection (4) (b), which is governed by subsection (1) (b). Here it is laid down that what is called a chaumer must be provided with a scullery, sink and drainage. A scullery implies washing up and kitchen operations. A "chaumer" is a technical word which means one thing and one thing only—a house or a building where men sleep, and sleep only—and I am obliged to the noble Lord who introduced the Bill for giving the same definition himself, because I was afraid someone might say that in some remote village there was a different meaning to this term. I need not therefore argue that point. Now a chaumer implies that the men using it are fed in the farmhouse itself, and that no feeding or preparation of food takes place within the chaumer. What sort of Bill can it be which imposes on proprietors and local authorities the duty of providing an entirely unnecessary scullery in a chaumer, and provides that this wasteful and useless extravagance can only be avoided by the special grace of the Minister?
§ What does a scullery cost? In the first place, let us consider what would happen in a scullery. The sink has to be connected with a drain. If it is going to be used in a chaumer the taps will probably get broken off, and one of the first things is that the trap in the sink dries up and evaporates, and then you have direct aerial communication from the drain to the chaumer—a fertile cause of the spread of ill-health and disease, simply because you insist upon proprietors and local authorities providing something for which there is no earthly 621 need. If such unnecessary expense is going to be enjoined on proprietors I would suggest a very admirable substitute. I suggest that the money which might be spent upon the scullery and the sink for the sake of the men be not spent on those purposes, but be merely extracted from the proprietors and given to the Exchequer. The country and the men affected would be better off.
§ Again, in the proviso of subsection (3) of Clause r your Lordships will observe that an increased contribution is provided by the Government in cases where the house is remote from supplies of labour and material. But nothing is said about water. The crying need on the East coast of Scotland is water. The towns have got most of our water, and they are asking for more. Whenever the rainfall is below 30 inches water has to be fetched from very long distances. Where I live the rainfall is about 21 or 22 inches. Moreover, the matter is not so simple as it was twenty or thirty years ago. Then every proprietor measured the relative need of his property in relation to the scanty supply, and I was taught that there are certain places where I must never allow houses to be built because they could only he supplied with water at the expense of other local authorities with a better claim. Now to-day within a radius of about twenty miles from my house I do not suppose there remain 50,000 acres which have not changed hands and been sold since the War. This kind of thing is true for all Scotland, and it is going on. Far away, over a hundred miles from me, I know a district where everyone, great and small, is awaiting with apprehension the wholesale and shattering liquidation of all available assets which must occur when a certain old gentleman passes to his rest. In these circumstances where the land is broken up into single farms water can only be brought with the greatest difficulty, and by over-riding prior rights and what often are, in common justice, better claims. Yet, while the difficulty of labour and material is to be considered, water, which is the greatest difficulty of all, is to get no consideration. Your Lordships can amend this, but an Amendment in this House would no doubt he met in another place with the claim of Privilege. It only goes to show the haphazard and happy-go-lucky method in which this Bill has been drafted.
622§ Again, if your Lordships will turn to page 6, take Clause 4, subsection (3) (b) and (c). Paragraph (b) condemns two-roomed houses, and I want to ask the Government if their policy on this matter is final. Young married couples do not want useless accommodation, which casts an unnecessary burden on the wife and on their finances. Every village or housing scheme should include some two-roomed houses. In fact, the more farsighted local authorities in Scotland are themselves now endeavouring to provide these houses, in spite of the disadvantage that they are not assisted by the grant. I have had experience of building many cottar houses. We have never built any cottar house of less than three rooms, but our experience was in very many cases that one of these rooms was never used. It can never be wise for a Government to be above taking note of the actual needs of the people.
§
Paragraph (c) provides that no assistance shall be given unless
the house contains a water closet, a scullery with a sink and drainage therefor, a fixed bath in a bathroom and such other conveniences as may be specified in the scheme of assistance:
Provided that where it is not reasonably practicable to provide a water closet, the local authority may, with the approval of the Department, and subject to such conditions as the Department may impose, dispense with the provision thereof.
With regard to water closets, where they exist there must be drains, and it is a commonplace that no drains are far better than any drains but the best. Those of your Lordships who have experience of looking after cottage drains will agree that often in cases where water is available there is tremendous difficulty in providing outfall drains. The cottar houses for which these drains are to be provided are tenanted in general for a year, after which the occupant passes on. I leave your Lordships to imagine the dangerous source of infection which we are providing under this clause for our country population.
§ Again, take the bathroom. A bath requires about 20 gallons of water, but even taking 15 as a minimum will do no harm. This water must be hot, or the bath will not be used. What I have said about water difficulties will arise in far greater degree over bathrooms. Moreover, I may mention that bad drainage from a bath is just as dangerous and 623 offensive as bad drainage from a water closet. But there is another point with regard to the bath. Farm servants use from three to four tons of coal in a year, which they get from the farmer. I used to find that four tons was about right for my people. Now, if the hot water system is installed behind the range, as it must be, the range automatically consumes about double the fuel, and it does not make much difference if the bath is used or not. Who is going to pay this extra cost? Why should the occupier incur an additional £10 a year for something he does not want? Why should his employer? Will the Government grant a subvention of that amount in aid of wages?
§ I really think this provision is due to the urban-mindedness of the Committee —a Committee accustomed to the very lavish water system and the main drainage of towns. I think possibly they despise our rural intelligences. But in the country our minds do move, and we have got in advance of the Bill in this matter. When we can get water to a cottage we fit it with a special room of a convenient size. The floor is made of concrete, and is sloped down to a single point, where a trap is fitted. The walls and door are waterproof to a height of three feet six inches. The room contains a copper and a flue, with suitable taps. If a man wants a hot bath he can get it here in a few minutes at a trivial expense. If the wife has a washing day here is everything to her hand. The economy in water and fuel is remarkable, and the saving of labour enormous. You do not even have to empty the things out. You merely tip them up and the water goes down the drain. It flows naturally, and in this way you swill out the whole thing with a few turns of the tap. This system, which is far more serviceable than a big bath and is far in advance of that part of the Bill, is actually incompetent under this measure.
§ I sometimes think that those who draw these Bills forget that housework is done by women. My experience is that the way to get the support of farm servants is to see that their wives get a square deal. This Bill simply bristles with extra burdens for wives where it touches country conditions—so much so that I am told on good authority, though I admit 624 I do not actually know of any instance myself, that in some cases farm servants, devoted as they always are to their children, actually go the length of sending them to live away from home in order to avoid having to move into council houses with their excessive accommodation. After all, a woman with twelve children does not want to have five rooms to keep clean. The second part of paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of Clause 4 is remarkable for saying that where water or drainage cannot be provided for a water closet the latter may be dispensed with, but none the less a big bath must be provided. Perhaps the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will let us know the reason for this curious differentiation. In Clause 4, subsection (4), paragraph (c) we have a hit at the tied house. I just want to say one word about that before I sit down. To give a system a bad name, as is done here, is the easiest way to condemn it, as it makes people who use the name irritated, and then they cease to think. I am not going to argue the point here, and I do not need to argue it to the bulk of the people who live in them, bad though many of these houses are. They realise that the Government have taken away and spent the money that should have gone to repairing and improving them. They also realise the inestimable advantage of living on their work in a land where the snow is often impassable, and they realise the advantage of finding a vacant house when taking an engagement.
§ This Bill may operate rather more quickly than the Government may find convenient. For instance, I am told that in district No. 3 there are some 15,000 farm servants. It will be conservative to estimate that half of them are married, say 7,500 families. Most of the land is now in the hands of owner-occupiers. Some of these farms have as many as five or six cottar houses. Under the standard set up by the Bill every one of these houses would be condemned—that is to say, you would have some 7,500 families living in condemned houses. Grant or no grant, no farmer will have the money to bring many of the houses up to the standard. Owing to the shortage of skilled labour, it is at present a matter of favour to get a slate replaced on your roof if you live in the country. Moreover, it must be remembered that the improvement of these houses does not 625 add to the value of the farm to the owner-occupier, because, to the owner who works it, its value depends on what he can get out of it. I do not say he should not provide good houses. I merely say that his profits will not be increased by his doing so.
§ It is inevitable that such men will be forced to put more land down in grass, use more machinery, bring one or two houses up to the required standard, and let the rest go. I have heard of farmers who have announced their intention to do so already. We can do nothing to stop them. The result will be a reduction of corn land, and in consequence a reduction of the nation's power to feed itself. I hope I have made it clear that I do not pretend to any accuracy in my figures, but supposing that owing to the operation of this clause 4,000 or 5,000 married men with families, who cannot change their way of life, are thrown out of work, made dependent upon the newly established Unemployment Fund, and are without homes, are the Government prepared to build villages and establish these people in them as rapidly as the need is likely to arise, and whence are they going to provide these villages with water? I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Saltoun.)
§ LORD OLIVIERMy Lords, we on these benches should be pleased to see any Bill of this sort pass, but having read the Bill through, and having had, myself, a certain experience of the administration of this kind of law, I was a little worried by some of the provisions which seem to me to threaten a good deal of difficulty in interpretation. Doubtless this is a matter for the Committee stage, and the Scottish Office are responsible for the drafting. Several of the difficulties that occurred to me have been mentioned by the noble Lord who has just sat down, but there were one or two others he did not mention. Two points occur to me. One relates to a rather curiously worded provision in Clause 4 (1) (ii), which says:
Houses occupied by persons who, being owner occupiers of farms which either do not exceed fifty acres in area or are entered in the valuation roll at a gross annual value not exceeding fifty pounds, are of substantially the same economic condition as agricultural workers.626 Some of these owner-occupiers might object to that. Do you mean to say that a man who is owner of a farm valued at not more than £50 a year is in the same economic condition as an agricultural labourer? I do not agree that he always is. That is one of the points.Another point is that it is provided that when any grant has been made to a house, that house shall be maintained for forty years. What is your security if the tenant has gone and the house has fallen down? Whom are you going to fall hack upon to maintain that house? According to our English practice, I have found that is a practical point, because I have known a case in which the owner of a house let under a lease, by the terms of which he was bound to do landlord's repairs, wanted to place it under a public trust company. This company replied, "Unless you give collateral security for making these repairs we cannot undertake the trust." The owner said, "The house is worth it and the rent is worth it." But the reply was the same. How are you going to secure that your house is maintained for forty years? What collateral security have you if the tenant has gone and the house has gone? These are Committee points, but from the point of view of protecting the taxpayer they are important, in my opinion, although it is the Scottish Office which has to face the music. These are matters of drafting, and deserve a certain amount of attention in Committee.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHMy Lords, at the outset I would ask for that indulgence which your Lordships always give to those who have the privilege to address you for the first time. I am sure that anyone interested in housing connected with agriculture in Scotland will naturally be very pleased that the Government and the Secretary of State have given this attention to a very important part of our rural housing problem. Those who have considered this Bill recently, in the South of Scotland at any rate, will be surprised that it could be described as a revolutionary measure. Our only anxiety was that we would not be able to utilise the Bill to any very large extent. We feel that the proposals are good and that they will be very helpful, but that the Treasury have safeguarded themselves very carefully, and that people in England need have no fear that the Treasury will suffer to 627 any extent as a result of this measure which applies only in Scotland. I would have liked to see the title "rural" instead of "agricultural," but there will be very great satisfaction at the speech made by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading. It gave one a feeling of greater optimism that the general interpretation of the Bill may be very favourable for the provision of cottages, and that it will be possible to use the Bill to a greater extent than has been anticipated.
I believe myself that county councils will be able to use this Bill quite effectively even if on a limited scale, and that it will be of considerable help in increasing the number of houses available for the agricultural population in places where rural employment would be increased if more houses were provided. At the present time, it is extremely important that there should be additional provision of houses for rural workers. I know of an agricultural estate, and I am sure that there are many others very similar, where, in a large proportion of cases, the houses upon the estate are at present occupied either by pensioners or retired people or by widows and their dependants. One is naturally pleased to be able to house anyone who has served on the estate, but there is this disadvantage, quite apart from the heavy cost entailed nowadays, that a large proportion of the people living in these houses, being retired people, displace others who are much wanted in agriculture and for whom agricultural employment is available.
I hope that under this Bill it will be possible for county councils to build houses which can be let at rents which retired people and their dependants can afford, and that in that way houses for active producers can be set free. We were anxious as to what people could be housed under the proposals in Part I, but the noble Lord has indicated that the Scottish Office will, as far as they possibly can, encourage local authorities to make use of the Bill. Reference has been made to the Report of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee. I am afraid that the members of that Committee were under the misapprehension that an increase in the provision of housing in Scotland depended upon the amount of legislation passed by Parliament, and they 628 also indicated their belief that the ownership of cottage property was a great economic advantage to the owner, whereas experience has shown that very often ownership is a serious liability. The noble Lord who has just moved the rejection of the Bill has, at any rate, illustrated in various ways how very intricate and difficult is the rural housing problem in Scotland.
Coining to Part II, here again I think the proposals are very useful, but they may be limited in action. There are a few cases where it is better to build on a new site than to reconstruct the existing cottage. The grants will be very helpful, but even with the help of a grant the cost will be high, especially in outlying places, and, providing that the existing site is suitable, it will often be cheaper to reconstruct the existing cottage even at a cost of £300 or £400 than to build a new one. As the result of a survey of a fairly large area in the South of Scotland I find there are only a limited number of cases where advantage can be taken of the Bill, and therefore I hope the Scottish Office will be able to see that the number of houses to be provided is not restricted by too narrow an interpretation of the Bill. I do not think that amendment is necessary so much as a generous interpretation. I hope therefore that the Government will make sure as far as they can that at all events a reasonable interpretation is secured and that such cases as are clearly intended to be covered will be included and so secure the grant.
I find, for example, that in one county, in a large area, only six cottages are likely to come under Part II, and of that number at least 50 per cent. may be doubtful about being eligible for the grant. If I might I would draw the attention of the Minister to the type of cottage isolated some distance from the farmhouse and from the road, with no proper access. You may find cottages of this sort which are not at present occupied by people working on the farm because the farmer has been unable to secure a cattleman or a ploughman or a shepherd to live in a house of that kind. Clearly the cottage which is required is one for the workman on the farm. In the absence of such a workman the farmer has to rely for assistance upon such members of his family as live in his house, and if such assistance is not available the farm has to 629 go under-staffed. I do hope that the fact that the cottages are not actually at the time occupied by people working on the farm will not prevent such cottages from being included under Part II of the Bill. There are also cases of a farm without a cottage, and there may be a single worker living in a wing of the farmhouse. It is clearly the desire of the Government to encourage the provision of sufficient houses, and this seems a case where consideration could be given for a grant to build a house as being preferable to bothies and chaumers. I am not quite sure whether in cases of doubt it will be for the county councils or the Scottish Office to decide, or whether both will be very severely restricted. I do urge the importance, above all, of helping the provision of adequate and necessary houses for farms in Scotland, especially now that everyone is beginning to realise that the difficulty of obtaining labour for farms is increasing. If the owner or the fanner cannot provide sufficient houses it is far more difficult for him to obtain men to staff his farm. If we can provide houses, and good houses, we are almost certain to be able to get the men.
These points may seem small, and I ask forgiveness if this is not the proper occasion to mention such small details, but the Bill is a comparatively small Bill and it is important to urge the Government to secure its fullest utilisation at this stage. The principal criticism in another place, and by another Party, and outside Parliament, in regard to proposals of this kind is generally directed against the tied-house system and against any subsidy from public funds which would continue it. I feel that the reasons for that criticism would be greater where the house provided is a bad one, and the bad reputation of this system has grown up because many of these houses are bad. But the usual form of criticism gives one the impression that the critics are generally people who are not thoroughly acquainted with the need for houses near the work on the farm. I think it is reasonable to suggest that where the house provided is a good one, and the farm worker is prepared to be settled in employment on a certain farm, there is equally a very great deal to be said in favour of this arrangement.
There is much criticism of landowners in general in regard to housing because 630 there are many cases where we have not been able to keep up with the times, but very little credit is given where it is due for improvements, for the provision of good housing and for the money saved to public funds. It has been said before now that the saving to landowners would be very great if the local authority or the State would provide these houses in their place, but it would mean an intolerable burden upon the taxpayers and the ratepayers. This burden is being saved by the efforts of landowners in a large or small way to do what they can do at the present time to improve housing in Scotland. I think the Government and county councils should be thankful to the owners of cottages on these farms for the way in which they have endeavoured as far as they could to bring their houses up to the standard required by the Government. In conclusion, I would like to thank the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading for the great encouragement which he has given us, and in spite of the Treasury limitation which I understand has been imposed in regard to this Bill I hope that the Government will be successful in securing a reasonable and not too severe an interpretation of what we may be allowed to do.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIRMy Lords, may I be allowed to be the first member of your Lordships' House to congratulate the noble Duke who has just spoken for the first time in this House on the excellence of the material and the delivery of his speech. It was a most useful contribution to our debate. I am specially grateful to him for his reference to the so-called tied-house system. The tied-house system in agriculture is an entirely different system to the tied-houses in the brewery trade, for the simple reason that a farm cannot be carried on unless those who are employed on it live next door to their work. If a farm is of any size obviously it cannot be in the middle of a village. Therefore it is essential for the due accomplishment of work on a farm that those who work on it shall be near that work. It is no use having a cattleman who cannot be near his cows. It is no use asking him to live three miles from the byre, because that means greatly increased hours of work. He has to get up earlier to get to his byre and having 631 done his work he has to get home again. He must be right on the doorstep of the byre if he is going to be a useful cattleman.
I would like to welcome this Bill as a distinct step towards helping those who have to provide accommodation for agricultural workers. I am not quite sure whether this Bill is in fulfilment of a promise given by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, in July, 1935. If it is, it does not go quite as far as I hoped it would do. On the other hand, we have learned in agriculture to be thankful for small mercies. If this is only an instalment let us receive it and make the best use of it that we can. I feel I must echo the sentiment already expressed that there are some points in this Bill which show that those who have drafted it and those who have amended it are those who must be described as town bred, who do not know rural practices and rural problems. Take, for instance, the constant reference to water. It is all very well to say you must have a good water supply in a town. That is totally different. The water supply is under a water authority, houses are close to each other and a main can supply a great many consumers in a very short distance. But in the country where you have perhaps five cottar houses to 200 acres it is a very large order to supply water to those cottar houses spread over those 200 acres. An important point which is not realised often by Government Departments is that the more access you give to water in houses the sooner it is that the supply runs short in drought. Obviously, if you have a tap which answers to your turn you use it, and you use up your storage of the winter rains much sooner than if you had to go to the well and pump a bucketful.
Another important point in regard to this water question in the country, and one which everybody who lives in the country realises, is that a dry water closet or drain is very much more insanitary than an earth closet. I am perfectly certain from my experience that if this Bill is strictly interpreted in regard to some of its clauses you are going to have an enormous lot of trouble with insanitary properties as a result of the lack of water. This year we have had hardly 4½ inches of rain, 632 and that is in the wettest three months of the year. What is going to happen in August, September and October? Half the places in the country will be without water. But those who have to pump their water from a pump outside or from a well will probably be much better off in those months than those who have water laid on in their houses. I am talking about rural districts, because there is not the same temptation to waste water as there is when you have it laid on in the house. Then, again, there is the question of baths. The existing water supply to many of these cottar houses is quite sufficient for an ordinary year. What I call an ordinary year is one that is not overburdened with drought. But if you are going to invite the four or five occupants of a cottar house to have ten baths a week of twenty gallons each, your water is going to go before you can count one. The occupants of that house will be in a very much worse position than they are now, on account of the water having been used in the winter and in the early summer months, and in the rest of the year they will have hardly any water at all.
You cannot create more water than there is, and it is a very expensive thing to harness water in country districts. I speak from experience, because I know what the supply of water is both in urban areas, having for twenty-five years been a member of the Metropolitan Water Board, and in rural areas, having been an agricultural landowner and having had to supply water to all my three hundred tenants. So I hope the interpretation of the water supply in this Bill will be reasonable. By the way, the word "reasonable" appears too often in this Bill. It is extraordinarily difficult to find an adequate definition of the word "reasonable," even in the dictionary, and when you come to apply it in administration it is even more difficult. What may be reasonable in the month of February may not be reasonable in the month of August, and I am rather afraid of the provisions of the Bill in this special particular.
May I refer for one moment to Clause 18, which I consider an extraordinarily difficult clause if the administration of it is going to be literal. It says that bylaws are to be prepared within six months of the passing of the Act or within such longer period as may be allowed by the 633 Minister or by the Department. When you look at what those regulations are to be drawn up for, I really tremble to think how on earth, in six months' time after this Bill becomes an Act, it is expected that owners of these cottages are to comply with the be by-laws laid down under these headings. I would also remind your Lordships of the fact that the country at this moment is being called upon to put all its energies into the very necessary work of rearmament. Already prices have gone up enormously. Already, before this rearmament push came on, it was almost impossible to find labour in the country at all, and how are we going to make all these improvements six months after this Bill conies into operation if there is no labour to dc it, if there are no materials except at enormous cost? I should like to have some assurance from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that some power will be taken whereby to moderate the strictness of the by-laws drawn up in accordance with this schedule in Clause 18, and whereby it will be possible to do this work as and when opportunity offers. I would again impress upon your Lordships that whenever you touch plumbers, up goes the cost of your work.
May I also remind your Lordships that cottar houses do not bear any rent? The rent of the farm is for its produce, and for its buildings, such as byre accommodation, barns and stables. That farm will only demand so much rent, and if you are going to put these cottar houses into the conditions which are laid down here, you are not going to get any more for the farm. Therefore the owner has got to do all the work on the present rent, and as he cannot do it now, how is he going to do it when all these extra conditions are put on? But I am not saying that because I do not think there should be improvements. I think that an up-to-date farmer will find that he will have to have improvements in order to get up-to-date workers. I do not disagree, but I do ask that some opportunity shall be given to owners who have got to do these improvements—some time in which to do them—and I ask the Government not to come down upon them with all these threats from the Department and from county councils before they are given ample time, taking into consideration also the availability of labour with which to carry out the work demanded by this Bill. 634 I do not wish to appear to be against the Bill, because I am not, but I do want a very strong assurance that the provisions of this Bill will be administered by the Department of Agriculture and by county councils in such a way that those who are responsible for carrying out these improvements can do them without being brought into the Bankruptcy Court; and that injustice shall not be done to those who are doing their very best to comply with the provisions of the measure.
LORD KINNAIRDMy Lords, I should like to add one word of welcome to this Bill, and I should not like anything I said to be taken to mean otherwise. I am sure that we must all be in favour of helping to solve the housing problem, which so badly needs solution. But I should like to say one word on the difficulty as I see it. How is this measure going to work out? Take an ordinary estate, of an average size of 6,000 acres with 200-acre farms: that is, thirty farms on the estate. In the discussion in another place two tied houses were considered a reasonable number of houses to a farm. That would be sixty houses to be built on one estate. A present from the Government up to £200 would leave you to find on the average, for a three-roomed house, £300, and £300 on sixty houses is £18,000. I think that finance is going to be a very real difficulty in carrying out this measure, because there must be a very large number of people in Scotland who definitely will find it absolutely impossible to provide the capital required. They are already faced with the Rural Housing Bill, and although there they have up to £100 a house, I find that the average spent on a cottage under rural housing is £250. That leaves £150 to be found by the owner. In addition, as we all know, there are dozens of cottages to be improved under rural housing, and I think that a great many owners are finding it impossible to do what they would like to do even under rural housing.
Now, here is a further measure, under which thousands of pounds will have to be spent. What will be the result of this? By the Bill it is certainly apparent that the county councils are going to take the major share, but the owners obviously are expected, under Part II, to do a great deal. I think the tendency of the county councils in the spending of money will be to keep to the villages, as has been 635 hinted, and to centres where there are already amenities—where there are 'bus services, water and lighting. The tendency will be for the county councils to keep to villages and central places, and there must be, it seems to me, a very large number of farms, whose owners, to whom I have referred, will find it physically impossible to build, which will not be touched by the county councils. Thus you will have a certain number of farmers who will be in a very unfair position as compared with other farmers who are no more deserving than themselves, because the fortunate man who has been provided for by the county council, or by a wealthy landowner, with a house, will be at an enormous advantage as compared with the farmer who has not got this housing improvement. In speaking to farmers to-day they tell me that in engaging farm servants the first question asked is: "Is there water laid on to the house?" If there is not water laid on, the farm servant will go elsewhere.
As years go by—and I take it from anything I can gather here that we are going to be thirty or forty years in getting this measure carried out—it is going to put those farmers who have not been helped in a very unfair position as compared with the farmers who have been helped. Is there any remedy for this? One can only say this, that I hope that for all those who are not able, and for whom it is physically impossible, to find the additional capital which they would like for improvement of their houses, the Government will find a way by which they can be financed. I think we ought to have our eyes open to this point, that on an enormous number of estates no action by the owners will be possible under this Bill, and in the end we must look to the Government to finance this measure. I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, at a later stage, will be able to see that an Amendment is moved which will make it clear that some financial assistance will be given to those who are not able to face the position for themselves.
§ LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSEMy Lords, we have had a very interesting debate on this Bill, and I think I may venture to say to the noble Lords who have spoken, and who have spoken 636 with considerable knowledge of the subject, that the remarks that they have made, even although I and my Department may not agree with some of them, will yet be of great value to my right honourable friend who is responsible for this Bill. If I may I will just begin by saying that I wish to associate myself with Lord Aberdeen in his congratulations to the noble Duke on his first speech in this House. I have listened to him in another place with great pleasure, and I hope he will give us the advantage of his great learning on these rural matters in this House.
The noble Lord who thought fit to move the rejection of the Bill put a great many questions. He started by saying that this Bill was almost a revolution. In order to get better conditions sometimes you want to go very near to a revolution to get things done, and I at any rate shall not regret the action which is going to be taken under this Bill if its provisions will be used, in the spirit in which they have been included in the Bill, to give better housing conditions to the agricultural working population and those who are associated with agriculture. I have been asked to define exactly what I mean by working classes. It is always extremely difficult, unless you are an expert draftsman, to try to define anything, but I know what I mean when I say "working man," and if I say "working agricultural labourer" I know what I mean. It has something to do with economics—the amount of money he gets for his work. If a man gets a great deal of money he cannot be described as what I call an agricultural worker. I think it is a term that is really understood, and we ought to base it really on the remuneration which an individual gets for his work.
The noble Lord pointed out that this Bill had a tendency under Part I rather to draw the labourers away from houses on the farms and to bring them into the village community in which the local authority takes action under Part I. That may be true, but there are many areas in Scotland where, unless you had Part II, where you are allowed to replace worn-out houses, you would get no houses at all. Therefore in Scotland you have to combine the one type of the collection of buildings in hamlets and the other type of building on the farm. There are, in fact, a great many parts of the Lowlands where you find many farm labourers 637 living in the villages and going out to, and being employed on, the farms. I agree with what was said by one noble Lord that it was a hardship on certain farmers that they would not enjoy the advantage of having these houses, but that is probably a misfortune due to the situation of their farms. But may I point out, in answer to noble Lords who spoke of the financial burden that would fall on landowners and others who would have to provide baths and water closets and so on, that these provisions are confined to new houses, and this Bill does not create any new standard for the houses that already exist. No doubt it would be a tremendous expenditure to recondition houses and bring them up to the standard laid down by this Bill, but the provisions in the Bill concerning baths and sinks affect new houses only.
§ LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSEI am informed that what I say is more or less in agreement with the Bill, but if there is any point on that which the noble Lord would like to have cleared up at a later stage, I should be only too glad to do it. Then the noble Lord raised a question which amounted to an attack on the Committee. I am here to defend the Bill rather than the Committee, but when the noble Lord talks about the reason for providing three-roomed houses, it must be remembered that the Association of County Councils, at a meeting with the Secretary of State last November, did in fact agree to certain standards. If he looks at paragraph 104 of the Report he will see that the Committee say that though the Association of County Councils thought that there should be a temporary relaxation of the standard, they accepted the decision of Parliament that the same standard should eventually rule in rural as well as in urban areas. And these three and four-roomed houses have this advantage, that although they may be too large for a couple living alone, what we want in Scotland is the large families. They are the finest part of our population, and if you want to prevent the overcrowding which was dealt with in the 1935 Act you need houses that can accommodate larger families than we have to-day in many of these houses.
LORD SALTOUNMy point was that I did not like the Committee's Report 638 defending the Government from legitimate criticism by a statement to the detriment of farmers which I look upon as absolutely untrue throughout all Scotland.
§ LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSEI follow my noble friend's argument, but I repeat that I am here trying to defend the Bill, and I am not going to try to defend the Committee. May I say also that the conditions about baths do not apply to bothies, though of course if you have to build a new house in place of a bothy the provision applies to that new house. The question of water has been mentioned by all the noble Lords who have spoken, and one realises that there are many areas in Scotland where local authorities, owing to financial reasons, are quite unable without Government help to deal with the question of laying on water. I understand that the Secretary of State is giving very careful consideration to representations made to him by the Association of County Councils in favour of Exchequer assistance for the provision of water, and, although he can give no pledge, he is actively looking into that question.
I quite realise that in many cases it will not be possible to have new houses in areas where water is not available, but at least this Bill will allow the local authorities and individuals in Scotland to proceed with the building of new houses where the water supply does exist. I think it is well known that my right honourable friend since he became Secretary of State for Scotland has done a very great deal towards bettering the housing conditions of the people, and bettering the conditions for agricultural labourers, and the next problem before him is this question of water. Let me point out in passing what my own experience was in regard to the provision of hot water in houses. We found in building hundreds of these houses that the cottars did not use the boiler but boiled the water on the fire and carried it to the bath. Of course, it is a convenience to have a bath in a house, even if you have to carry the water to get a hot bath. If that is so it is no more extravagant to provide a bath and to take the hot water to it, than to use the old tub in front of the fire.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, referred to one or two matters of great and general interest. He and 639 also the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, talked about the spirit in which this Bill would be acted upon by the local authorities and by individuals acting under schemes produced by the local authorities and approved by the Secretary of State. My right honourable friend is going to do all he can to see that the intentions of the Bill are in no way frustrated by some technicality or some fault of drafting. It is the spirit of the Bill he intends to carry out. The Treasury in London will not be able to come and interfere with our people in Scotland, because the arrangements are made within the terms of the Bill between the local authority and the Secretary of State. Therefore I have confidence that this Bill will be used to the fullest extent that it can be used, and will really do more than the noble Duke thought it would. He said it would in fact cause very little expense to the Treasury here, but I hope it may cause quite a considerable amount of expense.
Then there was the question raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, and I think also by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, with reference to the tied-house system. The tied-house system is misunderstood to a very great extent by those who talk about it and who have not had experience of our Scottish farms. It is perfectly true to say—and I have held this view right away back to the days when I was Chairman of a Committee on Scottish agriculture in 1924—that the tied house is to the benefit of the health of the agricultural worker. A man coming in from his work, from ploughing or whatever it may be, sometimes wet through from perspiration or from rain—and we have a funny climate in Scotland—if he finds his house a considerable distance from the farm at mid-day he does not go and change when he might. To that extent a house on the place is a very great advantage. What the noble Duke said is very true. If we could encourage not only our farmers but our farm servants to settle down in the houses on the farm and stay a reasonably long period it would be to the advantage of the farmer and of the agricultural worker.
The question of by-laws has also been raised. In this respect Clause 18 looks 640 worse than it really is. If you look at subsection (5) you will see that it deals with seasonal workers. The reason why—I am quoting remarks made in another place—we are insisting on having these by-laws inserted in this Bill is to prevent, by regulation, such happenings as took place at Kirkintilloch. There is no doubt that if these events had not happened attention would not have been drawn to the necessity for these by-laws. As long as these by-laws are interpreted by the local authority as of a preventive nature, and not a mere annoyance to the farmer and as leading to unnecessary expense, they will be a very good thing. After all, proper bedding for these seasonal workers, exits in case of fire, and so on are all to the good. I have every confidence that the general intercourse between the Secretary of State and his Department and those local authorities who want to produce regulations of this nature will be successful, and that the regulations will be of a reasonable nature such as noble Lords would approve.
One last thing I wish to say is that my right honourable friend and his Department will welcome people coming to see them at Edinburgh, where they can rely on getting all the information and help possible. They are prepared to send out circulars to the various local authorities, and they are prepared to send out a model of the kind of scheme to promote. In conclusion, I can only say that other points which may arise will be discussed on the Committee stage, and I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Bill which I feel will be of great benefit to a section of our population in Scotland.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his very concise and able statement, and at the same time would apologise to him for interrupting him so much. My only excuse is that my objection to this Bill depends on the accurate interpretation of the points I have raised. In the circumstances I do not propose to press my Amendment, and with your Lordships' permission I shall withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.