HL Deb 23 June 1938 vol 110 cc229-44

Read 3a (according to Order).

Clause 4:

Schemes for replacing unsatisfactory houses.

(3) No assistance under this section shall be given in respect of any house unless— (c) the house contains a watercloset, 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 watercloset, 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.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), after "bathroom," to insert "or where, owing to the shortage of an adequate water supply, the use of a fixed bath is impracticable, suitable facilities for bathing in a separate room." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Amendment which stands in my name, I would like to remind your Lordships that in the Committee stage of this Bill a similar Amendment was left undecided in order to afford opportunities of consultation with the Secretary of State. The fact that there were no Amendments carried to this Bill in Committee has necessitated my moving this Amendment on the Third Reading, which I regret. Before saying what I have to say on this subject, I would like to express my thanks to the Secretary of State for giving me a very interesting and very long interview and discussing the subject. The result of that discussion was that he consented to send a Committee from the Scottish Office to a particular part of Scotland to examine whether or not the statements I made to him were borne out in fact. The statement was to the effect that water in certain parts of Scotland was so scarce that it was a mere mockery to put a big bath into every cottage.

It was particularly good of the Secretary of State to take this course because the Department of Health, whose business it is to know about the water conditions in Scotland, had assured him that there was no ground for this statement and that there was no part of Scotland where the water shortage was so great as to prevent the installation of a big bath. I do not know what kind of a report by the committee of investigation has been received by the Secretary of State as I have not been privy to it, but I would like to say that I quite realise that the particular district to which reference has been made is not by any means the only district in Scotland where there is a water shortage. The district I have referred to comprises, if one takes in view well watered places, very nearly a thousand square miles. It has a very low rainfall, it has neither high hills nor big rivers and the water supply is chiefly dependent upon wells and a very large proportion of the water available is unfit for human use. I do not want your Lordships to take that from me; I do not want even to rely upon whatever this special committee of investigation may have said. I will merely quote a short extract from a speech made by the Convener of the Public Health Sub-Committee of the Aberdeen County Council on this very subject.

Dealing with it not from the point of view of this Bill but from another point of view, he is reported to have said that he could speak of one district where the shortage was very acute—the Buchan area. If they began at the boundary with Banffshire and went along the coast, almost every village was short of water. Aberdour would not be sufficient if more houses were built as was intended. Rosehearty, Sandhaven and Pitullie were short of water. Fraserburgh generally had a shortage in the fishing season. To my own knowledge this shortage is not confined to the fishing season, so that is a moderate statement. He went on to say: Cairnbulg was short, Lonmay and Crimond were waterless deserts. Longside, Old Deer and Boddam all required more water. Peterhead was forming a new reservoir, but he did not know if they would have water to keep it and the old one when most required. There is a great deal more on the same subject, but I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time unnecessarily. That statement is by no means exaggerated, and I do not think your Lordships need have any doubt that in that portion of Scotland at any rate there is a very severe water shortage.

Statements were made during part of the Committee's investigations and I will give your Lordships some idea of a typical examination. A man was being examined as to whether he would like a new or an improved cottage. He said certainly he would. He was then asked if he would like a bath in it and would he use it. Of course he said, "Oh, yes." This seemed to give great satisfaction until he added "if I can get the water." He said he thought of sinking a well as his neighbours had done, but the supply was not of good quality. After two or three pailsfull had been taken from some of the wells it sometimes took a day for them to fill again. "Can you not use rain water from the roof?" he was asked. "Sometimes, perhaps," he replied, "but there have been three months this year without rain." This is typical of the conditions of that countryside. The water shortage in that district is so great that I understand that the Committee even considered tentatively the possibility of supplying the baths which they wish to install with water from a condemned source.

I think this shows better than anything else the strength of the obsession in the minds of the Department and those interested. For they must know as well as any of us that such contaminated supplies are more than likely to be used in time of dearth, with disastrous results to public health. They must know that if you supply in the country districts water for a bath from a contaminated source, when a water shortage occurs as it does from time to time in those districts, the impure source will be used equally with the pure source. In fact, it is probably likely to be a more lavish source and therefore likely to be used in preference to the pure source, with results to health about which I tremble to think. These districts have water with surface contamination which is nearly always organic impurity, the worst possible kind of contamination. I know perfectly well that the Department of Public Health would be the last body to countenance the installation of water supplies from such sources, and I only mention the fact that this idea is being played with to show that we are dealing with an official obsession which should not be treated too seriously.

There is another point I should like to mention. The deliberate policy of this Housing Bill is to substitute the village for what is called the tied house. In these districts, which are all very prosperous agriculturally—they have very fine soil—it is quite impossible to put down a village because nowhere in these districts, except in very rare spots far apart, can you get water supplies even for drinking. Therefore to make it more difficult to build tied houses in a proper way in these districts that are short of water is absolute folly. The ultimate result will be that the Government will be faced with the necessity of putting down villages where it is not possible to put them. If you are going to do away with tied houses, then you should be sure that you can replace them, but I do urge that you should not stop the proper building of tied houses where you can have them. I do not see why the planning of a good house, which is what we all desire, should be disturbed by the necessity of providing a special place for a fixed bath which can seldom or never be used.

A bath, although it may a pearl to the Department, if it can never be used is, from the house-holder's point of view, a pearl wasted, a mere nuisance. It is much better to accept the fact that there is a shortage of water and make arrangements accordingly which will be for the convenience of the householder. I would ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to tell me, if by any chance he succeeds in defeating this Amendment, whether he will give an undertaking on behalf of the Government, that, having forced the provision of fixed baths in these houses w here there is no water supply, the Government will make it their business to see that within a reasonable time an adequate supply of water is brought from the nearest place, which I think is eighty miles away?

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 18, after ("bathroom") insert ("or where, owing to the shortage of an adequate water supply, the use of a fixed bath is impracticable, suitable facilities for bathing in a separate room").—(Lord Saltoun.)


My Lords, after the very carefully reasoned and sensible speech of my noble friend who introduced this Amendment, I trust that he will proceed to take the opinion of your Lordships on the question and divide the House. I should like to see the prin- ciple he advocates applied generally. A fixed bath is not essential. I recently went to an up-to-date guildhall in Scotland, at Wishaw, where I saw a small compartment with shower baths for the use of Territorials, which seemed to be very successful. Why should not shower baths be more generally adopted? They are quite as good as fixed baths and to my mind have certain advantages. Old people and infirm people often cannot use a big fixed bath. The arguments for the Amendment seem to me unanswerable, and I trust that the Government will be considerate in this matter and amenable to reason. To talk about a man's house being his castle is ridiculous when you have legislation like this. The power of dictators should be limited and I trust your Lordships will support my noble friend in this Amendment.


My Lords, I rise to oppose this Amendment strongly. I have had long experience of housing conditions, both in Northamptonshire, where I am Chairman of the Public Health Committee of the County Council, and have visited a considerable number of houses of this character, and also in North Cumberland, where conditions are similar to those in many parts of Scotland. I have learned from that experience that a fixed bath in a cottage is most important. I regard it in modern cottages as absolutely indispensable. If there is a fixed bath that fact of itself is a very strong inducement to use it. Even if there is no piped water supply laid on to the cottage it is much easier to empty a fixed 'Oath with a proper outlet. Baling out a bath by hand is extremely awkward and troublesome and takes a great deal of time. Then, again, a fixed bath is useful for washing large things such as blankets. It is very difficult for a housewife to wash blankets properly. They have to be soaked in water and the water has to be changed if the work is to be done properly. A fixed bath with a drain is a very great help for a job of that kind.

Again, a fixed bath is not so likely to cause a nuisance to the neighbourhood. If there is no proper drainage from a bath a cottager is inclined to throw out the slops just anywhere and there is a horrible mess and smell all round the cottage. The traps will not unseal very easily in Scotland. A cupful of water once a month would be sufficient to prevent unsealing of traps. It is not a very costly matter to put in a fixed bath. About £8 to £10, I imagine from my experience, would be sufficient; and the provision of a fixed bath confers an inestimable benefit upon the occupier of the cottage. The provision of a fixed bath is important, not only on the material side, but from the educative point of view. Health education is backward throughout the British Isles, and especially, so I understand, in Scotland. It is very important to give country people an opportunity of learning personal hygiene and personal cleanliness, so important from the point of view of public health. If there is a fixed bath there is a greater inducement to personal cleanliness and it helps parents in teaching children habits of cleanliness. From my own experience I have found that farm workers on moorland farms are extremely grateful for a fixed bath even if there is no piped water supply. When they come back from lambing or some other arduous duties, cold and stiff, if they can have a bath it comforts them and makes them much more ready to continue their work. I very strongly hope that the Amendment will not be agreed to.


My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord who speaks for the Scottish Office will be able to accept the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Saltoun. My noble friend has spoken of the County of Aberdeen, where the water supply is very insufficient. I can speak for a centre of Scotland where the rainfall is from 35 to 40 inches a year, and even there the shortage of water is often acute. Therefore I think it would be in these districts an absurdity to put in a fixed bath. In fact, I go further and say that where there is no gravitation supply a fixed bath is unnecessary. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept the Amendment.


My Lords, Lord Saltoun has already pointed out to your Lordships that this Amendment was moved on the Committee stage of the Bill, and as it seemed that there was a deal of sympathy in the House with the plan underlying this Amendment, the noble Lord himself was good enough to withdraw it so that we might have time to conduct an investigation into certain assertions which he and others of your Lordships who spoke on that occasion had made. As he has pointed out also, the fact of there being no Amendment robbed us of a Report stage, but it enabled us to have this discussion now on the Third Reading.

The Secretary of State for Scotland himself has given very careful consideration to the suggestion that there are areas in Scotland where the water supply is so inadequate as to make the use of a fixed bath impracticable. When Clause 4 of the Bill was amended in the House of Commons to require fixed baths in all new houses, it was clearly recognised and realised by everyone, I think, that (1) there are areas in Scotland where a gravitation water supply is not available, and (2) there are also areas where for several weeks in the summer-time the water supply may be very short. But the Secretary of State and the Department are satisfied, and I think it was clearly shown before the Bill arrived here, that even if water has to be pumped or carried to the fixed bath, and even if it is not possible to use the bath for several weeks in the summer-time, it is nevertheless useful to have a fixed bath, on the broad principle that it is more easy to bathe in a fixed bath than in a tub, because it is much more convenient to empty a fixed bath.

The question then is: Are there any areas in Scotland where the water supply is so poor that there is not enough to allow each of the occupants of a new house to have a weekly bath for at least nine or ten months in the year? As a result of private conversation which took place after the Committee stage the Secretary of State arranged for that special investigation, to which Lord Saltoun has referred, to be carried out in the most difficult areas in Aberdeenshire where the water supply was definitely suspect. The investigation was carried out by officers of the Department of Health, guided by officials of the County Council, and, in one district, by Lord Saltoun's own agent. It was made clear to the officials of the County Council that the Department's Officers desired to see the most difficult areas. The conclusion reached by the officers of the Department was that it is reasonable to insist on the provision of a bath in every new house erected with grant under Part II of the Bill. I again call your Lordships' attention to the fact that we are dealing with new houses, and houses to be built in the future, which we hope will last for fifty or sixty years.

In reaching this conclusion the Department's officers had in mind that in certain cases it would be possible to obtain an improved water supply by building on a slightly different site, and that in other cases it would be possible, at a very small expense, to improve the existing water supply (for example, by deepening the well or by providing storage for rain water, or by cleaning the water pipes). The impression gained by the Department's officers was strengthened by these facts: They saw no new houses provided in recent years which did not contain fixed baths; they saw some reconstructed houses, even in the most difficult areas, which had been already provided with fixed baths. I was interested to have the support in this matter of Lord Henley, and also, for sentimental reasons, glad to hear reference made to the conditions in the constituency in which he and I used to meet. He raised the question of ventilation and evaporation, and there, again, the investigations we have made go to show there is no risk whatever, if a reasonable plan is adopted in constructing these bathrooms, of a nuisance being created by these bathrooms.

I will not now deal with the question of cost, but as it was raised in the previous debate I think I should say a word to your Lordships about the question of the supply of water coming into a house. Even if a new house were provided with a circulating hot water supply there is no reason to suppose that the extra consumption of fuel would cost anything like £10 per annum. Everyone knows that a modern kitchen range is more economical with fuel than an old range and the Department's engineers are satisfied that the fuel consumption in a modern range with a constant hot water supply would be no greater than that in an old-fashioned range without a hot water supply. In the investigation in Aberdeenshire, the Department's officers made special inquiries as to the cost of providing hot water in houses which had been supplied with fixed baths. In no case did a tenant make any complaint on this ground.

Now I come to the last point which I wish to make in persuading your Lord- ships that this proposal, even if it sounds somewhat in the nature of an ideal, is an ideal that we should endeavour to attain, and one which is worth your Lordships' while to support this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, on the previous occasion explained with great care and—I say it without any disrespect—with great ingenuity that there was no virtual necessity for bathrooms, that some form of ablution room, with or without a shower bath, might meet the case. But I am informed that that, anyhow in certain areas and for certain purposes, would not result in any appreciable economy of water.

But the real point is that we have to look to the future. We are only dealing with Part II of the Bill, which suggests that new houses should have this arrangement for a bath made in them before they receive a grant, and those houses, it is hoped, will last for at least sixty years. It is reasonable, I think, to assume that in the near future an improvement of rural water supplies must take place in Scotland. I am not in a position this afternoon to tell your Lordships when or how soon that can be done. Quite obviously it will require a great deal of care and investigation, and eventually money will have to be available for that purpose, but obviously it has to be done in the future. And there seems to be no reason therefore why fixed baths should not be provided in the new houses, even if they cannot be used for, it may be, a few weeks in each year. When a general improvement of rural water supplies takes place, which it is to be hoped will eventually deal with these difficult areas to which so many of your Lordships have referred, it will no doubt be possible to use water for these purposes throughout the year. For all these reasons I hope your Lordships will agree with me in not accepting this Amendment, but in standing fast for the ideal which has been laid down by the past and present Secretaries of State for Scotland, and see that in building our future houses in Scotland we make as great an effort as we can to maintain that ideal.


My Lords, before we divide on this subject I would like to say a few words in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill. In the first place, with the greatest respect for the very able case which Lord Strathcona has made for the Government, I would like to say that when people begin to talk about ideals immediately you get confusion of thought. I never talk about ideals when I am dealing with practical questions. I am in a very fortunate position myself, because I have got practically no land; it has been swallowed up by that organisation which is represented by the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, and I can afford to give the people I have to look after the houses that they want. I have taken a great deal of trouble to find out what they do want, and they do not want the formal installation of a big bath. And I can assure my noble friend Lord Henley that in the bath places that I have designed, in cottages that I have built, it is far easier to empty the baths that are used than it is to empty a big bath. You just tip the thing on the floor and the water runs away. There is no nuisance and no smell. It is an action with which any child is familiar—that of upsetting something.

My noble friend Lord Strathcona did give me some sort of modified assistance. He said that undoubtedly it was quite necessary to bring water to certain parts of Scotland, and that the Government would have to see to it and money would have to be provided. In the case of the district of which I am talking I should think that several millions will have to be provided to bring water to that district. That very statement of his, guarded though it was, is absolutely contrary to the finding of the Department's Committee. With regard to what the Committee found, Lord Strathcona says that wherever it was possible to install big baths in the district they were installed. That is perfectly true, and nobody wants not to install them where they can conveniently be installed; but there are places—and I am sorry to disagree with the Department's Committee—where it is quite impossible to get water, even for a short time in the year, for a big bath.

With regard to what Lord Henley said, I respect his English experience, but he says that he knows parts of England that are very similar to some parts of Scotland. I have no doubt he does, but I doubt whether he knows any part of England which is similar to the parts of Scotland that we are discussing this evening. He is quite wrong if he thinks that the people of Scotland require any education in the arts of cleanliness. And although, with great ability, Lord Strathcona has not said it, I know that it is the moving idea at the back of the Department's mind—this idea of educating the people. I want to say a word about this idea, which always occurs with regard to people with whom we are not familiar. In fact, I have read a treatise by a learned German Professor in the Koelnische Zeitung on this very human idea. Those of us who are familiar with the Scottish farm servants and have been familiar with them for many generations, and have been privileged from time to time to share a meal in their houses, know that these people have a very high standard of cleanliness. They are the only people left in the United Kingdom, I think, who, to preserve the cleanliness of their houses, regularly take off their boots before coming in, and move about their houses in their socks. The country people of Scotland have nothing to learn in that respect, and they do not want education of that kind.

I know perfectly well that every farm servant's work is naturally dirty, and his clothes and he himself are sometimes, when working, dirtier than he would like, but you should see farm servants on their high days and holidays, when their faces are burnished, sometimes like their own carts, and you would realise that those are a clean people. I have rather resented the noble Lord's language about our people. It shows he does not understand them. Another thing I should like to say is that I do not think it is wise to be always trying to educate, educate, educate people to your own ideas. That is one of the things that has led to the most trouble in the world. It is that idea of clothing the Japanese in frock-coats and top hats which has led to half the trouble in the East to-day. It is a pity that people are not content to realise that other people also have their own ideas. I am sorry I have rather over-run my subject.


My Lords, may I appeal to the noble Lord to reconsider his action on this matter, and to agree, if possible, to withdraw this Amendment. I do think it would create a most unfortunate impression if your Lordships were seriously at this time of day to divide on this subject, on which we are really all agreed, merely on a question of method and time. If I may use this one plea to persuade him, I can give him this assurance from the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is at this moment engaged in looking into this question of improving rural water supplies in Scotland, but of course he is not yet in a position to say when or how long it will be before he can take definite action in the matter. With the assurance that the Secretary of State and his Department are putting their minds to this matter now, I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment to a Division.


My Lords, the noble Lord puts me in a very difficult position. I told His Majesty's Government two days ago that I was going to divide, and I promised my own supporters I would divide.


I will take no exception if the noble Lord withdraws his Division.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following new clause:

Additional provisions with respect to loans by local authorities.

.—(1) Where in pursuance of Section seventy-five of the Act of 1925 a local authority advance money to any person constructing a house in respect of which they have undertaken to give assistance under Part II of this Act, being a person entitled to grant a heritable security over the house, then, subject to the provisions of this section and to such conditions as may be approved by the Department, the advance may, in lieu of being secured by bond and disposition in security or other deed of security, be secured by an order (in this section referred to as a "charging order") made by the local authority providing and declaring the house, or the house and such other subjects belonging to the person receiving the advance as the local authority and such person may agree, to be charged and burdened with an annuity to repay the amount of the advance.

(2) The annuity charged shall commence from the date of the order, and shall be a sum of such amount and shall be payable to the local authority or their assignees for such period of years, not exceeding thirty, as the local authority and the person receiving the advance may agree.

(3) A local authority shall not make a charging order, and a charging order shall not be effectual, unless—

  1. (a) the local authority have served on every person appearing in the Register of 241 Sasines as the proprietor of, or as holding a heritable security over, the subjects or any part thereof to be charged and burdened with the said annuity, notice that if no objection is intimated to them in writing by such person within twenty-one days from the date of service of the notice, they intend to make such charging order; and
  2. (b) no objection has been so intimated by any person on whom notice has been so served.

(4) The provisions of Section twenty-two of the Act of 1925, shall apply to a charging order made under this section in like manner as they apply to a charging order made tinder Section twenty-one of the said Act, subject to the following and any other necessary modifications— (a) subsection (2) shall apply as if after the words "advances of public money" there were inserted the words (d) any rentcharge secured on the premises by absolute order made under and in terms of the Improvement of Land Act, 1864 or the Lands Improvement Company's Acts, 1853 to 1920; (e) any loan made for agricultural purposes in pursuance of the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, by any company incorporated for the purposes of that Act, where such loan has been secured on the premises by a bond and disposition in security or other deed of security duly registered in the appropriate Register of Sasines; and (f) any charge on the premises created under any provision in any Act authorising a charge for recovery of expenses incurred by a local authority under Section one hundred and twenty-five of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, or Section twenty of the Act of 1925, or Section fifteen of the Act of 1930, or by an owner under Part I of the Act Of 1925"; (b) subsection (3) shall not apply.

(5) For the purpose of this section a notice may be served by delivering it to the person on whom it is required to be served or by sending it by registered letter to such person at his usual or last known address, or if such person cannot be found, to the Extractor of the Court of Session. An acknowledgment endorsed on such notice or a copy thereof, by such person, or, where the notice is sent by registered letter, a certificate subscribed by the clerk to the local authority that such notice was duly posted and having the Post Office receipt for the registered letter attached, shall be conclusive evidence that such notice was duly served on the date stated in the acknowledgment or Post Office receipt.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment implements another pledge given on the Committee stage of the Bill when the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, moved a clause providing that where a loan over a house was granted by a local authority under the Housing (Scotland) Acts or this Bill, the loan should be secured by a charging order burdening the house with an annuity to repay the loan, and that the annuity should be a preferential charge on the house. It was explained on behalf of His Majesty's Government that there were serious difficulties in the way of giving effect to the proposal embodied in that clause and that a further difficulty was that the parties interested in the proposal were not then in agreement. A promise was, however, given that a conference of parties interested in the proposal would be arranged, and if the difficulties could be resolved before the Report stage or the final stage of this Bill the matter would he dealt with. I am glad to inform your Lordships that a conference was held on May 26 and attended by representatives of the Scottish Land and Property Federation, the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, the Association of County Councils in Scotland, the Convention of Burghs, the Lands Improvement Company, and the Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation. An agreement was reached, and the new clause embodies the proposal agreed upon at that conference, and follows the lines of the clause already inserted in the Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 19 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)


My Lords, I desire to repeat my thanks which I gave to the Government in respect of the Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment Bill. This clause is a similar one to that which was proposed on that occasion to meet the same point, this being in respect of new houses and the Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment Bill being in respect of doing up old houses. I was present at the conference referred to by the noble Lord, and I can say with absolute truthfulness that every point agreed upon at that conference, which was most harmonious and where we had the great assistance of the Solicitor-General for Scotland in the chair, has been met in this Amendment. I would also like to say on behalf of those who supported me on this particular question on the Committee stage that all our points have been met. I thank the Government most heartily for bringing forward this new clause, which will be an enormous help to those who wish to look after their property, keep it up to date, and do their duty by the land for which they are responsible. May I also add an acknowledgment of the part that has been taken in connection with this Amendment by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill?


My Lords, I should like to say a word upon this Amendment. It is the Government's concession in this matter which partly moved me not to press my previous Amendment. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time unnecessarily, but I feel I can say something on the subject of land in Scotland which ought to be remembered, and this is the proper time to do it. It was said in another place by one speaker that he did not like spending public money on the property of a man who had £40,000,000 of capital. We all know to whom he was referring, and I simply point out that that £40,000,000 did not come out of Scottish land. It is alarming the extent to which proprietors' capital in Scotland has depreciated in recent years, and the grants and loan facilities being given in this Bill are a very small instalment of what must be paid back some time or other if land is to survive at all.

Not very long ago I had negotiations for the purchase of a farm on behalf of somebody for whom I act as a trustee. I went to the agent who was to bid for the farm, and gave him a limit based on the value of the land. I said: "This farm is required to improve the amenity of the property as a whole, and I give you discretion to exceed my limit if you see proper cause for doing so." Eventually the agent came to me and said he had bought this farm for a sum in excess of my limit. The net rental of the farm was £30, and the price he paid was £535 —about a five and a half or five and three-quarters basis. When he came to explain, he pointed out that the buildings on the farm, which were not greater than were necessary for the farm, were insured for £2,000 and were well worth that sum because they could not be replaced for less than £2,000. There you have a property bringing in £30 a year to the partner in the industry whose capital is represented by buildings worth £2,000 and the land. Supposing these buildings were destroyed to-morrow, what a fool the man would be to replace them. He could put the £2,000 in Government securities and enjoy a far larger income and let the land go derelict, perhaps, for sporting purposes. That, as your Lordships know, is a typical case of the position of the landed proprietor in Scotland. I wanted to put that case on record because there can be no suggestion that the farm was purchased for less than its value, and it was purchased at the top of the market in excess of the limit put on it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.