Sitting of 16 July 1924

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Edinburgh Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill,
Rothesay Tramways (Amendment) Order Confirmation Bill,
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  ROYAL SAMARITAN HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN, GLASGOW, ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Royal Samaritan Hospital for Women, Glasgow," presented by Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act), to be considered To-morrow.
  Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Bill [Lords],
  To be read a Second time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  CHINA.

    LAND (BRITISH GOVERNMENT LEASES).
    Mr. FOOT MITCHELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that in 1860 leases of land were acquired, in accordance with treaty, by the British Government on terms of perpetual lease and, for the purpose of convenience, sub-leased to firms in Tientsin, Hankow, Chinkiang, Canton, Amoy and Kiukang on 99 years' leases; whether, in view of the approach of the end of this period, the British Government is now proposing to enforce higher terms for the extension of leases of all these properties; whether, seeing that it was the original intention that such land should be held in perpetuity, that
    336
    foreign nations similarly interested to ourselves leased the land to their nationals in perpetuity, and that the land at other treaty ports in China, including Shanghai, is held on terms of perpetual lease, he will consider the effect of any demand for increased payments on the said British firms in competition with the said foreign firms, who will not be burdened by such additional charges; and whether, therefore, he will carry out the undoubted intention of the British Government of the time regarding these leases as granted in perpetuity?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Jowett): I have been asked to reply to this question. It is the case that the original leases were granted to the British Government in perpetuity. The sub-leases, however, were granted to firms on 99 years' tenure on ordinary commercial terms, and not for the purpose of convenience, and the price paid by the firms was based on this tenure. A scheme for the renewal of the leases has been approved by the Government, who are satisfied that the terms offered are fair and reasonable. The points to which the hon. Member draws attention were carefully weighed by the Government in arriving at their decision.
    Mr. MITCHELL: In view of the great importance of the subject to British merchants in China, I should like to inquire whether the Secretary of State fur Foreign Affairs will be prepared to receive a deputation on the subject?
    Mr. JOWETT: That will be for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to determine; but the matter comes within the jurisdiction of tie First Commissioner of Works.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of ill-feeling has been created by the decision of the British authorities, and that they regard the action of the British authorities as a breach of faith? In view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman, in order to save time and further friction, appoint a Committee of three Members of this House, one from each party, to look into the matter.
    Mr. JOWETT: On the contrary, the holders of some 64 per cent. of the lots have expressed their willingness to accept

    337
    the terms, and the holders of only 6½ per cent. are opposed to the scheme. The lot holders of the remaining 29 per cent. have not said anything. What is asked for by the holders of 6½ per cent. of the lots is that they should be given a free gift of £40,000 a year. These lot holders bought their lots by auction on 99 years' leases. They now wish to convert these 99 years' leases into perpetual leases. To that I cannot agree.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to bring a deputation to him, to show him that he has been misinformed on this matter?
    Mr. JOWETT: I will see any deputation, but there is no question of altering this decision.

    BOXER INDEMNITY FUND (ALLOCATION).
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any reports from China showing support from the British and Chinese to the project of building a railway for commercial development with the balance of the Boxer indemnity, the proceeds from the work of which should be devoted to education; whether the Government has received any official Report on the subject from His Majesty's Minister at Pekin; what is the opinion of the Chinese Government on the project; and what is the opinion of His Majesty's Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): A proposal of this kind has been brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government, but not from any official source. It will be submitted to the Committee which is to advise on the utilisation of the funds, and by whose opinion His Majesty's Government will be guided. I do not know what is the opinion of the Chinese Government.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Will the hon. Gentleman see that this money goes to the benefit of Britishers, either in China or in this country?

    ARMS (IMPORTATION).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that 19 cases containing rifles and revolvers have been recently seized as contraband on board the German vessel "Schlesien," at
    338
    Colombo, on the 8th July, the consignment being marked machinery for Kobé, but being apparently intended for China; whether, in view of the embargo upon the importation of arms into China, he will take steps to ascertain whether this consignment was in fact intended for China; and, if so, by whom it, was despatched?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): The Governor of Ceylon has reported that the steamship "Schlesien," on arrival at Colombo, was found to have on board certain cases, manifested as machinery, but found on examination to contain firearms and ammunition. The cases were forfeited and the master fined. No doubt the local authorities will take any necessary steps to ascertain the origin and destination of the cargo.
    Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman send instructions to his representatives in Ceylon to take care that no consignments of this kind shall get through, without very careful examination?
    Captain Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since this case there has been another one of a similar kind, where more ammunition has been found?
    Mr. THOMAS: The noble Lord will observe how very general my answer was. It was made very general, deliberately, not to play into the hands of those who were guilty. I will say no more than that.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    TREATY OF MUTUAL GUARANTEE.
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Council of the League of Nations at its last meeting ordered that copies of a draft treaty of disarmament and security prepared by an influential American committee should be circulated to States members of the Council; whether a copy of this document has been received by His Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether it can be made available to Members of the House of Commons?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I am aware of the decision referred to, but the draft treaty has not yet reached His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. HARRIS: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Government propose making the promised statement on this question of the. Treaty of Mutual Guarantee?
    Mr. PONSONBY: That is the subject of another question.

    COUNCIL (NON-PERMANENT MEMBERS).
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that, at the annual meeting of the Association of the League of Nations Unions at Lyons, a proposal favouring the adoption of the geographic principle in respect of the election of non-permanent members of the Council of the League was rejected; whether the British delegation to the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva has always supported the adoption of this principle in filling the seats specified; whether this is still the policy of the British Government, and will be recommended to its delegates to the coming meeting of the Assembly in September; and whether the British Government has any responsibility for the resolutions or recommendations of the British League of Nations Unions?
    Mr. PONSONBY: My information, taken from the French Press, is that a resolution of the kind referred to was adopted, and not rejected. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative, subject to the proviso that the geographical factor is only one of several to be considered. His Majesty's Government have, of course, no responsibility whatever for the actions of any League of Nations Union.

    MOSUL.
    Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the differences over the Mosul question have yet been referred to the League of Nations, or whether it is proposed to carry on further negotiations directly with the Turkish Government?
    Mr. PONSONBY: The British case for submission to the League is being prepared. Pending its actual submission to the League, His Majesty's Government have expressed their readiness to consider any new proposals which the Turkish Government may wish to make.

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Minister of Labour if he can supply Members of the House of Commons with any information as to the proceedings of the International Labour Conference, held this year at Geneva, giving the names of the British representatives, the subjects discussed, and the results of the discussions?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw): The July issue of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," of which I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy, will contain a short article on the discussion at the recent International Labour Conference. I am also sending the right hon. Gentleman a list or the British representatives at the Conference. A Command Paper referring to the only recommendation finally adopted by the Conference will be published as soon as the authenticated text is available.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is it not a fact that in order to get all the publications of the International Labour Office you have to pay a subscription of £8 a year? That is beyond my means and the means of many people. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a short account of what took place in the form of a White Paper, so that Members can know what is going on and, if they are interested in any particular subject, can apply for a particular volume and read it in detail?
    Mr. SHAW: I am willing to consider the suggestion, but I must see to what it amounts before I Call give a definite answer. If I have to publish everything in which everybody is interested, obviously the publication will be as extensive as the publications of the International Labour Office itself.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that if the House of Commons has to discuss Bills based upon recommendations of the Labour Conference, Members are entitled to have the information which is at the disposal of the Government?
    Mr. SHAW: I have told the right hon. Gentleman where he will get information on the point raised in the question. I am sending him a copy, with descriptive article, of the proceedings, and as soon as the recommendation itself is ready, the authenticated text will be issued.
    Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT-WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the same information as is sent to the right hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridgeman) is sent also to all Members of the House?
    Mr. J. HARRIS: Is it not the fact that the International Labour Office will send free of charge a very considerable quantity of literature to those who wish to receive it, with a reference to other documents I hat can be seen in London?
    Mr. SHAW: I would be pleased to send a copy of this Gazette to any Member who desires to have it. With regard to the second question, it is a fact that the International Labour Office issues free of charge to any applicant extensive and voluminous documents concerning its work.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that, when I have applied to the League of Nations Office for this information, they have told me that I could get it only by subscribing £8 a year, or £1 a year?

  RUSSIA.

    RUSSO-CAUCASIAN COMPANY, LIMITED.
    Major KINDERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to whether the Russo-Caucasian Company, Limited, which has been ordered by the Soviet Government to liquidate its business and withdraw its capital and its manager, Mr. Thomas Carr, from Russia, will be allowed after all to continue trading with Russia; and, if not, why not?
    Mr. PONSONBY: I understand that the liquidation and expulsion orders are suspended pending the result of fresh negotiations between the Russo-Caucasian Company and the Soviet authorities.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the general policy of the Soviet Government to prevent private companies trailing with Russia, in order that the State may have a monopoly?

    BRITISH TRAWLERS (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign
    342
    Affairs whether the money agreed to be paid by the Russian Government in compensation for the arrest of the British trawlers on the Murmansk coast has been paid; what is the amount; who is administering the distribution of the money; and what is the amount to be paid to the dependants of those fishermen who lost their lives?
    Mr. PONSONBY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second part, £30,103 has been paid by the Soviet Government; to the third part, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, to whom the last part of the question should be addressed.

  IRISH FREE STATE (PASSPORTS).
  Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of an Irish Free State passport control office being set up in New York to deal with the very large number of foreign subjects applying for visas for the Irish Free, State, he will state what measures he proposes to take to prevent undesirable aliens from entering Great Britain via the Free State?
  Mr. PONSONBY: In cases where it is known that an applicant intends to visit the United Kingdom as well as the Irish Free State, he will be required to obtain a supplementary British Consular visa. It is not anticipated that undesirable aliens will succeed in entering the United Kingdom by obtaining an Irish Free State visa without declaring their intention of going on to this country, since the Irish Free State passport control office will be in possession of the same information as the British passport control office, and will proceed on the same lines.
  Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: Can the hon. Gentleman say how it is possible to prevent a foreigner coming over to Ireland and then coming to this country, quite unknown to the Irish Free State passport office in New York? How is it possible to prevent that without having passports between the Free State and this country?
  Mr. PONSONBY: The Irish passport control office may be trusted not to allow any undesirable aliens to come over to Ireland.

  EGYPT (TURKISH TRIBUTE LOAN).
  Mr. FRANKLINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a statement as to the attitude of the Egyptian Government with respect to the payment of annuities of the Turkish Tribute Loan; and whether the Foreign Office was or has since been notified that the financial adviser to the Egyptian Government, in remitting the first instalment due after Turkey's entrance into the War, informed the Bank of England that Egypt would continue to make these payments provisionally, but that at the end of the War the matter would have to be reconsidered?
  Mr. PONSONBY: I understand that the Egyptian Minister has been instructed to present a memorandum explaining the attitude which the Egyptian Government have seen fit to adopt. There is nothing in the records of the Foreign Office to show that a communication of the nature indicated in the question was made to the Bank of England, but His Majesty's Government have never accepted the validity of any suggestion that Egypt is not under the obligation to continue to meet the service of these loans.

  TREATY OF LAUSANNE (RATIFICATION).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Treaty of Lausanne has been ratified by His Majesty?
  Mr. PONSONBY: The reply is in the affirmative, and the instrument is being sent to Paris for immediate deposit.

  IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS (UNITED STATES).
  Mr. J. BROWNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the American Government has issued new emigration regulations by which every adult, child, or infant entering the United States of America will be required to furnish a visa certificate, which costs about £2 10s. (10 dollars); if he is aware that two birth certificates are now demanded from every person entering the United States of America, as well as two marriage certificates from
  344
  married persons; and whether he intends to make any representation regarding the new regulations?
  Mr. PONSONBY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The immigrant is required to submit a duly completed application form in duplicate. The United States visa is to be affixed to one of these, instead of to the passport, as in the case of non-immigrants. No further endorsement is required, and the fee is the same as that charged for an ordinary visa. The position in regard to certificates is as stated by the hon. Member. It is not open to His Majesty's Government to make representations on this subject, since it is the prerogative of every Government to decide the conditions upon which foreign nationals may enter their territories.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ADMIRALTY DEPARTMENT, SHEFFIELD.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that three married men were discharged from the Admiralty Department at Janson Street, Sheffield, on the 5th of July, whilst a single man who started at the same time as the married men was kept on; and whether be can state the reason for preference being given to single men?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): No inquiries were male as to whether the men were married or unmarried. The man retained was the most suitable for the work.

    POST-WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the deliberations of the Committee which is considering post-War widows' pensions are likely to be concluded?
    Mr. AMMON: I presume that in referring to a committee the Noble Lady has in mind the conference between representatives of the three Services indicated in my reply of 30th April last to the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth, regarding the promulgation of the post-War Regulations governing awards to widows, etc., of seamen and marines. Agreement has not yet been reached on

    345
    certain of the outstanding points, but I hope that this will be effected and the full Regulations promulgated at an early date.

    COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCES (CHILDREN).
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in assessing compassionate allowances for children, A.F.O. 708/21, providing £16 per annum in ordinary circumstances, and £25 per annum in the case of motherless children, irrespective of the officer's rank, will be taken into consideration?
    Mr. AMMON: Allowances to children of commissioned officers at the rate of £16 per annum in ordinary circumstances, and £25 in motherless cases, have been in force since the 13th August, 1920. The rates for children of mates, commissioned officers from warrant rank, warrant officers, Royal Navy and Royal Marines, coastguard officers and quartermasters, Royal Marines, are still under consideration, and when settled awards already made to the children of such officers who died on or after the 13th August, 1920, will be re-assessed as from that date.

    OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can make any further statement with reference to the granting of marriage allowances to naval officers, in view of the hardships already arising as a result of recent cuts in naval pay?
    Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that numbers of married naval officers, faced by a reduction in pay, with boys at school and two homes to keep up, have no alternative ahead of them but to withdraw the sons from school, and in some cases to allow their wives to undertake work, unless an allowance in respect of marriage can be granted, as in the case of the officers and men of the Royal Air Force and the Army, and to the lower deck of the Navy; and whether he is now in a position to make any statement?
    Mr. AMMON: The matter is one of great complexity, but there will be no delay in announcing a decision when once it has been reached.
    Viscountess ASTOR: When will that be?
    Mr. AMMON: As soon as possible.
    Viscount CURZON: Can we have an assurance that a decision upon this matter, which cannot wait, will be reached before the end of the Session?
    Mr. AMMON: I cannot give any such undertaking.
    Mr. HANNON: Is it a fact that the naval officer is still the worst paid of the public servants of this country?

    PILGRIM FATHERS (COMMEMORATION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that on the 31st July next the 300th anniversary of the sailing of the Pilgrim Fathers from the Humber will be celebrated by a commemoration service at Old Killingholme Creek, near Immingham Dock lock, from where they embarked, and by the unveiling of a monument which has been erected by the Anglo-American Society; that an American man-of-war will be present; and that the proceedings have aroused great interest in the United States of America; and whether it will be possible for the British Navy to be represented at this important historical ceremony?
    Mr. AMMON: It has been decided that His Majesty's ship "Godetia" will represent the British Navy at the ceremony in question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while the organisers of the ceremony welcome the presence of any warship they would have much preferred a more modern and powerful vessel?
    Mr. AMMON: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that I have gone to considerable trouble in this respect and that this is the very best that can be done.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that an established man, on discharge from the dockyard, cannot draw unemployment benefit, but that the hired man in like circumstances can do so; and if he will arrange

    347
    that established men shall be allowed, previous to discharge, to contribute toward unemployment benefit while serving, as they do to national health, and so become eligible for benefit between the time of discharge and the finding of work?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Hodges): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, the Unemployment Insurance Acts do not permit of the payment of contributions in respect of persons such as the established men referred to, who are engaged in an "excepted" employment; nor do they provide for the payment of contributions voluntarily. I have, therefore, no power to make the arrangement suggested.
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. E. W. Pascoe, of 59, Gloucester Street, Devonport, who had been employed in His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, as a rivet boy and as a riveter from the age of 15 until the age of 30, has now been reverted to labourer in the paint shop, with a loss of 9s. per week in wages, and this, although during the period of his service he invented a riveting machine, which is in present use by the Admiralty, and a pneumatic sweating machine; and whether he will take steps to encourage the abilities of Mr. Pascoe and generally of those who have shown remarkable aptitude?
    Mr. HODGES: As this question refers to an individual, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Member guarantee to us that skilled men who have shown a particular aptitude are not degraded in Government establishments to the status of unskilled labourers, with the result that there is a considerable loss of pay and a considerable loss of protection while they are in the service of the country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot enter into an argument.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: I have asked that as a question, and that is why I want an answer.
    Following is the answer:
    The capabilities of Mr. Pascoe are known to the dockyard officers, but he could not be retained as a riveter without injustice to men of much greater seniority and of equal merit as riveters, as there was not enough riveting work to provide employment for all the qualified men in the yard.

    INSPECTORS OF TRADES.
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the cast of the acting subordinate officers of the C.M.'s and E.M.'s Department of His Majesty's dockyard, Devonport, who have been carrying out the duties of acting inspectors of trades and also in higher ranks for a considerable period and particularly during the War, are threatened with supersession and reversion to a, lower rank, although they all qualified with a good percentage of marks at the 1908 and/or 1912 examinations and would in the ordinary course have been confirmed in their ranks after five years' acting time; whether he is aware that these men were compelled to compete again in the 1023 examinations with all entrants above 25 years of age (approximately 700 in one trade alone), and to ensure the retention of their appointments they had to attain the topmost position on the new lists; and whether he will see that none of these acting inspectors are reverted until the whole question has been further considered?
    Mr. HODGES: It is not the case that all acting inspectors who had qualified at an examination and who had held their acting ranks for a period of five years would in the ordinary course have been confirmed in their ranks. Confirmation after five years' continuous acting service is, in fact, granted only in those cases where subordinate professional officers have acted in lieu of confirmed officers of the rank detached from the dockyards on overseeing duties. As regards the last part of the question, it is not contemplated that officers acting in lieu of confirmed officers on overseeing duties shall be reverted or superseded. Certain officers, holding acting appointments were reverted, however, upon the application of post-War complements when the posts were filled by confirmed officers.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to revise this system of submitting men who have done long and consistent service to new examinations, at a time when they are getting on in years, and thus depriving them of their jobs?
    Mr. HODGES: All these questions are considered very carefully by the organisations concerned, and, as far as I am able to gather, this form of treatment is quite in harmony with the wishes of the parties generally.

    ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the average service engine-room artificers will have completed during the financial year 1923–24 before being promoted to chief engine-room artificer (second class); whether it will be possible for engine-room artificers promoted to chief engine-room artificers this year to become chief engine-room artificers (first class) before discharge to pension; and, if not, will he consider amending the Regulations to permit chief engine-room artificers (second class) to be promoted to chief engine-room artificers (first class) after two years' confirmed service in the former rating?
    Mr. AMMON: The answer to the first of the question is 14 years 11 months. With regard to the second part, it is not possible to know in advance which particular ratings will be promoted this financial year, but it is anticipated that nearly all engine-room artificers advanced to chief engine-room artificers, second class, this year will become chief engine-room artificers, first class, before discharge to pension. With regard to the third part, it is not proposed to amend the Regulations.

    TORPEDO AND CORDITE FACTORIES (COST OF MANUFACTURE).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed in future to publish the unit costs of manufacture at the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory and at the Royal Naval Cordite Factory?
    Mr. AMMON: In the public interest it is not proposed to publish the unit costs in future, but the information is avail-
    350
    able for the Public Accounts Committee if they desire it.
    Mr. HANNON: Is the reason for not publishing these figures the anxiety of the Government to conceal the results of State trading?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Government not extend this State manufacture of munitions so as to cut out altogether the private manufacturer?
    Mr. AMMON: I will convey that suggestion.

    OIL TANKERS (LOSS ON CONTRACT).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to state the exact loss incurred in connection with the two oil tankers built by the Admiralty for a private firm; and what percentage the loss bears to the contract price?
    Mr. AMMON: I am not yet in a position to state the exact loss, but the Provisional Account to 31st December, 1923, included in the Volume of Trading Accounts and Balance Sheets, 1922–23 (House of Commons Paper No. 109) shows the net loss, after taking into account the overhead charges of the yards and allowances for insurance and interest, as £208,275. The final account is not expected to show any material variation. On the basis of the figure of £208,275, the loss is, approximately, 33⅓ per cent. of the amount paid by the purchasers of the vessels.
    Mr. HANNON: Will the Admiralty take care not to repeat an experiment of this kind?
    Mr. AMMON: The same circumstances are not likely to arise. The work was given in response to an appeal, in order that the men might be kept at work.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Why is it that the Royal Dockyards should not be able to turn out this work at a lower cost than 33⅓ per cent. in excess of the cost in a private yard?
    Mr. AMMON: My right hon. Friend should remember that we have got to deduct the overhead charges, etc., which would reduce the amount to something like £60,000, and further that this work was given in response to an urgent request to keep the yards employed, regardless of whether there was a profit or not.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not the case that about the same time the cost of shipping fell, and that the private yards which were building suffered a severe loss just as the Government yards did on these vessels?
    Mr. AMMON: My impression is that that is the fact.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Does not my hon. Friend think that he could keep the national yards employed by ceasing to send Government work to private yards?

    FRESH VEGETABLES (CONTRACTS).
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that the director of contracts in his Department issued tender forms for supplies of fresh vegetables to the victualling yards of Gosport and Plymouth to run from 1st November, 1923, to 31st October, 1924, and that contracts were accepted by tenderers for the whole of this period, and that in spite of this new tenders were invited on 23rd April last to operate during the months of May and June last, if he will say why a step of this kind, which is in the interests of private contractors who had agreed to perform a definite contract and against the interests of the State, should have been taken?
    Mr. AMMON: The step taken was justified by the change in market prices since the contract was entered into, and this was properly taken into account as a matter of fair dealing between the Department and the contractors.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Does the converse also apply, so that when prices change in favour of the contractor, the Admiralty in its turn can have the advantage?
    Mr. AMMON: If the circumstances arose as suggested by my right hon. Friend, I would of course go into the matter.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Would this sort of transaction be tolerated in any private firm?

    DISABILITY RETIRED PAY (OFFICERS).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if an officer in receipt of disability retired pay will suffer any reduction in his retired
    352
    pay as from the 1st July last, observing that another officer with a similar disability but not being a regular officer would not suffer any reduction?
    Mr. AMMON: All rates of service retired pay are being reduced by 5½ per cent. approximately, and consequently the service element in any award of retired pay to a disabled officer has been reduced. Disablement elements are unaffected by the reduction, and consequently the retired pay of a disabled officer which includes no service element, will not be reduced.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    APPRENTICESHIP SYSTEM.
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the apprenticeship system is becoming almost extinct; and if he is willing to take any steps in order to revive it, in view of the fact that many lads between 14 and 18 who have never been taught any skilled trade are at present drawing unemployment benefit?
    Mr. SHAW: I am aware that changes in the organisation of method of production in conjunction with industrial depression have tended of late years to reduce the extent to which apprenticeship prevails, but I am not in a position to say whether this tendency will continue to operate. I am, however, as opportunity offers, encouraging the appropriate industrial organisations to consider the subject. The hon. and gallant Member will no doubt appreciate that, even in the most favourable circumstances, only a comparatively small proportion of youths can become apprentices. The hon. and gallant Member will be aware that boys under 16 cannot draw unemployment benefit.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman call together the Members of all parties in the House for a conference on this question of juvenile unemployment, which is national, and must be dealt with before the winter comes?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Regarding apprenticeship, is it not a fact that an unskilled man to-day is usually as well paid as, if not better paid than, the man who has served his time?
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has, until recently, been the policy of the Admiralty to put apprentices out of the Royal dockyards and to force them to go to America?
    Mr. SHAW: I cannot give an answer to the first supplementary question on the spur of the moment. In regard to the second question, it is a fact that, in many cases, highly skilled men are being paid a wage a little above or as low as what is known as unskilled pay. The third question, regarding the Admiralty, might be put to the appropriate Department.

    GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the collapse of the Severn barrage scheme and the decision of the Government not to proceed with the Channel Tunnel, he can indicate exactly what solution the Government have in mind for the unemployment problem?
    Mr. SHAW: There is no ground for the statement that the Severn barrage scheme has collapsed; on the contrary the initial steps necessary for determining whether it is likely to be a practicable scheme are progressing satisfactorily. The further plans of the Government for the relief of unemployment cannot be dealt with by way of question and answer, but an opportunity for discussing them will, no doubt, arise before the Recess.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the decision not to proceed—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Too many supplementary questions are being put to-day.

    CATERING TRADE (WAGES).
    Miss JEWSONasked the Minister of Labour whether any instructions are issued to Employment Exchanges with a view to checking the supply of cheap labour to catering employers; and what is the minimum rate of wages below Which work is not now offered to women at these Exchanges?
    Mr. SHAW: No such instructions have been issued. It is no part of the duty of Exchanges to inquire as to whether wages are suitable, provided always that there is no minimum rate fixed by law which
    354
    is being infringed. When the question of stoppage of benefit arises, there are rules with which no doubt my hon. Friend is familiar.
    Miss JEWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently, at one of the Exchanges, a woman was offered a job at 10s. a week for work in a picture-house cafe from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m., and that she had her benefit stopped because she refused the job? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is suitable employment within the meaning of the rules?
    Mr. SHAW: I am not aware of that case, but if the hon. Member will give me particulars I will have inquiries made.
    Miss JEWSON: It is quite a common case.
    Mr. SHAW: That is a statement; want the facts. If details of the case are supplied to me, I will look into it, and see exactly what can be done. Certainly the rules that are laid down for Committees do not at any rate prescribe that they shall act in a manner like that.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: When is the right hon. Gentleman going to set up a trade board, and stop the sweating in this industry?
    Mr. SHAW: We are now considering the matter in every case where a definite application is made, and the possibility shows itself that a trade desires a trade board.
    Viscountess ASTOR: The trade does not desire it, but the country does.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: My right hon. Friend has ample information.

  HOUSING.

    UNSKILLED LABOUR, SALISBURY.
    Major MOULTONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that under a scheme sanctioned by his Department the Salisbury City Council built houses on which 79 per cent. of the labour employed was unskilled; that such houses were in all respects excellent; that their cost was £200 each less than that of similar houses built by contract at the

    355
    same place and time; and whether he will publish the details of the scheme under which they were built?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): My right hon. Friend is aware that the Salisbury City Council, under a special direct labour scheme for training ex-service men, built 20 houses of concrete. The cost of these houses was approximately £792 each, and an estimate of the labour costs shows a saving of £75 a house over the labour costs if the houses had been built at contract prices. The total difference in cost as compared with brick houses built by contract during the same period quoted by the hon. Member seems to need adjustment for difference in the size of the houses, but it was substantial. The houses were built of concrete blocks or slabs made on the site, and a large proportion of labour by trainees unskilled in the building trades was employed. The conditions in this case were somewhat special. My right hon. Friend has no doubt that the city council will be pleased to furnish information on points of detail to anyone interested.
    Major MOULTON: Does the hon. Gentleman not think, in view of the very heavy expenditure on building which this House is asked to sanction, that any information which would lead to economy should be placed at the disposal of the House?

    ADVANCES (CO-OPERATIVE AND BUILDING SOCIETIES).
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that co-operative societies, building societies, and other benevolent institutions have hitherto advanced large sums of money whereby housing schemes have been carried through, he will consider approaching these bodies with the suggestion that in order to encourage house building they should set an example to banks and other money-lending institutions by advancing money free of interest for the purpose of building houses to be let at low rents?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does the negative apply to the first part or the second part of the question?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer which I gave covers the whole of the question.
    Mr. HARRIS: Surely the hon. Gentleman dues not return a negative to the statement that co-operative societies have lent money for assisting housing schemes.
    Mr. REMER: Has the Minister made any comparison between the rates of interest charged by co-operative societies and those charged by banks and other money-lending institutions?

    MEASUREMENT (LIMITATION).
    Mr. P. OLIVERasked the Minister of Health if he will state his reasons for refusing to circularise the chairmen of housing committees of all local authorities in Great Britain in order to ascertain their views on the proposed limitation in the size of houses in respect of which contributions may be paid under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend's reason is that the question has already been adequately discussed with authorised representatives of the local authorities.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that the size of houses specified in the Government's Housing Bill is smaller than he himself desired because of the supposed wishes of local authorities, he will now take steps to increase the size, in view of the fact that at the annual meeting of the Municipal Corporations Association, held on the 9th instant, a resolution was passed in favour of local authorities being allowed greater latitude as to the maximum size of houses required in their areas?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The proposals on this matter in the Housing Bill are based on the recommendation made by the representatives of the Local Authorities Associations authorised to negotiate with me. My right hon. Friend cannot at this stage contemplate varying these proposals.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the annual meeting of the Municipal Corporations Association has not confirmed these negotiations and, in view of that fact, will he take steps either at the end of the trace-year period or earlier, to have this question reviewed.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand the Municipal Corporations Association, at

    357
    the annual conference, took the action stated by the hon. Member, but there are certain other representative associations of local authorities which have taken no such action, and a general question of policy like this is a matter to be raised in Debate.

    AGRICULTURAL PARISHES.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Minister of Health whether any document is in the possession of his Department showing the number of hospitals, isolation hospitals, tubercular sanatoria, asylums for the mentally defective, and Poor Law institutions situated in agricultural parishes; and if he will make it available to Members of this House who sit for county constituencies?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend is afraid that no document giving the information which the hon. Member has in mind is available. He will be glad, however, to endeavour to obtain information as regards any particular parish for which hon. Members may ask.
    Mr. BROWN alsoasked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that the village of Hatton, in the county of Warwick, had in 1911 a population of 1,524, of which more than 1,200 were officials of and inmates in the county mental hospital, this village is therefore ineligible for the £12 10s. subsidy proposed under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend will endeavour to obtain the latest information regarding the properties in this parish and will communicate it to the hon. Member.
    Captain EDEN: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the position revealed in the question?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The information contained in the question is insufficient to form any conclusion.

    BRICKLAYING METHODS.
    Major KINDERSLEYasked the Minister of Health whether he is yet in a position to express an opinion upon the new method of laying bricks in cottage construction which is being tried at Ton-bridge; and, if not, when he will be in a position to do so, in view of its important bearing upon the new housing proposals?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend understands that this new method is still in an experimental stage and steps are being taken to improve its working. Up to the present, it has only been tried on a small scale, and it is not possible yet to express any opinion on it.

    BUILDING TRADE AGREEMENT.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether the building trade and the several trades unions concerned have explicitly accepted the Housing Bill as constituting a guarantee in return for which they are prepared to carry out the various undertakings specified in the Report of the National House Building Committee?
    Mr. E. D. SIMONasked the Minister of Health whether he has now had an opportunity of consulting the trade unions regarding the, Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill; whether they have accepted the Bill as fulfilling the conditions asked for by them in the Housing Bill Committee's Report; and whether they have given any pledge that if the Bill is passed they will undertake to arrange both for an increase of apprenticeship and for the upgrading of men experienced in the building trade, as promised in that Report?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The Housing Bill has been public property for some time and no objection has been raised to it by the authorised representatives of the building trade on the ground of inconsistency with the proposals of the National House Building Committee. On the contrary, the leaders of the operatives have assured my right hon. Friend during the last few days that they will promote it enthusiastically. Some criticisms of the Bill by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers have just reached my right hon. Friend, but these seem largely based on misunderstandings of the actual proposals and on forecasts of probable results which he cannot accept.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly reply to that part of the question which asks whether the building trade and the several trade unions concerned have explicitly accepted the Bill.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: They have never been asked.

    OUT-TENANTS.
    Mr. PALMERasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the protection of out-tenants and the general advantage that would accrue by the fixing of rents for rooms let furnished and unfurnished; and whether he will introduce legislation to give effect to the same?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. B. Turner) on the 4th instant in reply to a similar question.

    CONVERTED DWELLING-HOUSES (EAST LONDON).
    Mr. LAVERACKasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the East End of London houses are being converted into small works or places of business; that housing shortage is particularly acute in that locality; whether he will state for the years 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924 the number of houses so converted in Bethnal Green, Finsbury, Hackney, Poplar, Stepney and Shoreditch; and whether he will, during the housing shortage, prohibit such conversion of houses, or any portion thereof, into works or business houses?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend has no figures showing the extent of the progress referred to by the hon. Member. He has previously stated that he cannot in any case deal with the matter this Session.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that each local authority has power to prevent this kind of work being done?

    SUBSIDY HOUSES, GLASCOW.
    Mr. J. HARRISasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many of the subsidised houses in the Mosspark district of Glasgow provided by the corporation of that city are let to tenants who are in receipt of substantial incomes; and whether he will recommend to the Corporation of Glasgow the advisability in future of making inquiries as to the means of those applying for houses, in order that preference may be given to the poorer applicants?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): I have been asked to reply. I have no information as to the
    360
    financial position of tenants at Mosspark, but I understand that the Corporation of Glasgow have recently had under consideration the question of the letting of houses in their housing scheme, and have adopted certain rules for the regulation of such letting in future which provide inter alia for a maximum family income of £350. The houses in question are provided for the working classes generally, and I should hesitate to interfere with the discretion of the local authority in the matter.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask if it is a fact that they are provided for the working classes, seeing that the lowest rent chargeable, including rates, amounts to almost £1 a week? Does not that prove that they are denied to the working classes and that only people with substantial incomes can occupy these houses?
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it true that some of the occupants of these houses are in fact registered owners of private motor cars?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman said these houses are for working-class people, but I want to ask, if the rents and rates charged approximate £1 a week, how can working-class people pay that rent, and are they not reserved for well-to-do people?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I have no information as to whether any of the tenants at Moss-park have motor cars.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: They have.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I have no such information, although the hon. Member may have. With regard to the other point, it is very difficult for certain sections of the working classes to meet a rent of £1 a week.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does it not depend on the size of the family?

    BUILDING COMMITTEE.
    Mr. MASTERMANasked the Minister of Health who are to form the committee which are to guarantee the building of the municipal houses under his housing scheme; whether they are to be representatives of the Building Committee whose Report is published in Cmd. 2104; whether representatives of the House Builders' Committee will be included; and whether its sub-committees are to have

    361
    the power of rationing municipalities with labour and squeezing out builders who do not conform to its conditions as suggested in the Report?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make an announcement as to the constitution of the committee to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but he may take it that representatives of all branches of the building industry will be included. The principal duties of the sub-committees will be to see that sufficient labour and materials are available for the number of houses to be erected in the locality under the housing scheme. They will have no power to squeeze out any type of builder.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Will my hon. Friend's right hon. Friend be in a position to make a statement before the Housing Bill leaves this House?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: An announcement will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. MASTERMANasked the Minister of Health whether he has any information as to the number of applicants who have had previous experience, e.g., building trade labourers, who will be permitted to become skilled craftsmen under the scheme for building municipal houses guaranteed by the Building Committee in Command Paper 2104, which he has accepted as the basis of his Housing Bill?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend has no information on the point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. If will be a condition of every contract that apprentices up to a total ratio of one apprentice to three craftsmen shall be employed in certain trades, and in considering applications special consideration will be given to men with previous experience in the trade.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Does that refer to apprentices under 20 or to builders' labourers who may become trained and fully skilled craftsmen?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I think men in training would be included.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Are they limited to the age of 20?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Provision is made in the Report accepted by the industry for taking in, for special training, people already in the industry.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Over 20?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes.
    Mr. REMER: When the hon. Gentleman says "certain trades," does that include both bricklayers and plasterers?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it not a fact that the Bricklayers' Union refused to allow apprentices or builders' labourers over 20 to join?
    Mr. MASTERMANasked the Minister of Health whether, in the absence of skilled men in the building industry adequate to carry out the programme outlined in the Housing Bill, he will grant assistance to local authorities who wish to train selected unemployed ex-service men, trade unionists, and others, in order to supplement the limited supply of skilled labour now available for the building of the municipal houses?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend thinks that the only practical way of securing the necessary augmentation of building labour is by a scheme of apprenticeship on the lines recommended by the National House Building Committee.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Then we are to take it that the policy of the Government is to exclude from the building trade, which requires these men, all men over 20, ex-service men and others, not already in?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir.

    EJECTMENT ORDER, ATTLEBOROUGH, NORFOLK.
    Mr. G. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. F. S. Clarke, an ex-service man, against whom an ejectment order was granted by the Magistrates at Attleborough, Norfolk, on 14th April last; under what Section of the Act such an order can be made without alternative accommodation being provided; and, seeing that this man is

    363
    suffering as a result of war service, will he take steps to prevent this hardship being imposed upon him and his family?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend's attention had not been previously drawn to this case. He has no authority to intervene. He is writing to the hon. Member, in reply to a letter he has received from him, to-day.

    WOOLWICH (CLOSED STATE FACTORY).
    Mr. PALMERasked the Minister of Labour what steps, if any, have been taken by his Department to re-open the vacant State factory at Woolwich and equip it with machinery in order to carry nut the engineering requirements of the Russian Government, who are prepared to place sufficient orders in this country to provide 70,000 engineering workers with employment for at least 12 months?
    Mr. SHAW: I regret that, from the description given, I have not been able to identify the factory referred to, and perhaps my hon. Friend will let me have further particulars.
    Sir K. WOOD: Before he prepared that reply, did the right hon. Gentleman refer to the many promises which the Prime Minister made on this subject when he was last in Woolwich?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: That was the time when you were fighting in Horatio Bottomley's candidature.

    WAR RESERVE FACTORY, ST. HELENS.
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a poison gas factory at Sutton, St. Helens, Lancashire, closed down since the declaration of peace, is again showing signs of activity; and, as this works is situated in a thickly populated district, will he make inquiry with a view to the selection of a site more appropriate for such a purpose?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Major Attlee): I have been asked to reply. I am not aware that this
    364
    factory is showing any special signs of activity. A wall to enclose War Department property is being built there, and some experiments are being carried out, but these are less extensive than they were some little time ago. The factory is in the main a war reserve factory and is not doing any manufacturing work. With regard to the last part of the question, full inquiry was made before the site was chosen, and I am not aware of any equally suitable site. Though the surrounding country is thickly populated, the factory itself is somewhat isolated, and its presence involves nor more risk to the neighbourhood than would any other munition or chemical establishment. No complaints were received in the past, even when the factory was producing on a war scale.

    POOR LAW GUARDIANS (NON- RESIDENT RELIEF).
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the great hardship and the consequent breaking up of the homes of persons in receipt of Poor Law assistance caused by the action of certain boards of guardians in refusing to authorise nonresident relief; and will he secure legislation whereby it shall be made compulsory upon all Poor Law authorities to grant non-resident relief, thus obviating the removal of recipients to other legal places of settlement?
    Mr. W. A. JENKINSasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in consequence of the refusal of certain boards of guardians to authorise nonresident relief great hardship, and even breaking up of homes, has been caused to many people in receipt of Poor Law assistance; and will he take steps to secure legislation whereby it shall be compulsory upon all Poor Law authorities to grant non-resident relief, thus obviating the removal of recipients to their legal place of settlement?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend understands that this matter is engaging the attention of the Association of Poor Law Unions in England and Wales, and he will be prepared to consider any proposals which the Association think it desirable to submit to him.

    LIQUOR TRAFFIC, UNITED STATES.
    Mr. AYLESasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state what steps the Government have taken to stop the trans-shipment of whiskey from this country to the United States of America, in accordance with his recent promise?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) on 16th June, this matter is receiving consideration by the Departments concerned. I am not at present in a position to add anything to that statement. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend that the extent of my undertaking was that I would consult my colleagues to see whether anything could be done in this matter. This is being done.
    Mr. AYLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman also considering the question of the trans-shipment of whiskey to America via Hamburg and Antwerp?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Obviously, that is not my job. All I can do is to transmit my desire that the matter should be very carefully considered by the Departments concerned.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Could not the right hon. Gentleman ask the help of Lord Stevenson, who has been so successful at Wembley?
    Mr. STURROCK: Would it not be wise to let America look after its own affairs?

  HOUSE OF COMMONS.

    SITTINGS (REPORT OF COMMITTEE).
    Mr. AYLESasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the attitude of the Government towards the Report of the Committee on the Sittings of the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on Monday last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir Walter de Frece).

    HISTORIC TABLE.
    Mr. LAVERACKasked the First Commissioner of Works if he will arrange for a small brass plate to be affixed to
    366
    the House of Commons table which was rescued from the fire of 16th October, 1834, and which at present stands in one of the Libraries; whether he will cause a brief history of this interesting table to be inscribed on the plate; and whether the names of illustrious leaders who achieved renown in the House of Commons may be included in the inscription?
    Mr. JOWETT: I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion in consultation with the Speaker.
    Viscount CURZON: Can we have an assurance that the table will not be mutilated unnecessarily?

    MEMORIAL (VIRGINIA, UNITED STATES).
    Mr. LAVERACKasked the First Commissioner of Works if he is aware that in Virginia, United States of America, there is a desire to commemorate the first British settlement in North America, taken possession of by Sir Walter Raleigh, and subsequently established as a permanent Colony, by the erection of a memorial in the precincts of the House of Commons; and whether he is willing to arrange for a suitable memorial, tablet or inscription, according to the desires and at the expense of Virginia, to be erected or placed in one of the lobbies or other place in the British House of Parliament?
    Mr. JOWETT: In view of the limited space available within the precincts of the House, I am unable to say whether it would be possible to agree to the erection of such a memorial. A definite proposal would, however, receive careful consideration.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman always bear in mind that Virginia was England's first Colony?

    KITCHEN STAFF.
    Mr. BAKERasked the right hon. Member for Cheltenham, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he is aware that, as the House will not rise before 8th August, 70 members of his staff will have considerable difficulty in finding seasonal work when they are discharged because the holiday season will have started before that date; whether he will consider the possibility of releasing members of the staff employed under

    367
    the control of his Committee at a date in July to enable them to obtain employment at seaside and holiday resorts without prejudice to their re-engagement in the service of this House or, alternatively, whether he will represent to the Ministry of Labour the unusual nature of the conditions attaching to employment under the Kitchen Committee of the House with a view to special provision being made in the case of unemployment?
    Sir JAMES AGO-GARDNER: In reply to the question of the hon. Member, the Kitchen Committee are aware of the circumstances mentioned in the question, and are prepared to make adequate provision in cases where such a provision is needed.
    Mr. NICHOL: Would it not be possible to put the staff of the Kitchen Committee on the same basis as the other servants of the House of Commons, that is to say, on a permanent basis?
    Viscount CURZON: Is not this question a hardy annual?
    Viscountess ASTOR: And a very necessary one?
    Sir J. AGG-GARDNER: It would not be possible to maintain our entire staff during the long Recess on the same footing. There have always been temporary and permanent employés.
    Mr. BAKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of asking the Treasury to re-institute the subsidy previously granted to the Kitchen Committee?
    Sir J. AGG-GARDNER: We should, of course, be relieved by receiving a renewal of the subsidy. But we are unwilling to ask for it, in the present condition of affairs.

    FRONTIER QUESTIONS.
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Prime Minister if he will, in future, endeavour to secure that all European boundary and frontier questions in which this country is concerned are referred to the League of Nations, rather than to the Conference of Ambassadors?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The determination of the new frontiers that had their origin in the Treaties of Peace comes naturally within the purview of the Ambassadors' Conference?

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT (1918) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to adopt and proceed with the Representation of the People Act (1918) Amendment Bill this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

    LUNACY LAWS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to a circular letter issued by the secretary to the Royal Commission on Lunacy, intimating to those desirous of giving evidence before it that in the event of their application being turned down they will not be notified of this decision, but will be left in uncertainty for an indefinite period; and will he take steps to see that some more satisfactory procedure is adopted and, further, that a reason for rejection of the evidence shall be given, in order that the public may feel no lack of confidence in the selection of evidence made by the Commission?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member has been misinformed as to the terms of the letter to which he refers. A very large number of persons have already applied to give evidence before the Royal Commission; and, in the meantime, such persons have been informed that their applications will receive consideration, and that if the Commission decide to hear evidence from them, a further communication will be sent. I should add that the procedure of a Royal Commission is entirely within its own discretion.

    NURSES (PENSION SCHEME).
    Mr. T. ATHOLL ROBERTSONasked the Minister of Health if he can see his way to establish a pension scheme for

    369
    nurses on a contributory basis, with substantial aid from the State, for all nurses that have faithfully and continuously served public bodies, hospitals, and other institutions, and give assistance to the private nurse in a fair and reasonable way?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: While my right hon. Friend is in sympathy with the object which the hon. Member has in view, he is advised that the adoption of such a scheme as is suggested would be wholly impracticable.

    BUILDING TRADE DISPUTE.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of health whether, in connection with the present building dispute, he is sanctioning in connection with housing schemes the arrangements made by certain local authorities with the local operatives whereby the present demands of the trade concerning an all-round increase of 1d. per hour, the strict observance of the 44-hour week, and guarantees against lime lost are conceded?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend proposes to take no steps favouring either one side or the other in the dispute.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether the present building dispute is affecting the housing scheme of the local authorities or house building by private builders?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Generally, the answer is in the affirmative, though my right hon. Friend has no specific information as to the position in detail.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the very serious delays which are being occasioned in the completion of important building works owing to the insufficient supply of bricklayers, masons, and plasterers; and, seeing that, notwithstanding that it is admitted that there is practically no unemployment in these branches of the building industry, building unions forbid their operatives to work overtime, what action does he propose to take in the matter?
    Mr. SHAW: I have been asked to reply. I understand that the Report of the Court of Inquiry concerning the dis-
    370
    pute in the building industry will be available this afternoon. I hope that, following it, there will be renewed discussions between the parties, with a view to the settlement of all the matters in dispute, including the question of overtime referred to by the hon. Member.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that, notwithstanding the fact that there has been no unemployment in these branches of the building industry, the unions have forbidden the men to work overtime?
    Mr. SHAW: I believe that is correct.

    POOR LAW GUARDIANS (SERVICE RESERVE PAY).
    Mr. PALMERasked the Minister of Health whether he has received complaints from Poor Law guardians in respect to the Army, Navy, and Air Service reserve pay being made quarterly; and whether, in view of the fact that a weekly payment would simplify administration by the guardians, he proposes to take any steps to provide a remedy?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend has received resolutions to the effect suggested, and will bring them to the notice of the Departments concerned.

    ST. MARTIN'S LANE LIBRARY.
    Sir CYRIL COBBasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Courts in connection with the action of the Westminster City Council in diverting St. Martin's Library from its original purpose; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding these decisions, the Westminster City Council has now granted a lease for 99 years of the library buildings to an adjoining bank; and whether, in view of the fact that the citizens of Westminster are still deprived of their library, and the City Council has made no provision for the transfer of the necessary library facilities to a suitable site and building in substitution for that in St. Martin's Lane, in accordance with Section 12 (3) of the Public Libraries Act, 1892, he proposes to take any action so as to secure the citizens' rights in the matter under the said Act?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware of this case, and is communicating with the City Council in regard to the hon. Member's question.

    REFUSE DISPOSAL, LONDON.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Health whether his Department has recently considered the question of dust and refuse disposal in London and Greater London; whether he is aware that there are now several refuse dumps in the lower reaches of the Thames which are burning through self-combustion, and are a great nuisance to the districts concerned; and whether, in view of the importance of the subject, he will consider as to a committee being set up to fully consider the matter, in view of the development of new housing schemes outside London?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: A list of special precautions in connection with refuse tips was prepared by my Department in 1922, in consultation with local authorities; and my right hon. Friend is advised that, where these precautions are observed, nuisances are avoided. He is having special investigations made as to the conditions in the lower reaches of the Thames.

    SANITARY INSPECTOR, BOSTON.
    Mr. COMPTONasked the Minister of Health whether he approved the terms of the advertisement issued by the Boston Rural District Council for a sanitary inspector at a salary of £250 per annum, rising by annual increments of £10 to £350, without War bonus, the inspector to pay his own travelling expenses; whether he is aware that the population of the district is 22,100, and that the acreage is 84,852, and that a considerable proportion of the salary would be absorbed in travelling expenses if the sanitary inspector efficiently carried out his duties; whether he approves of the principle of requiring sanitary inspectors to pay their own travelling expenses; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take with the local authority concerned?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The salary offered was, in my right hon. Friend's view, not unreasonable as an inclusive salary, and he approved it as such. The method of defraying the travelling expenses of their
    372
    sanitary inspector is a matter which my right hon. Friend thinks is best left to the discretion of the local authority.

    CUSTOMS HOUSE, LONDON.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether it is intended to remove the temporary buildings which have been erected in front of the Customs House, in the City, and which spoil the view of this public building both from the river and the bridges?
    Mr. JOWETT: It is not at present practicable to remove these temporary buildings without incurring considerable expense in providing other accommodation. The buildings are fully occupied.
    Mr. GILBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are plenty of empty offices in the precincts of the Customs House which might be used in preference to these temporary buildings?
    Mr. JOWETT: I should be glad to receive any information in regard to this matter that the hon. Gentleman may have in his possession.

    CONTROL OF LITTER.
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Minister of Health the policy of his Department with regard to applications by municipal authorities for special powers to deal with the control of litter, and more especially in the direction of distribution of handbills which are thrown away by pedestrians; whether any municipal authorities have asked for special powers in this direction this year; if so, with what results; and whether, in view of the increase of the nuisance of uncontrolled litter, he will give local authorities greater powers than they possess at present if and when they ask for them by private legislation?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I have been asked to take this question. Bye-laws for the prevention of litter can be made under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and bye-laws have been made by numerous local authorities dealing with various aspects of the matter, including the distribution of handbills. One or two local authorities have applied to Parliament

    373
    this Session for special powers. The Bills are still before Parliament, with whom and not with me rests the decision whether the powers shall be granted.

  POST OFFICE.

    WIRELESS TRANSMISSION LICENCES.
    Major MOULTONasked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the new licence to amateur wireless transmitters contains a condition that they shall not communicate with persons on the Continent or in the Irish Free State, and that such condition constitutes a great handicap on the work these amateurs are doing, he will consider the removal of such condition?
    Mr. F. HALL (for Mr. HARTSHORN): The condition in question is merely an embodiment in the new licence form of the existing rule. It is the practice, however, to grant permission for bona fide experiments with places abroad, when special application is made. Many such permits have been issued, and no alteration in this practice is contemplated.

    WIRELESS AERIALS (TENANTS' FEES).
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that the London and North Eastern Railway is demanding an annual fee of 5s. from tenants for permission to erect a wireless aerial; whether he has given his sanction for the levying of such charges; and, if not, will he take steps to prevent such demands being made?
    Mr. F. HALL: I understand that many landlords require a small payment by their tenants for permission to erect wireless aerials. The matter is primarily one for settlement between landlord and tenant, and my right hon. Friend has at present no power to intervene. The Broadcasting Committee of last year expressed the view that the practice is unjustifiable and should be abandoned. In this view my right hon. Friend concurs, and he is considering what steps can be taken to prevent the spread of the practice.
    Mr. HANNON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this is the only railway company that has made a charge of this kind?

    INTER-ALLIED MILITARY COMMITTEE.
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether the British officer attached to the Inter-Allied Military Committee at Versailles reports direct to the War Office or if his duties are confined to giving his opinion as a member of the committee to the chairman of the committee?
    Major ATTLEE: The British Representative on the Allied Military Committee of Versailles is a member of, and not attached to, that body. In addition to giving his opinion to the Committee he reports any matters of importance direct to the War Office, and on any question in which he is in doubt he requests instructions as to what attitude he should adopt.

    CHILWELL ORDNANCE DEPOT.
    Mr. BETTERTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the anxiety amongst those at present employed at the Chilwell Ordnance Depot caused by the uncertainty as to their prospects, he will state whether it is the present intention of the War Office to close this depot; if so, at what date; and whether he can now state, in the event of the depot being closed, what steps he proposes to take to ensure that those now employed shall be provided with alternative occupation?
    Major ATTLEE: The Central Ordnance Depot at Chilwell is being gradually reduced, but it is impossible to name a date for final closing. With regard to alternative occupation for the temporary employés at Chilwell, I regret that I can add nothing to the reply given to a similar question asked by the hon. Member on 2nd June.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Ought not these men to be the last to suffer from unemployment? Surely they are servants of the State, and ought not to be turned away?
    Major ATTLEE: As the Noble Lord knows, the matter is one of very great difficulty following on the gradual demobilisation of these men. On the one hand there is a constant demand for economy, and on the other hand we are asked why we do not keep these men at

    375
    work. Some of them are transferred to other Departments, but it is not possible to give work in every case.
    Mr. LORIMER: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many have been transferred?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Is the decision to close depot final?
    Major ATTLEE: That is so.

    ARMY PENSION (Mr. F. ROSKELL, BARROW-IN-FURNESS).
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of an ex-soldier, Mr. Frederick Roskell, of Greengate Street, Barrow-in-Furness, an inmate of Lancaster Asylum, from whose pension of 11s. 6d. per week the guardians took 7s. 6d., leaving 4s. for his wife and five children; and, in view of the fact that the wife has since died, will he take immediate steps to see that the case of the children receives consideration?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Mr. Muir): I am glad to inform the hon. Member that the case referred to has been satisfactorily settled. In connection with an appeal which had been entered against the earlier decision of the Ministry, material evidence affecting the issue came to light, on investigation, which was not put before the Ministry- when the original claim in respect of insanity was made. The ease was, therefore, specially investigated by a medical officer of the Ministry, and, as a result of his report, it has been shown that the man's mental condition should properly be regarded as directly connected with his service. The claim to pension has therefore been admitted. Adequate provision will, therefore, be made for the children, for whose benefit, I may add, that I had in the meantime been able to make a temporary grant.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in spite of this case being pressed for six months the wife and five children received a pension of only 4s. a week, and that this had to be supplemented by the guardians to keep the woman alive? Four weeks ago this woman died from absolute worry.
    Mr. MUIR:I think the hon. Gentleman has not brought that to my notice before.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: I have written 16 letters to the Ministry.
    Mr. MUIR: Not during the past six months.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is not this a true commentary on the attitude of the Labour Government [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

    THORNHILL-BY-STIRLING (COMMON RIGHTS).
    Mr. T. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that hawkers and owners of caravans have been, during the past few months, prohibited from camping on the South Common at Thornhill-by-Stirling; that this right of camping has been enjoyed for centuries; that some of the neighbouring feuars have declined to join in the request to the police to warn campers off the common; and by whose instructions are the police acting in prohibiting free access to the common for wayfarers?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am making inquiry into this matter, and Will communicate with my hon. Friend when my inquiries have been completed.

    ELECTRICTTY ORDER, WASPERTON.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Minister of Transport if an application has been made under the Electricity Supply Acts, 1882 to 1922, for a special Electricity Order in respect of the parish of Wasperton and of parts of the parishes of Barford and Sherborne, in the rural district of Warwick and other parishes in the rural district of Brailes, Stratford-on-Avon, and Southam in the County of Warwick; and, if so, if he will say what action has been taken upon this application?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): The application referred to was made to the Commissioners on 30th June, 1924. A decision has not been arrived at by the Commissioners, as the time prescribed by the public notices for the lodging of objections does not expire until 31st. July.
    Mr. BROWN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a good deal of anxiety exists in this area about this application?
    Mr. GOSLING: We cannot make inquiry until the time has expired for the notice to be put in, and that is at the end of this month.

    PETROLEUM SPIRIT (TRANSPORT).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Annual Conference of the Professional Fire Brigades' Association, at which the chief inspector of high explosives called attention to the great danger of huge travelling tanks of petrol and lorry loads of petrol cans passing through congested streets; arid whether, in the interests of the public, he will draw up Regulations with regard to the transport of petroleum spirit?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Under the existing law, no central authority has any power to make regulations in this regard. The Petroleum Acts are administered locally, and each local authority may attach to a, storage licence such conditions in regard to conveyance as may seem desirable. These, however, apply only to the area within the jurisdiction of the local authority and may therefore differ materially in adjoining districts. This is not a satisfactory position, and in a Bill introduced last year, but adversely reported on by a Select Committee in another place, provision was made to enable the Secretary of State to issue Regulations of general application to the conveyance of petroleum spirit throughout the Kingdom. This Bill was not proceeded with, but the question of
    introducing another Bill to give the necessary powers is under consideration.

    LATE SIR HUGH LANE (FRENCH PICTURES).
    Mr. BALDWINasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to announce the composition of the Committee which is to inquire into the intentions of the late Sir Hugh Lane as to the disposition of his French pictures?
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes, Sir. The Right Hon. J. W. Wilson has consented to act as Chairman of the Committee, and the other members will be the Right Hon. George Barnes and Mr. J. W. Hills.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House how late it is intended to sit, in the event of his Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): I could not say at what stage we shall finish, or at what particular Amendment, but with the good-will of the House, assuming that ample progress has been made in the Committee stage of the Bill, we do not desire to sit much later than midnight.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Clynes.]
The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 123.

Division No. 155.]

AYES.

[4.3 p.m.

Ackroyd, T. R.

Broad, F. A.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Acland, Rt. Hon. Franols Dyke

Bromfield, William

Dickson, T.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

Dodds, S. R.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Duckworth, John

Alden, Percy

Brunner, Sir J.

Dukes, C.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Buchanan, G.

Duncan, C.

Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)

Buckle, J.

Dunn, J. Freeman

Ammon, Charles George

Cape, Thomas

Dunnico, H.

Asqulth, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Church, Major A. G.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Ayles, W. H.

Clarke, A.

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

Baker, Walter

Climie, R.

Egan, W. H.

Barclay, R. Noton

Cluse, W. S.

England, Colonel A.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Falconer, J.

Barnes, A.

Compton, Joseph

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Comyns-Carr, A. S.

Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

Berkeley, Captain Reginald

Cove, W. G.

Franklin, L. B.

Black, J. W.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Bondfield, Margaret

Davies, David (Montgomery)

Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

Bonwick, A.

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Gibbins, Joseph

Gilbert, James Daniel

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Simon, E. D.(Manchester, Withington)

Gillett, George M.

Maden, H.

Simpson, J. Hope

Gosling, Harry

March, S.

Smillie, Robert

Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

Marley, James

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

Smith, T. (Portefract)

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

Snell, Harry

Greenall, T.

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Spence, R.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Maxton, James

Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Middleton, G.

Spero, Dr. G. E.

Groves, T.

Millar, J. D.

Starmer, Sir Charles

Grundy, T. W.

Mills, J. E.

Stephen, Campbell

Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

Mitchell, R.M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

Mond, H.

Stewart, Maj. R. S.(Stockton.on-Tees)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Montague, Frederick

Sturrock, J. Leng

Harbord, Arthur

Morel, E. D.

Sullivan, J.

Hardle, George D.

Morris, R. H.

Sunlight, J.

Harris, John (Hackney, North)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Sutton, J. E.

Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

Moulton, Major Fletcher

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Haycock, A. W.

Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Hayday, Arthur

Murray, Robert

Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

Hayes, John Henry

Naylor, T. E.

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Nichol, Robert

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

O'Grady, Captain James

Thornton, Maxwell R.

Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex, Enfield)

Oliver, George Harold

Thurtle, E.

Hindle, F.

Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

Tinker, John Joseph

Hirst, G. H.

Paling, W.

Tout, W. J.

Hobhouse, A. L.

Palmer, E. T.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Hoffman, P. C.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Turner, Ben

Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

Perry, S. F.

Viant, S. P.

Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

Phillipps, Vivian

Vivian, H.

Hudson, J. H.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wallhead, Richard C.

Isaacs, G. A.

Potts, John S.

Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

Pringle, W. M. R.

Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Raffan, P. W.

Warne, G. H.

Jewson, Dorothea

Raffety, F. W.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Ramage, Captain Cecil Berestord

Watts-Morgan, Lt.Col. D. (Rhondda)

Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

Rathbone, Hugh R.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

Raynes, W. R.

Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Rea, W. Russell

Westwood, J.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Rendall, A.

Whiteley, W.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Richards, R.

Wignall, James

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

Kay, Sir R. Newbald

Ritson, J.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Kedward, R. M.

Robertson, T. A.

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kenningtn.)

Kenyon, Barnet

Robinson, W, E. (Burslem)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Kirkwood, D.

Romerll, H. G.

Wilson, C. H (Sheffield, Atterclifle)

Lansbury, George

Royle, C,

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Laverack, F. J.

Rudkin, Lieut-Colonel C. M. C.

Windsor, Walter

Law, A.

Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

Wintringham, Margaret

Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

Scrymgeour, E.

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Leach, W.

Scurr, John

Wright, W.

Linfield, F. C.

Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

McCrae, Sir George

Sexton, James

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Sherwood, George Henry

Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. John

McEntee, V. L.

Shinwell, Emanuel

Robertson.

Mackinder, W.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Bullock, Captain M.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W.(Glas.C.)

Burman, J. B.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Astor, viscountess

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Elliot, Walter E.

Atholl, Duchess of

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth

Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Ferguson, H.

Becker, Harry

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Frece, Sir Walter de

Beckett, Sir Gervase

Clarry, Reginald George

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Frantis E.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Clayton, G. C.

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Berry Sir George

Cope, Major William

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Betterton, Henry B.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Gretton, Colonel John

Blundell, F. N.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Bourne, Robert Croft

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Dalkelth, Earl of

Hartington, Marquess of

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Hogge, James Myles

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Hood, Sir Joseph

380

381

Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Stanley, Lord

Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)

Pease, William Edwin

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

Pennefather, Sir John

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Parkins, Colonel E. K.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Perring, William George

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Waddington, R.

Lamb, J. Q.

Ralne, W.

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Lane-Fox, George R.

Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Wells, S. H.

Lorimer, H. D.

Remer, J. R.

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Remnant, Sir James

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

McLean, Major A.

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Wolmer, Viscount

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Savery, S. S.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Shepperson, E W.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Major Sir Harry Barnston and

Norton-Griffiths, Sir John

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Major Hennessy.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

Question put, and agreed to.

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.

  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I desire to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker, on a question of procedure. The Merchandise Marks Bill came before a Standing Committee this morning, summoned in the usual way, and at three minutes past, Eleven the Chairman adjourned the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: Speak up!"]—on the ground that there was not a quorum present. I and everybody I have consulted are of the opinion that there was an established practice, or an unwritten law, that a quarter of an hour's grace should be allowed for the meeting of these Committees. I would only add this further: that the Committee consists of 60 Members. There are 25 selected from this side of the House—I think I am right in that figure—
  Mr. PRINGLE: Twenty seven!
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: And over 33 from the other sides, the Liberal and the Government Benches respectively. At three minutes past Eleven o'clock there were present 14 Members from this side of the House, and up till six minutes past Eleven, when I protested against the Adjournment, there were 18 Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I was saying that at six minutes past Eleven there were 18 Members from this side of the House ready to sit on the Committee. There were a number of Members from the other parties outside the Committee room. What I want the House to consider is this: Is there such a Regulation or established practice that this grace is allowed? If not, is it possible, having regard to the existence of three parties in the House, and the requirement that a
  382
  quorum of 20 should be present, and seeing that this Bill is calculated to raise party feeling; seeing there are two sides of the House opposed to the Bill, and only one wanting it—
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member, in raising a point in regard to the procedure of this House, to raise disputable questions with reference to the parties in this House? If so, if he is allowed to do that, will it be allowed for hon. Members on the other side to make a reply?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman is getting a little away from his point of Order.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: I did not intend to raise any controversy. I was only desiring to show that, as there are now three parties in the House, and the old position requires 20 for a quorum in Standing Committees, it seems difficult to obtain that quorum of 20 on a Committee.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question of a quorum on a, Standing Committee is governed by a Standing Order of the House, and only the House can alter it. The hon. and learned Gentleman can table a Motion, and see whether the time can be found for alteration, if considered necessary, of the Standing Order. With, regard to the other matter, there is no appeal to me from the decision of the Chairman of a Committee. As to any custom or practice relating to the time allowed for the assembling of a quorum, if there be any such rule or custom it may have been brought in by the Chairmen's Panel: I have no knowledge of it. The hon. and learned Gentleman can raise any question of that sort with the Chairman of the Panel.
  Mr. PRINGLE.: On this point of Order. May I put it to you that the matter of time at which the Chairman decides that a quorum is not available is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Chairman, and in exercising that discretion he has regard to the form of proceedings on the Bill, and in this case he had regard to the fact that at the first meeting of the Committee it was necessary to wait 20 minutes, and then a Motion for the Adjournment was only defeated by the casting vote of the Chairman. At the second meeting the Committee had not a quorum, and it was only at the third meeting that this action was taken.
  Mr. SPEAKER: These matters do not concern me, and I have no opinion upon the question. The Chairman of each Committee is quite independent, and the only question is that there may be some rule or practice which has been made by the Chairmen's Panel. As I say, I have no knowledge of any such rule, and I can only leave the matter there.
  Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Is it within your knowledge, Mr. Speaker, that the result of this decision will be that the Bill automatically goes down to the bottom of the list of Bills going before that Committee, and this is a very important matter? In view of the fact that it has been the regular practice of some hon. Members of the Committee to remain outside the Committee Room, is it not very necessary that the Chairman should not appear to take sides in a matter of this kind?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must decline to deal with any question of that kind. What I have already said makes it quite clear that I have really no jurisdiction in the matter.
  Mr. W. G. NICHOLSON: May I point out that there is no time laid down in the Standing Orders as to how long the Chairman of a Standing Committee should wait, but there has been a customary rule that he should wait 20 minutes. As regards the question of the Bill going to the bottom of the list, I think the 20 minutes is recognised in that rule. The Chairmen's Panel passed the following Resolution in June, 1920:
  "That where on two successive sittingir4 of a Standing Committee called for the consideration of a particular Bill the Committee has to be adjourned by reason
  384
  of the absence of a quorum within the first twenty minutes of the time for which the said Committee was summoned, the Chairmen do instruct the Clerk to place the particular Bill at the bottom of the list of Bills then waiting consideration of that Committee, and that the Committee shall forthwith be convened to consider the other Bill or Bills then waiting."
  I think there has been a general rule that the Chairman should wait 20 minutes, unless an agreement has been come to between the various parties of the House that it is for their convenience that the matter should be adjourned to some later date.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT.
  Mr. COMYNS-CARR: I beg to move,
  "That leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law governing the relations between landlords and tenants."
  It will be impossible for me to describe fully, in the time at my disposal, this Bill, but I can state the general principle and the grievances which it is desired to meet. It is intended to meet grievances arising out of the present system of leaseholds particularly with regard to leases for lives, building leases, and leases for the occupation of business premises. With regard to leases for fives, it is hardly necessary for me to say, particularly in the hearing of hon. Members representing the West of England, that, although the area of this grievance is now somewhat restricted, the absurdity of the system depending upon the accident of human life for the termination of a lease on which money has been spent on the property of another by the leaseholder is apparent. The Bill proposes with regard to these leases that the period, instead of depending upon the accident of death, shall be fixed in accordance with the ordinary actuarial expectations of the life in the lease instead of on the accident of death.
  With regard to building leases I think anyone familiar with the condition of affairs in many parts of London where leases are approaching their termination, who has seen the plight which whole districts of this and other cities are in owing to the anticipation of the falling in of these leases during the period of at least 20 years before that falling in, when the landlord or the leaseholder is not in a position to do anything to improve the property by reason of the termination of

  385
  the lease; and anyone who considers the absurdity of the rule by which property erected at the expense of one man automatically reverts to another man without payment of any kind or description after a fixed period, will agree that they require a remedy.
  The third grievance is the confiscation of the goodwill of business and improvements, whether business or residential, which takes place, and this has been greatly accentuated by the conditions since the War. This is a grievance to which attention is being drawn at the present time. Those are the grievances which I desire to remedy. The central principle is that there should be a permanent tribunal of an expert character to whom all these questions should be referred, and which should deal with them in the light of equity as between the parties and the public interest under the restrictions imposed by the lease in question. This principle has already been recognised to a certain extent in the Law of Property Act, 1922, and the tribunal I propose is the one proposed in that Act, namely, the tribunal already in existence under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, a permanent tribunal of experts who now are employed dealing with land taken over for public purposes by Government Departments or local authorities. They are considered to be the most suitable body in existence to deal with this matter. The Bill proposes that this tribunal shall have the power, on the application of either party, to provide for the enfranchisement of the lease at a fair price or for the renewal of the lease upon fair terms and conditions for a reasonable period. It provides further that from the date of the passing of the Bill all improvements erected thereafter shall be the property of the person who carries out the improvements, which is generally the tenant, and in the event of the lease being terminated and not renewed they shall be the subject of compensation by the landlord. I have stated the grounds on which I think this Bill should be allowed to be introduced, and the nature of the proposal, and the Measure is explained in much greater detail in the Bill itself.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Comyns-Carr, Mrs. Wintringham, Mr.
  386
  Geoffrey Howard, Mr. Percy Harris, Sir John Brunner, Mr. Linfield, and Mr. Atholl Robertson.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL,
  "to amend the Law governing the relations between landlords and tenants," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 212.]

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT Bill.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the proceedings of the Standing Committee to printed.
  Bill, as amended (in, the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 209.]

  COMMONS.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  SHOPS ACTS (1912 TO 1920) AMENDMENT BILL,
  "to continue permanently certain provisions relating to the early closing of shops," presented by Sir KINGSLEY WOOD; supported by Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Duchess of Atholl, Mr. Bowerman, Sir John Simon, Marquess of Hartington, Mr. Masterman, Mr. Lansbury, and Mr. Morse; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Summer Time Bill): Mr. Pethick-Lawrence and Mr. Rea; and had

  387
  appointed in substitution: Rhys Davies and Mr. Falconer.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the fallowing Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Ernest Brown and Mr. Foot; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Frederick Martin and Mr. Duncan Millar.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  FINANCE BILL.
  As amended, on consideration, to be printed. [Bill 210.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to the housing of the working classes in England and Wales." [Housing Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to the housing of the working classes in Scotland." [Housing (Scotland) Bill [Lord.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the appointment of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Scotland and the discontinuance of the office of Parliamentary Under - Secretary for Health, and to make further provision with regard to the constitution of the Scottish Board of Health and the office of chairman of the Fishery Board for Scotland and other offices in Scotland, and with regard to the public registers, records, and rolls of Scotland." [Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of 13 and 14 Geo. 5, c. 24, to houses completed before 1st October, 1939.)
    Mr. COMYNS-CARR: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out the words "Sections one and three off."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the whole of the Act of 1923 for the period mentioned in Clause 1 and not merely Sections 1 and 3 which are mentioned find great difficulty in understanding what is the object of the restriction to Sections 1 and 3, leaving Sections 2 and 5—which are most affected by my Amendment—to lapse at the period originally mentioned in the Act of 1923. I find particular difficulty in understanding that, when I find that Clause 2 provides for certain Amendments to Section 2 of the Act of 1923. It appears to me that it reduces the whole matter to nonsense, because, if Section 2 of the Act of 1923 is to come to an end in 1926 and Sections 1 and 3 are to go on until 1939, the provision in Clause 2 for the Amendment of Section 2 of the Act of 1923 appears to me meaningless or that it will become meaningless when Section 2 of the Act of 1923 lapses, as it apparently does, in 1926.
    My reasons for desiring that, if any part of the Act of 1923 is extended in duration, the whole of it shall be extended, are that the conditions of the Act of 1923, which apply particularly to the assistance given by local authorities to methods of housing other than by the local authorities themselves, shall continue as long and as nearly as may be on the same basis as the conditions prescribed by this Bill during the whole period of duration of this Bill. Section 2 is the one which deals with the conditions of the Act of 1923 under which a local authority may assist housing schemes and the building of houses other than by themselves, and Section 5, which is an absolutely vital
    408
    Section unless building by means other than those of the local authority is to come to an end altogether, is the Section which provides that the local authority may make advances to persons wishing to build or to acquire their own houses. Although, personally, I do not think that any success either in the Act of 1923 or in this Bill is very likely to be arrived at by means of houses built with a subsidy out of public funds—my own view is that a quite different system ought to be adopted—nevertheless, if this system is going to be adopted and extended as this Bill proposes to adopt and extend it in spite of the failure in the past, I think it ought to be adopted and extended equally for everybody concerned, and it ought not to come to an end for one class of person in 1926 and go on for another class of person until 1939.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): I am advised that this Amendment is quite unnecessary, and, indeed, in some respects, it would have a contrary effect to the one the hon. Member seeks to attain. The Act of 1923 may be taken as being in two sections: one section is permanent and the other is limited in duration. Time previsions in this Bill extend the temporary provisions of the 1923 Act, bur they leave the permanent provision, they are. If we upset that arrangement the result will be to limit to fifteen years duration the conditions of the Treasury subsidy. For these reasons, and with the assurance that the Amendment is net necessary for the purpose of ensuring thy continuation of provisions, I hope the hon. and learned Member will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. ERNEST SIMON: I have no doubt that what the right hen. Gentleman Las said is perfectly correct with regard to Clause 2, but with regard to Clause 5 (Advances of Money), it states specifically that the local authority may at any time before the 1st October, 1920, advance money, and unless this Clause remains applicable that power will automatically lapse.
    Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: Is it not the fact that the words quoted by the hon. Member are repealed by the Schedules of the Bill?
    Sir ROBERT KAY: As I read the Bill, if we leave out this Section and extend Sections 1 and 3 to a later year it will

    409
    automatically mean that the provisions as to houses referred to in Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1923, will come to an end in 1925. I understand that the. Schedule does not refer to Clause 2 at all. This Clause is vital to those who are engaged in the production of houses for personal occupation. All the houses being built at the present time out of public funds by the local authorities are being built under Section 2 of the Act of 1923, and if that Section does not remain in force, those houses will cease to receive any benefit as from the 1st October, 1925.
    Mr. COMYNS-CARR: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I overlooked certain words in the Schedule, and I think probably Clause 2 is covered by the extension of Section 1 of the Act.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
    Sir THOMAS INSKIP: I beg to move in page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word "Minister" to the word "and" in line 15.
    The Committee will remember that in the 1923 Act the date 1st October, 1925, was inserted as the date by which processes to receive subsidies should be completed. There is no doubt that was regarded as a matter which would be reconsidered in the light of the experience of the working of the Act. But in this Bill, for some reason which is certainly not obvious to anyone less well-informed than the Minister of Health, the date inserted is the 1st October, 1939. Anyone familiar with the transactions which have taken place between the various parties responsible for devising this Bill would find it difficult to know why 1939 has been put in. Presumably it was intended to be put into the Bill at a time when 1939 was the subject of agreement as to mutual guarantees to be given by both sides as to what the Minister would do and as to what the building industry would do over the whole of that period. But we have over and over again been told that no guarantees are given on either side, and that what was intended to be the subject of guarantees is merely the subject of pious hopes. Therefore, I do not see what useful purpose will be served by retaining these particular words in the Bill, and I propose to perform the operation of removing the appendix from the Clause. Perhaps I may call the attention of the Committee, which is no doubt well informed, to what is the reason for this date. It appears
    410
    for the first time in the Housing (Financial Provisions) Memorandum, in which the Minister said that the subsidy would be continued for twenty years if the houses were completed before the 1st October, 1929, subject to any revision which might be made from time to time in the amount of the subsidy owing to changed conditions. The revision of the contributions is provided for in Clause 5 of this Bill.
    Mr. MASTER MAN: Was not the period 15 years?
    Sir T. INSKIP: Yes, according to the Resolution, it is 15 years if the houses are completed before the 1st October, 1939, they will be subject to any revision made from time to time of the amount of the subsidy owing to changed conditions. The appearance of that provision in the form of Clause 5 really has the effect of putting a Clause into the Bill in these terms:
    "Nothing in this Bill as to any date shall have effect at ail after 1927, notwithstanding any explicit conditions to the contrary."
    I can only look on the ample powers which the Minister proposes to confer upon himself as a small relic of his intention to give some further assurance to the building industry which was required by them in order to enable them to give the assurance that they would allow the additional labour to be brought into the industry which would have to absorbed if it was not to be thrown on the unemployed market. The position is that these pledges are certainly not given in explicit terms by the Minister, because Clause 2 puts him in the position, after 1927, of doing anything he likes with the amount of the subsidy or the period of the subsidy. I think it most undesirable that Parliament should include in the Bill powers which will enable any succeeding generation of electors, or of people concerned in the building industry, to say that Parliament held out words intended to be a pledge of something to continue for a period of 15 years unless, indeed, that is the intention of Parliament. But it is quite obvious it is not the intention of Parliament. We have had repeated statements from the Minister that he will reconsider the whole position in 1927, and I therefore suggest that this provision is

    411
    not only innocuous but also pernicious and fraudulent, because possibly in three or four years' time, or at some future date, the Clause, if read in conjunction with the statement of the Minister contained in the Memorandum to the Financial Provisions Resolution, or in the report of the building industry where they refer to the assurances they require, will be taken as justifying a charge of breach of faith against Parliament. I hope that the Minister, in the interests of candour and in order to have an Act of Parliament which contains no more words than are necessary to give effect to its real object, will agree to the omission of these words.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I hope the Minister of Health will see his way, in the interests of truth and accuracy, to have these words deleted. Anyone who has followed the course which the Minister has adopted with reference to his guarantee to the trade up to the year 1939, has followed a most interesting performance. We have had many opportunities, it is true, of putting questions to the right hon. Gentleman as to the exact arrangement that he has in fact made, but I must say, quite plainly, that the right hon. Gentleman has not been particularly anxious to give really straight replies to the questions which have been asked of him. The whole question has been in effect—Has the Minister made any arrangements of a definite character either with the local authorities or with the building trade? What is the position so far as the local authorities are concerned, as far as one can ascertain it from the information which the Minister of Health has given to us? The Minister went to the local authorities and presented his proposals to them, and one of the proposals which he presented to them was this long period for house-building. We have seen a good many pamphlets and statements up and down the country about 2½ million houses, and all the rest of it, within a certain time. What did the local authorities say directly they saw this proposal? They came unanimously to the conclusion that they would have nothing at all to do with it. The first condition that they laid down was that at any time, and for any reason, they should be permitted to case building, that there should be no question of any appeal to the Minister
    412
    of Health, that there should be no question of any reference to an independent tribunal as to whether they should go on or not; they reserved absolutely to themselves the right to stop building at any time.
    Most people, confronted with such a dilemma, would have thought that at any rate the period of guarantee had gone, because—I think to amazement even of the local authorities themselves—the Minister of Health said: "Oh, yes, I gladly accept that condition. I agree to what you say; you shall be able to stop building at any time you like." Having regard to the agreement at which he had arrived, and having regard to the fact that the Minister had already pledged himself to the trade that he was going on for this extended period, one would have expected, in ordinary negotiations and in the usual conditions of life, that he would have gone back to the trade and said to them: " My dear friends, I am sorry to tell you that the local authorities have now taken the line that they are going to cease building whenever they like, and in these circumstances I am sorry to say that, if I am to be candid with you, there is really no guarantee in this business at all"; because he might very well have pointed out to them "I cannot compel the local authorities to build, and I certainly cannot compel the private builder to build."
    As I understand, however, the Minister of Health has taken no such step. He has not been near the building trade since he had that interview with the local authorities. He has, as I understand, left them very severely alone and in the House to-day, when the Minister was asked about this question, and the Parliamentary Secretary endeavoured to give a reply, I was informed, "Oh, but we have had no protests from this body, and certain of the operatives have said that they are enthusiastically in favour of the Minister of Health's proposals." I venture to say that that is a most unsatisfactory arrangement. Certainly, if it satisfies the Minister, it ought not to satisfy this Committee. We are asked in this Clause this afternoon, as I venture to think, to make a pretence, because there is no doubt that there is no form of guarantee of any kind. I venture to say that there is not a Member of the House who, in his private affairs, would

    413
    allow matters of business of this kind to remain in this state, and then afterwards say he has got a guarantee of this kind. Therefore, I venture to think it would be better if we did not hold out in this Measure something that is not actually accomplished and is not right and true. For that reason, as well as the other reasons I have ventured to enumerate, I think it would be in the best interests of everyone—of the Minister of Health and of building up and down the country—that these words should be deleted, and, therefore, I have much pleasure in supporting my hon. and learned Friend in this important Amendment.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I think the arguments of the two hon. Members who have addressed tin; Committee on this Amendment would have been stronger but for the fact that they only rest on a temporary basis. The principle of my Bill on this point differs from that of the 1923 Act only in degree. The 1923 Act provided for building for two years, which, in the very nature of things, served no useful purpose. This Bill provides for a programme of 15 years, which will serve a useful purpose, and the strange feature of the Amendment is that it proposes to leave the building programme in the Bill permanent, and capable of going far beyond 15 years, instead of limiting it to 13 years as I propose. It is quite easy to make fun, by playful words, with a very serious subject., but I submit that a scheme to solve the housing problem of this country deserves the most serious consideration that can be given to it by this Committee. The period of 15 years was inserted in the Bill because it was part of my agreement with the building industry. As I have more than once informed the House, I went to the industry and asked them why their labour was leaving the country, and why, notwithstanding all the efforts of the House of Commons, houses were not being delivered in adequate numbers. They told me that it was due to the instability of the industry, and that, if I would do something to stabilise the industry, it would be the first step in enabling it to deliver to the country the necessary houses.
    I asked them what period they wanted and they mentioned 15 years, and, as I have stated in other speeches, I said to the industry, "I am prepared to ask Parliament to give you a guarantee of
    414
    15 years' employment to the extent of a limited number of houses, on condition that you, in return, undertake to deliver to the country the houses according to a certain programme." They agreed. The reason for their insisting upon it is that people who are going to put capital into say, brickworks, want sonic assurance that there will be a market for the bricks over a reasonable period, and workers, if they are to be enthusiastic in augmenting the labour in the industry, want some assurance that they will, not within two years from now, have the unemployment and consequent emigration to which they have been accustomed in the past. I would submit that the vast majority of Members of the House, if they vote according to their conscience, will be delighted to assure the building industry that, if it succeeds in delivering houses to this country in accordance with this programme, Parliament, speaking in the name of the State, will be prepared for 15 years to accept the houses.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is only one word that I want to say on this point, because it would be possible on this point to open up a big Second Reading discussion on the whole Bill, which is the very last thing I desire to do. I want rather to get on with the Committee stage. We have had several Second Reading discussions already. On the narrow point at issue, I think the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip) omitted to mention the fact that this period of 15 wears was put into the Financial Resolution, which was accepted from the Committee by the whole House without any Amendments being suggested from the benches opposite, and against which none of the Members opposite—
    Sir T. INSKIP: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. An Amendment was moved by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), limiting it to two years.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If my recollection is at fault, I apologise, but certainly there was no suggestion of omitting the date " 1939 " without any limitation of any sort whatever, which is the effect of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment. If his Amendment were carried, you could, as far as I can see, go on subsidising houses at the rate of £9 a year for the rest of the natural life of

    415
    the British Empire, which is certainly not the desire of the majority of Members of the House. I generally admire, with great respect, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir Kingsley Wood), but I think in this case—[An HON. MEMBER: "He never makes any'"] Oh, yes, he makes the best points of almost any Member of the House, especially when dealing with Government evictions; but in this ease I do not think his point is a real one. It is obvious that the House could not bind the municipalities to build for 15 years. There was never any suggestion of that, nor is there any in this Bill. The suggestion is that this House will bind itself, through its Resolution, if the conditions are, carried out, to give this amount of money, for better or worse, for the building of houses which are now needed, and obviously needed.
    The hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol called attention to Clause 5, on which we have certain Amendments, which we shall press -upon the attention of the Minister, by which the programme could be broken. All those Amendments depend on the fact of the houses not being delivered. If the houses are not being delivered, we have a right to break the programme, or to ask any Minister of Health who happens to be in that position to break the programme. The Minister advanced last April, and it was accepted by those on the Front Bench opposite as well as by those on this Bench, the idea of encouraging the building industry on some sort of continuous programme, without which there is no possibility of any large recruitment of craftsmen in the building trade. Therefore, I very much hope that, in the interests of time and sanity, the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.
    Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) is always amusing. He, who is so openly sincere and so plausibly right, tells its that we need only wait until we reach Clause 5, when he and his Friends are going to suggest various Amendments, but he does not tell us—
    Mr. MASTERMAN: They are on the Paper.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: He has told us that he is going to propose certain Amendments which are on the Paper, but he did not go on to tell us what we all know to be the fact, namely, that he will run away from them—he has not the slightest—
    Mr. MASTERMAN: May I ask why the right hon. Baronet knows the fact that I shall run away from them? The only Members I know who have run away from their Amendments have been Members on that side.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to bandy words with the right hon. Gentleman, but it is curious that there was a very vital Amendment to this Bill down in the names of two or three of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, and some of us, being of a confiding turn of mind, said, "This is a good Amendment, and we will add our names to it"; but their names disappeared during the night—they "folded their tents and silently faded away." Let me deal with a man who is sincere, with a man who believes in this Bill—the Minister of Health himself. The suggestion has been made that we are going to raise a Second Reading Debate. I am not going to raise a Second Reading Debate, but I want, In ask the Minister for a little clearer information than we have been able to net about what is really the fundamental basis of the whole Bill, namely, the so-called "treaty" with the building trade. We are entitled to know. We have now got the right hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me to say so, in a place from which he cannot escape, and he must defend his Bill Clause by Clause. If he says that this is not the right Clause, and will tell us upon which Clause or Amendment he will make a full disclosure as to the treaty, I will postpone my remarks until later on. But I think this is a convenient time, and the more so because the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the point himself, namely, the 15 year agreement with the building trade, over and over again. In the Second Reading Debate, and in the Debate on the Financial Resolution, he called it a treaty with the building trade—and the building trade is getting, if I may say so, rather anxious about this treaty. They are not quite so satisfied as they were a month ago, when the right hon. Gentleman made his first statement about guarantees and treaties with the building trade. They

    417
    are not quite so satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman is so innocent as they thought he was; they are rather beginning to feel that he has landed them much in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme tried to land us.
    Mr. MILLS: You thought he was innocent too, did you not?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, that is rather my character. But now where is the treaty? What is there to bind the Government, the House of Commons, or anybody, after two and a half years, to have any further building programme at all? What guarantee is there as to the action of the building trade? Some of them may go on building, and some may not. Is a plebiscite to be taken of the building trade? Is a part of it to be penalised because another part does not carry out its so-called treaty with the right hon. Gentleman? Is it a treaty that the whole building trade is to give so many houses during the first two and a half years, and that if, in one corner of England, in one county, or in one town, they do not produce their quota, the whole treaty is to be destroyed? That is what we want to know. He has taken in this Bill over and over again the right to say that if the scheduled number of houses is not completed year by year he may close the deal with the building trade.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Subject to the approval of the authorities.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want to ask another question. Supposing the building trade says, "We are here. We have got the material, we have got the bricks, we have got the workmen, we are ready to go on," but the local authorities in half of England are not working under the Bill. When I come to another portion of the Bill I will give the figures? which were given in the other House last night as to the way in which the local authorities are still going on and are preferring to go on dealing with my right lion. Friend's Act of last year rather than under the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. The Bill is not a subsidy towards house building. It is a dole in favour of rent. It is no subsidy whatever to the house-builders. It does not put anything in the pockets of the local authorities. For every penny he gives the local authorities he is going to give them a reduction in rent.
    418
    Our Act gave them a direct subsidy towards the cost of building. Therefore building will be cheaper for them under our Act than under the Bill. I entirely concur in the encomiums passed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme on the cleverness of my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). My right hon. Friend referred to the resolution passed by the local authorities:
    "We claim the right to build or not to build as we like."
    The London County Council are the largest building authority in the Kingdom. If they are to carry out their proportion of housing under the provisions of this Bill, they will have to raise something like £10,000,000 of new money on the money market every year. Suppose they say: "We cannot go on doing it. It is crippling our finance and our credit in financial circles in London. We are not prepared to do anything like it. It means a great increase of our rates and we are not prepared to place the enormous burden on the ratepayers." Suppose the authority of Manchester or Liverpool or any other town Says; "On the whole we prefer the Chamberlain Act. We are not going on with the new Act at all, and the right hon. Gentleman has given us permission not to go on." Where is the treaty"? Where is the guarantee to the building trade? The building trade wants to know where it stands. If they are to put up new works, start new brickfields and the manufacture of various articles used in the course of building they want continuity, and there is no continuity whatever under the provisions of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says he will stabilise the industry and they will provide the labour if they get a 15 years' guarantee. They have not got it under the provisions of the Bill or under any statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. Here and now is the quite definite time for the right hon. Gentleman or one of his colleagues to state publicly to the House and to the world what exact guarantee there is to the building trade and what he proposes to do in the event of the local authorities net working his Act and not erecting houses under it. I asked him in a previous Debate what he was going to do, and this is what he said:
    "I want to say that no one in the course of the negotiations contemplated finch a situation."

    419
    Perhaps they did not, but I contemplate it now, and I ask him what he proposes to do. It is no good telling me that when he was negotiating with the local authorities no one contemplated that they would not build. No one knew what a rotten Bill this was. They had not realised the difficulties—financial, material, labour and otherwise. Now they are beginning to realise it and they want to know. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say:
    "Our feeling is in the Ministry, and I am sure it will be shared by the House, that the local authorities are enthusiastically in favour of building houses."
    We cannot legislate on the right hon. Gentleman's feeling. The building trade is not prepared to go on relying on his feeling that the local authorities will build. I pressed him before and I press him again to say what the treaty is with the building trade and how he is going to guarantee to the building trade that they will have their continuity in case some areas do not build, and secondly, what he is going to do to get the house if the local authorities do not go on under the provisions of the Bill.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman has pictured a number of imaginary difficulties which he foresaw as being possible to arise. If he had been present at the annual meeting of the Municipal Associations the other day he would hare come to rather a different conclusion as to their attitude towards this Measure. They welcomed it because it was in a large degree the response to requests they had been putting up to various Governments during the last few years. He himself, when he was at the Ministry, had many representations made to him from various local authorities that they would get on with houses if only they had greater assistance from the State in order to relieve them from the heavy burden which would otherwise be placed upon them. Therefore I suggest that his fears are groundless, and throughout the country there is a very real and genuine desire on the part of local authorities to get on and build houses to let on the terms which have been offered by the Government. If the Bill had gone further than it does no one would have been more scathing in his criticism than the right hon. Gentleman.
    420
    If it had provided that under all circumstances the houses must be built, irrespective of price and of any conditions whatever, no one would have been more severe in his condemnation of what he would call a supreme act of folly. Surely common sense must enter into the matter, and we do not want to have what took place under the 1919 Bill when houses which began at £300 or £400 ended at £1,300 or £1,400 a house. We can learn something surely even from the follies of a Coalition, It is essential that you should have the determination of Parliament expressed that they are prepared to go on with this long-run policy.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): I desire to add one word in answer to the questions which were put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks). I understand the point put is this. He was foreseeing the possibility of the local authorities saying, "We prefer to build houses under the Chamberlain Act rather than under this Bill," and he foresaw the difficulty that if the houses were not built under this Bill there will be no guarantee because there would be a termination presumably of the obligation or guarantee given by this House. I think he has not really looked at Clause 4. There are certain conditions under which the Minister can put an end to the obligation to make contribution, and that arises in the case of houses falling short of the number which we set out in the Schedule. The conditions arise if in fact the Minister and the Board are satisfied that the total number of houses have not been completed in the two years last preceding and in respect of which contributions are payable. Contributions are payable either under this Bill or under the Chamberlain Act, and if therefore the houses are built in accordance with the numbers specified in the Schedule under either of the Acts there is no power in the Minister to put an end to it.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think I went on to say "if they built under the Chamberlain Act or not at all." I want to know where the guarantee to the building trade is?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I understood when I put the point the right hon. Gentleman agreed with me. If he puts "not at all," let me suggest this to him.

    421
    Does he think this country would tolerate the position of the local authorities when we offer them material and labour, simply turning round and saying, "We will not build"? Of course, if we pre-suppose the possibility of this House or the country tolerating that, there is no guarantee possible. Let me summarise the guarantee in a sentence. I suggest if is the finest guarantee, a Minister has ever offered, and the only possible one. It is this. He has gone to the building trade and said, "You provide the houses and we will see that the contributions are given. All you have to do is to give us the houses you have undertaken to give. We then guarantee that you shall get the money." What better guarantee could be offered? The time of the Committee would be very usefully occupied to-day or to-morrow if any right hon. Gentleman would suggest any guarantee which an honest Minister might give to the trade better than the one we offer. We are so satisfied that ours in a good guarantee that I should be only too glad to get the voice of the country to tell us whether they think it is. The other point the right hon. Gentleman put forward is this. Supposing the local authority says, "We will not build under your Bill or under the Chamberlain Act. We will not build at all." The only possible way I can imagine under which that possibility could be dealt with would be to pass an entirely new Act of Parliament to deal with local authorities who behaved in that way. The building industry offers them the men, and we are going to see that they get the material, and, if they wilt not build, this Bill certainly does not provide a method to compel them.
    Mr. WILLIAM GREENWOOD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, first of all, perhaps on the narrow ground that there ought certainly not to be any very definite time limit to houses being built under the Bill because, if it is supported by the majority of Members and it is proved to be a good Bill, the longer it goes on the better. But on other grounds I would ask him to delete these words because I think the more words are deleted from the Bill the better it will be. In fact, I should like to see the whole of the words of the Bill deleted. The right hon. Gentleman said he had to promise the trade a sort of security of tenure, that it is the great
    422
    object of this Bill, and I cannot under stand hon. Members opposite not having the same object. We have often heard them say that, when any subsidy is given to one trade, all other trades—
    Mr. MONTAGUE: May I ask you, Sir, whether we are engaged upon the Committee stage, or upon the Second Heading Debate?
    The CHAIRMAN: I trust that hon. Members will apply their remarks as far as possible to the point in the Amendment.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I was certainly keeping within order in this discussion, because it is important that when we, representing the taxpayers, are subsidising an industry like this, we should try to remember what effect that subsidy will have upon other industries, plenty of which would be very glad indeed to have security of tenure. Therefore, I say we should accept this Amendment, and not put in any time limit, because the more we bring forward these proposals, the more we talk about them, the longer do we delay the time when houses will be built. I have just as much interest in the building of houses of other people as any hon. Member on the other side of the House. The only difference is, that instead of talking so much about them, I began to build them, and if hon. Members had built as many in 1930, I question whether there would have been any need for this Bill or for the Bill of 1923. It is just because we are introducing fresh proposals, and the industry does not know what its future is going to be, that there is greater delay than ever. People in the building trade do not know from one year to another what they have got to do. Therefore, they are insecure, and so long as that insecurity of feeling is there, so long will the building of houses be delayed.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I venture to put another point, of view in regard to this proposal. I take the view that it is very dangerous for this House to give to the building trade a guarantee of any kind for any long period. So far as the Minister has replied, he has not answered either of the questions put to him by my hon, Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). My hon. Friend put two questions to him, and, first of all, he said how could he give a

    423
    guarantee if the local authorities refused to build? The Attorney-General answered that in a somewhat plausible manner, but he really did not answer the question. The point I wish to put to the Minister is this. He entirely rules out the fact that it may be possible in the period which we are discussing, namely, 15 years, very much to reduce the cost of building houses; but it may be that when scientific knowledge and management are applied to the construction of houses, we may again get back to a cost of 6d. per cubic foot, which was the cost pre-War.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Not with a War Debt of £7,000,000,000.
    Lieut. - Commander BURNEY: I venture to suggest to the hon. Member that that is entirely beside the point. The point I was endeavouring to make was that, if scientific knowledge and development are applied to house building, there is no reason why the construction of houses should not be reduced in the same way as is the cost of construction of any mechanical appliances. The other day we saw in the Press that Lord Weir has a scheme for greatly reducing the cost of houses. It may be that in that scheme we shall be enabled to produce houses without employing any of the present building labour at all, and we may be enabled to produce houses without drawing upon Imperial and local funds in order to let them at an economic rent, and at a rent which persons can afford to pay. It is for that reason that I think it is extraordinarily dangerous for this House to give a guarantee, which will not be carried out if science is able to produce a house more cheaply and more efficiently than the present methods permit. I suggest that at some future date, if, perhaps, another Minister is sitting in the place of my right hon. Friend, if it could be proved that this subsidy was entirely unnecessary, whatever promise might have been given by this House this Session, a future House of Commons would not carry it out, because the country would not allow millions and millions of public money to be given as an unnecessary subsidy to the building trade.
    I think, therefore, the Minister would be well advised to delete these words, because it may be that in the future
    424
    either he, or some other Minister who may be in his place, will be confronted by these words, and it will be put to him that he is under a moral obligation to go on paying unnecessary subsidies, when the necessity for the payment of those subsidies has been removed. I do not think his Bill would be in any way weakened by removing these words, for the reason that, whatever guarantee the Minister proposes to give, it is entirely controlled by the law of supply and demand. The law of supply and demand is such that, if it is profitable to build houses, the material and the labour will in time be provided. Therefore, the only guarantee that any Minister can give is to say that he has made an analysis of the position, and he honestly believes that 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 houses are required, and it is that requirement which will necessarily bring the labour and the material to fulfil the demand, which is a guarantee of continuity of employment in the building trade. It is quite obvious that if the Minister has greatly over-estimated the number of houses that are required, there will not be the demand. The demand from local authorities will necessarily fall as soon as the demand has been fulfilled, and, therefore, any guarantee he may give is perfectly valueless so long as it is not closely associated with the actual demand. For that reason, I think the Minister would be well advised in his own interest, in the interest of the country, and in the interest of his Bill, not to include words which can at some future date be held up to him in the sense that the Minister and this House have a moral obligation to fulfil to the building trade which will not be fulfilled.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am in some difficulty in understanding the exact position of hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite. When the Resolution was before the House, an Amendment was proposed on the other side limiting the period within which the houses were to be completed. Now they propose to remove the limitation altogether, and, apparently, the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. W. Greenwood) desires this Amendment to be carried, although he voted before in an exactly opposite direction. I can understand perfectly well the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite putting forward this Amendment for the purpose of obtaining information, but if it is effective, it will really extend the operation of the

    425
    Minister's proposal, and instead of limiting the subsidy proposals for the period up to 1939, they would go on so long as the conditions were fulfilled. The question of guarantee seems to be rather futile, because as one listened to the statement of the Minister, apparently, there is no treaty at all. It is a misuse of the term to describe the arrangement with the builders on the one hand, and the local authorities on the other, as a treaty at all.
    What is the value of a so-called statutory guarantee? It is absolutely worthless. We have had experience of that. Hon. Members will remember the guarantee under the Agriculture Act. There Parliament bound itself. It gave a statutory pledge that four years' notice was to be given before the guarantee was to be inoperative. Members in all parts of the House, except half a dozen Liberals, voted for it; yet within six months of the guarantee becoming operative, the Act was repealed. The Labour party supported both the Act and the repeal of the Act. The only people who voted against the original Act were half a dozen Liberal Members. [An HON. MEMBER: "Only half a dozen?"] Yes, but they were righteous men. I have used that illustration, because that was not only a guarantee by the Government, but a guarantee by Parliament. This is not a guarantee by the Government or Parliament on its own behalf, but a guarantee that local authorities are to do something, though there is no power taken in this Bill to see that local authorities are going to do it. Dr. Addison went better than that. I am sorry the horn. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) is not here, because he was closely associated with Dr. Addison in those days. He was Parliamentary Private Secretary, and in those days was initiated into all the mysteries of the Ministry of Health. Dr. Addison took powers under the Act of 1919 to step in if the local authorities failed, but there are no such powers here.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Those powers still exist.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I was interested to discover that.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I suggest the hon. Gentleman should ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is going to use those powers.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Before we ask him whether he is going to use them, we want to know whether the Government are agreed, because the Attorney-General made a statement a few minutes ago to the effect that these powers did not exist. Under those circumstances, I may be pardoned if I say that there is an inconsistency.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The statement I made was that there was no power to make a local authority build houses.
    Mr. PRINGLE: That is the whole point. The whole point and the whole argument under the Addison scheme was power for the State to step in and compel the local authorities to do it. Did it operate in that way? Dr. Addison never believed that the Ministry of Health was going to build houses itself. He believed that by putting the provision into the Act it would force the local authorities to do that. When the Attorney-General definitely stated that there was no power to force local authorities to build houses, I assumed that there was no such power, and I am entitled to point out that there is some inconsistency between the declarations of the Minister of Health and the Attorney-General.
    The point is, that the guarantee is absolutely valueless, and the Minister of Health knows it is valueless. The experience of the Addison Act shows that it is valueless, and, still more, the experience of the Agriculture Act shows that it is valueless. In these circumstances, the building trade have no guarantee. The local authorities are under no obligation. All this is window dressing. It is all for a leaflet in the country; that is all. [Interruption.] I am merely pointing out the facts. I want people to see that it is window dressing. It is important that we should know it. If there was a guarantee, it might be of some value to the people who lend money, because it would indicate that the Ministry of Health meant to guarantee that interest would continue to be payable on loans for a period of 15 years.
    Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I do not dis agree with the general tenour of the remarks of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), indeed, there is a great deal in them, but is he right in taking the

    427
    view that the removal of "1939" from the Bill will mean that Parliament will be liable for this subsidy for all time?
    Mr. PRINGLE: If you put no limit upon it, it will mean that there is no time limit to the Act so long as the conditions laid down in the subsequent Sections are fulfilled.
    Sir P. PILDITCH: That means that the position of this House would be worsened by the omission of "1939." I do not think it would. There is a bargain, or the Minister thinks there is a bargain, by which he hopes to get houses, and there are four parties to that bargain—the State, the local authorities, the builders, and the operatives. As far as I can see, the only one of these four parties to the bargain who is bound and who will be bound if these words are left in is the State. The local authorities are not bound. The builders are not bound. They, naturally, believe that if they build houses up to a certain proportion all will be well for them. As the House knows perfectly well, the greatest difficulty as regards the operatives is the provision of labour. One is left aghast at the credulity of the Minister if he thinks that he will get the he uses built by the number of men who are in the trade now, or who will be provided by reason of the bargain that he thinks he has made.
    In regard to the Amendment, I do think it is desirable to bring the Bill into accord with the true facts of the situation. It is very undesirable, and it will be misleading, certainly, to the public and those who are expecting to get the houses, if the Minister holds out the idea that the State is going to bind itself to go on with this bargain until 1939, when the other three parties to the alleged bargain are not bound at all to go on. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think it desirable to bring the Clause into accord with the facts, and I think he docs realise that, after the statement he has had to make during the last few weeks in regard to the so-called bargain.
    Mr. E. SIMON: I think it will be agreed by almost all hon. Members that the essence of this Bill is to get more labour into the trade, and that the only practical way of getting more labour into
    428
    the trade was some such treaty as this, and for some such period as 15 years. If the right hon. Gentleman is successful in getting the building trade to make such an arrangement that they will provide one apprentice for every three craftsmen within the next year or two, he will have accomplished a very big thing in connection with housing. Most housing reformers who have gone into this matter will agree that a treaty on these lines was a necessary basis to getting more men into the building trade. The whole point is as to whether the treaty is drawn up on the best lines and whether all the parties are reasonably bound by it. The opinion has been expressed that there is no guarantee on the part of Parliament. It seems to me that if the building trade do their part and produce these apprentices and the prices do not increase, there is such a moral guarantee on this Government, or on any succeeding Government, to carry out the treaty that I do not see how they could depart from it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: What about the Agriculture Act guarantee?
    Mr. SIMON: That seems to me an entirely different thing. The absolute necessity for houses is recognised by all parties, and if they can be got in this way there is a reasonable moral guarantee which must be observed. As regards the local authorities, I have had some experience, and I have no doubt that if the local authorities can build under this Bill, they will build. Everybody knows that they will build. The moral guarantee is there.
    It seems to me that Parliament is reasonably bound by this Treaty. Parliament is absolutely bound for three years, but the building trade is only bound by the Building Trade Report, and there are several conditions in that Report that are not, apparently, embodied in the Housing Bill. In the first place, the building trade asked for a definite and continuous building programme for 15 years. Do they accept this Bill as being a definite and continuous building programme for 15 years? It is as definite and continuous as Parliament can make it, but it is important to get the building trade to say that they will accept it arid will take the necessary steps for augmentation of labour if the Bill passes. In the second place, the building trade asked for a statutory committee with very wide

    429
    powers. There is nothing about that statutory committee in this Bill. There are other conditions in the Building Trade Report which are not contained in this Bill, and it seems to me very important to know whether the Bill has been submitted to the building trade.
    I was glad to hear that this afternoon, in response to a question, that certain trade unions were enthusiastically in favour of working under the Bill, but the Committee is entitled to some assurance that this Bill has been submitted to the leaders of the building trade unions, particularly the bricklayers' and the plasterers' trade unions, and that they have said that, as far as they are concerned, they think that this Bill reasonably meets the requirements set forth in the Building Trade Report and that they will, if it passes into law in its present form, do everything in their power to see that the Bill is made a success, that the necessary augmentation of labour is achieved, and that there shall be at least one apprentice to every three craftsmen in the trade.
    Mr. SUNLIGHT: I think hon. Members are chasing a wild goose in expecting the Minister to put something into the Bill which he cannot put in. I want to bring before the Committee an alternative suggestion, and perhaps the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment will amend his Amendment on the lines I suggest. Instead of starting with a guarantee for 15 years, which I know—because I am intimately connected with the industry—has already produced an awful strike in the building trade, I suggest that we should give a guarantee for three years, to be renewed every three years provided the building trade carry out their part of the bargain. Instead of starting with a guarantee for 15 years and relying upon other people to carry out a bargain, which they are not prepared to do at the moment, it would be much better to adopt the course I suggest. The Mover of the Amendment suggests leaving out "1939." The objection to that course from this side is that it leaves it open for any Minister to continue for an indefinite period to give these subsidies. We should offer the trade a guarantee so long as houses are required. We should offer a guarantee for three years, with the undertaking to renew the guarantee every three years provided they give us the quantity of houses under the Schedule.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The question of guarantee is of vital importance to the Bill and to the -building trade. It is vital that the building trade should know what they have to rely upon. The Attorney-General and hon. Members below the Gangway opposite seen to regard this Clause as a definite, binding guarantee upon the House of Commons, but the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) made it plain that it could not be any more a binding guarantee than was the guarantee under the Agriculture Act. I want to make it perfectly clear on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side that it is no more binding guarantee upon Parliament than was the Agriculture Bill guarantee a guarantee in regard to food. Everybody knows that that is the case and that it must be the case. There may be a new House of Commons, which may take an entirely different point of view from that taken by the present Minister of Health. I hope it will, and that it will do it quickly. When that happens the right hon. Gentleman could not possibly attempt to bind a future House of Commons in regard to further guarantees under this particular Bill.
    In regard to the local authorities, a further point was suggested by the inter vention of the right hon. Gentleman and his remark as to the power under the 1919 Act. The right hon. Gentleman is precluded by his own act from putting any pressure upon the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there was a conference of local authorities on the 8th May of this year at which certain resolutions were passed with regard to this Bill and sent to the right hon. Gentleman. An answer was circulated on the 14th May setting out these resolutions. One resolution said:
    "That, in currying out nay building programme under the proposed legislation the local authority should retain full power to fix the number of houses winch it will build in any period …. and also full power at its discretion to suspend building operations for any reason whatever at any time, and that such suspension should not involve the imposition of any burden upon the rates or other penalty."
    That was a resolution of the local authorities of the country, passed by a very large majority. The Minister of

    431
    Health concurred. He replied, through his secretary:
    "The Minister concurs … in those paragraphs—."
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I used the qualifying word "generally." Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read that.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly.
    "The Minister concurs generally in these paragraphs, and in particular appreciates fully—."
    Does he now say that he does not concur in that resolution? Here is a resolution sent by the local authorities of the country, claiming the right to suspend building at any moment. They receive a reply from the Minister. Does he now say that, when he used the word "generally," he did not mean that he fully concurred? Perhaps he has forgotten what he added, after using the word "generally." He said:
    "The Minister concurs generally in these paragraphs and in particular appreciates fully the importance of leaving unimpaired the autonomy of local authorities under the Housing Act of 1923."
    Does the right hon. Gentleman stand by that paragraph? It is true that in reading it I happened to omit the word "generally," but he had forgotten the words:
    "In particular the importance of leaving unimpaired the autonomy of the local authorities under the Act of 1923."
    The local authorities claim under the Resolution the right to suspend the building at any time, for any reason, without any penalty on the part of the right hon, Gentleman. If he says, "All I have is a general agreement with you, but I mean to keep up my powers under the Act of 1919 and to make things difficult for you," he ought to have said it to the local authorities. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he stands by that letter or whether he wishes to be at liberty to penalise any local anthority which may not wish to go on with building under the Act of 1923? I do not want a statement from the Attorney-General. I want a statement from the Minister himself. In the circumstances, on behalf of Parliament itself, and on behalf of tin building trade who are interested, I shall ask my hon. and learned Friend to carry his Motion to A Division.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I admire the mock: solemnity with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) submits to the Committee that he has discovered an inconsistency between my letter to the local authorities and the Bill before the Committee. He, in error, omitted the word "generally," but, in omitting the word, he altered the whole character of the letter. The words are:
    "The Minister concurs Generally in these Paragraphs, and in particular appreciates fully the importance of leaving unimpaired the autonomy of local authorities under the Housing Act of 1923."
    I can inform the Committee that I have agreed, and the local authorities have agreed, as to what the understanding between us is. It was that all our artillery should be directed towards reducing costs, and that when costs showed a tendency to rise the local authorities should be free to suspend building, and in the reply which I made I wished to make it perfectly clear that I was not intending to repeal any of the powers which, the Minister of Health possessed under the Act of 1919.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Have you said so specifically?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Under the Act of 1919 I wanted to differentiate between a local authority which suspends building for an honest and reasonable purpose, and a reactionary local authority which does not want to build houses at all. We were considering here the case of the honest local authority. Let me say that, as far as my knowledge and experience go, members of local authorities of all parties are among the most enthusiastic advocates of housing in this country, and I have never anticipated any difficulty in inducing local authorities, taking them in the mass, to build if we can devise means of ensuring a supply of the necessary men and material and any financial assistance which the circumstances require. We had, under the Act of 1919, special provisions for dealing with the special case of reactionary local authorities who are still under the political influence of some of the most prominent Members opposite. That power was taken in the Act of 1918, and in the letter which laid it down that I was leaving unimpaired the autonomy of the local authori-

    433
    ties under the Housing Act of 1923 my right hon. Friend attempts to suggest that I had promised the local authorities to repeal the powers which exist under the Act of 1919. [HON. MEMBERS: No!"]
    With regard to the other point the right hon. Gentleman says, "Put me in power and, no matter what happens, I am prepared to break this down." Nothing will give me greater pleasure than to have that question submitted to the electors of this country, and when an election takes place, let it be early or late, I will take good care to remind the electors of this country that, assuming that we have got the necessary men and the necessary material, and that our Bill is proceeding smoothly with the aid of the advantageous contribution of the scientists referred to by the hon. Member who spoke from the Back Benches on the other side, notwithstanding that and our shameful housing conditions, which exist particularly in the big centres of the country, the leader of a political party is appealing for power to use it in the House of Commons to put an end to our building programme. As to the power to give any guarantee which would bind the House of Commons, I have sufficient confidence in the political sagacity of my fellow citizens to say that they will guarantee that while that promise remains binding on the Conservative party it will never dominate this House.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I must say a word on the electioneering speech to which we have just listened. The right hon. Gentleman has been betrayed, by considerations which no doubt have been present to his mind during the last few days, into revealing what use he hopes to make of this Bill. I must bring him back to the important point which was raised by my right hon. Friend. The discrepancy to which he called attention was not a discrepancy between his letter to the local authorities and the Bill, but a discrepancy between his letter to the local authorities and what the right hon. Gentleman has
    been endeavouring to read into the Bill. He takes the words which my hon. and learned Friend proposes to leave out and says that they constitute a guarantee to the building trade, and that that is his part of the bargain in return for which the building trade are going to give him certain other things. We feel it our duty to point out that these words do not and cannot constitute any guarantee whatever to the building trade.
    It is not a question of reactionary local authorities. I leave that to the Minister. He can use the powers of the Act of 1919 against any authority which is demonstrably reactionary. At any rate I am not going to press that. But I put it to the Committee that it is not difficult to conceive of many cases in which authorities, which are neither reactionary nor unwilling to build, find themselves unable to do so under this Act in consequence of a rise of prices or in consequence of the burden upon the rates. Suppose that, owing to any causes, a local authority finds that it can no longer borrow money at a rate of interest which it can afford to pay, suppose that the cost of the house has gone up so much that the rents which, according to the proposals of the Bill, will have to be charged to the tenants are more than the tenants can afford to pay, surely that local authority is going to be entitled to say, We must stop until prices go down or until interest goes down." The right hon. Gentleman admits that. Then, where is the guarantee? It is plain that there is no guarantee. What we are going to a division upon is to give a solemn warning to the building trade, or anybody else who may think that these words will constitute a binding guarantee, that they do not and cannot constitue any such guarantee and must not be read as such by anyone.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 154.

    Division No. 156.]

    AYES.

    [5.43 p.m.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Baker, Walter

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Bonwick, A.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Broad, F. A.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Barnes, A.

    Bromfield, William

    Alden, Percy

    Batey, Joseph

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Bruton, Sir James

    Alstead, R.

    Berkeley, Captain Reginald

    Buchanan, G.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Black, J. W.

    Buckle, J.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W.Derby)

    Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Clarke, A.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Climie, R.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Royle, C.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F, W. (Bradford, E.)

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Compton, Joseph

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Scurr, John

    Cove, W. G.

    Kedward, R. M.

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Sexton, James

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Lansbury, George

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Laverack, F. J.

    Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Law, A.

    Simpson, J, Hope

    Dickson, T.

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Smillie, Robert

    Dodds, S. R.

    Lawson, John James

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Duckworth, John

    Leach, W.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Dukes, C.

    Lessing, E.

    Smith, W. R (Norwich)

    Duncan, C.

    Linfield, F. C.

    Snell, Harry

    Dunn, J. Freeman

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Spence, R.

    Dunnico, H.

    Lowth, T.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lunn, William

    Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

    Egan, W. H.

    McCrae, Sir George

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Falconer, J.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Finney, V. H.

    Macfadyen, E.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Mackinder, W.

    Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Franklin, L. B.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Sullivan, J.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Madan, H.

    Sutton, J E.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    March, S.

    Tattersall, J. L.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Marley, James

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Gillett, George M.

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Gosling, Harry

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, plaistow)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Maxton, James

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Greenall, T.

    Middleton, G.

    Thurtle, E.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Millar, J. D.

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Mills, J. E.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Mitchell, R.M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Tout, W J.

    Groves, T.

    Mond, H.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Montague, Frederick

    Turner, Ben

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Morel, E. D.

    Turner-samuels

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Morris, R. H.

    Varley, Frark B.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Viant, S. P.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Vivian, H.

    Hardie, George D.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Wallhead Richard C.

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Warne, G. H.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Murray, Robert

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Nichol, Robert

    Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Welsh, J. C.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

    Westwood, J.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Paling, W.

    Wheatley Rt. Hon. J.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Palmer, E. T.

    Whiteley, W;.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Perry, S. F.

    Wignall, James

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, Dr J. H (Llanelly)

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Hindle, F.

    Raffan, P. W.

    Williams, Lt-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Raffety, F. W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Rathbone, Hugh H.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Windsor, Walter

    Hogge, James Myles

    Rea, W. Russell

    Wintringham Margaret

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Rendall, A.

    Woodwark, Lieut-Colonel G. G.

    Hudson, J. H.

    Richards, R.

    Wright, W.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring.)

    Young Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Ritson, J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Robertson, T. A.

    Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Allen

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Parkinson.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Becker, Harry

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Beckett, Sir Gervase

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Austin, Sir Herbert

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    436

    437

    Berry, Sir George

    Gates, Percy

    Philipson, Mabel

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Pielou, D. P.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Raine, W.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Rawlinson Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Remer, J. R.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Remnant, Sir James

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Harland, A.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Ropner, Major L.

    Burman, J. B.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel

    Savery, S. S.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)

    Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

    Stanley, Lord

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F, S.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)

    Cope, Major William

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Lane-Fox, George R.

    Waddington, R.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lorimer, H. D.

    Wells, S. R.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Weston, John Wakefield

    Davies, Maj. Geo.F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    McLean, Major A.

    Wheler, Lieut-Col. Granville C. H.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    Meller, R. J.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Elliot, Walter E.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Newton, Sir D. G. C, (Cambridge)

    Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

    Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Ferguson, H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Lieut.-Colonel Roundell and Major

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Pease, William Edwin

    Sir Harry Barnston.

    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, at the end, to insert the words
    "Provided that a proposal for the provision of (twenty-five or more) houses under this Act shall not be approved, nor shall any provision be made towards any expenses incurred by a local authority, or by a society, body of trustees, or company in such case unless or until the Minister is satisfied that the carrying out of the proposal or any part of it will not be prejudicial to any town-planning scheme required to be prepared or executed under the Town Planning Acts, 1909 and 1919, or any other Act amending those Acts."
    This is a proposal which means that any scheme submitted to the Ministry shall not be prejudicial to any town planning scheme that is about to be proposed. I do not think that it is necessary to speak at length on the advisability of town planning proposals. The object of the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909 was stated definitely to be the securing of proper sanitary conditions, amenity and
    438
    convenience in connection with the laying out and use of the land and of any neighbouring land. It will be understood that this is the natural and logical development of our conception of housing. The first conception of housing was that it referred simply to the house itself. That was embodied in the Acts from 1874 onwards. The second conception was that housing involved the lay-out of a scheme of housing, the relation of houses to each other. That was involved in the last few Housing Acts since 1909. A third requirement is that we want to impress upon the public generally, and to insist on legislation providing that, housing shall comply with the condition that it shall have regard to the neighbouring lands and the part that the scheme is to play in the general community around it. It is absolutely essential that future housing developments are not a blot on the landscape and do not create slums. It is difficult enough to deal with existing

    439
    slums, as the Minister knows. When we are voting for a gigantic development of housing, for heaven's sake let us see that we do not develop more slums. My Amendment is designed to help the Minister.
    How does the matter of town planning rest at the present time? Originally it was voluntary for local authorities to prepare town planning schemes for any part of their area which was likely to be available for development purposes. Under the 1919 Act it became compulsory on local authorities to prepare such a scheme and to submit it before the year 1923. In the Act of last year that period was extended to the year 1929. Therefore it now becomes compulsory on any and every local authority to submit such a scheme by 1929. If I had had in view the obstruction of this Bill I should have said that it would be necessary to insist that any such scheme should include town planning or be part of a town planning scheme. That is dealt with in an Amendment which is to be submitted by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) and the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. MacFadyen) on Clause 3. That would apply only to houses under the special conditions required as a qualification for the, grant under this Bill. I propose this Amendment to apply to all schemes of houses over and above 25 houses, that is to say, to any considerable scheme of any kind. I propose the Amendment at this stage in order to apply it to all the houses. But I do not detail it as a definite town planning scheme that is required six years in advance. I recognise that many authorities—most authorities I fear—are not in a position now to declare their town planning schemes. I wish that they were. I am afraid that they are backward, and that they do not realise the importance of the matter.
    6.0 P.M.
    The present may not be a fitting time to insist on these town planning schemes being put forward. I recognise that it might definitely delay the provision of houses, or give an excuse for delay, if we were to say to the local authority, "You must submit your town planning scheme before you submit your request to the Ministry for the subsidy under this Bill." I have, therefore, worded my Amendment in a more generous and
    440
    lenient way. This is not a fanciful proposal. It is a necessary proposal at the present time. It is necessary simply in general terms. That is shown again and again Let me quote the opinion of a body that has perhaps been most interested in the wider provision of houses under garden city and town planning schemes. The "Garden City and Town Planning Magazine" says:

    "It is proposed to buy up open spaces and agricultural land in the county, or just outside, including tome of the richest agricultural land in the neighbourhood, and to build houses there at an enormous cost for additional transport and for years to continue the incoherence of London development."
    That is the danger we have before us. It has been confirmed by a meeting of the Executive of this Association, which said that we ought to go rather further to secure good site planning in the case of all schemes. That has been neglected in previous schemes. What has been the result? No attention was given to this point until 1919. Some of the open lands were then available for ring roads or railways round London, but they were taken up for housing schemes. These particular routes must now be abandoned and the ring roads taken further out. That must be of interest to the Minister of Transport. I ask the right, hon. Gentleman if he will consult the 2-inch Survey map which hangs in his office and just ascertain the facts—the difficulties that have arisen at Sudbury, at Wimbledon and at Ilford, each in turn. There schemes have been developed and they are blocking ring road development. That could be avoided by very simple and natural attention to the mere outlines of a town-planning scheme. It is not a question of roads only. The provision of playgrounds is affected in the same way. Over and over again it has been found impossible to develop playgrounds in the immediate vicinity of schemes simply because those schemes have been carried out regardless of the use of the land alongside the site. I had an instance brought to my notice only the other day in which a development scheme blocked the prevision which otherwise would have been made for a Jewish burial ground in the East End of London. They proposed to go out to the salubrious district of Barnet in South Hertfordshire in order to carry out the cemetery scheme

    441
    and it was allowed by the Minister, but as a matter of fact it has fallen through since. It was, however, defeated in the first instance at Tottenham because of the lay-out of one of these schemes. Perhaps they were right if they had a development scheme to avoid a cemetery, but cemeteries have to be put somewhere, and one of the things to be decided in connection with these schemes is where cemeteries and other obnoxious things are to be placed. One of the advantages attaching to the check in building in 1921 was that time was given to develop town-planning schemes and for the adjustment of schemes to other requirements in the same localities.
    If the Amendment be passed it will have this advantage, that the Ministry will have to satisfy themselves in general that a particular proposal is not prejudicial to the whole lay-out. They will have to decide as to how much or how little proof they will require in advance of a town-planning scheme in order to satisfy themselves, and the inclusion of this provision in the Bill will call the attention of all those who promote building schemes—local authorities, building societies and others, including those engaged in private enterprise schemes—to the basic necessity of having regard to the future general development and the needs of the community whether they propose to build 25 houses or thousands of houses in a locality. I feel confident. I have the sympathy of the Minister and of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee for this Amendment.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: The hon. and gallant. Member has referred to an Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. MacFadyen) and myself which aims at the same result as his own Amendment. Whatever words may be employed I am sire the Minister is in sympathy with the object of the hon. and gallant Member. It is obvious that when we are sanctioning this huge expenditure of public money for the erection of 2,500,000 houses there should be intelligent anticipation of town-planning needs, and it would be folly to spend all or any part of this huge sum on schemes which would afterwards stand in the way of the reasonable development of our towns. I appeal to the Minister, if he has not the powers already, to take powers under this Bill whereby he can hold up schemes to ensure that they shall
    442
    not prejudice future development. We know that a locality sometimes looks only to its own particular needs and has not the wider vision, and the Minister, in exercising such a power as I have indicated, would have the authority to say that such schemes must be carried out with regard to the wider interests of the community. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept these words I ask him to devise other words to accomplish an object which I think every Member of the Committee has at heart.
    Dr. HADEN GUEST: I desire to support the hon. and gallant Member for St. Alban's (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson), in the hope they have expressed that the Minister will find it possible to accept some form of words which will allow of building schemes being planned and co-ordinated, instead of being carried out simply according to the wishes of each particular locality without reference to the adjoining local authorities. I can see every argument in favour of planning and co-ordination, and I can see no argument against it.
    Mr. SUNLIGHT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "proposal," to insert the words "by a local authority."
    I desire to have these words inserted, otherwise the Amendment will cut across the field of private enterprise. Taking the country as a whole, there may be hundreds of small builders buying land with the intention of building, perhaps, 30 houses each, and these will be hampered if they are required to go to the local authority or to the Ministry of Health so as to work into a comprehensive scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have spent part of my life in town planning, and I am in favour of town planning, but we are now discussing a Housing Bill and not a Town Planning Bill. I quite agree that where a local authority sets out to build blocks of houses in thousands, a town-planning proposal ought to be submitted and approved of by the Ministry, but when we make this Amendment apply to proposals for the erection of 25 houses or more by any person in my submission it will ruin any prospect of private builders building to any extent.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I wish to express my sympathy with the object of the hon. and

    443
    gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), and the others who have spoken, but may I remind the Committee of how we stand in regard to this matter? There is no obligation at all on a rural district authority to prepare a town-planning scheme. There is no obligation on an urban authority with less than 20,000 population. There is an obligation on urban authorities with populations over that figure, but the Act of 1923 extended the period during which they might prepare schemes until the beginning of 1929. If we were to adopt the Amendment which is proposed, or any variety of it, we could not have it brought into force in any area excepting one controlled by an authority which had already adopted a town-planning scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because, as has been pointed out, we might in our anxiety to get the very best, retard the erection of houses, but if it will satisfy the promoters of the Amendment, as I hope it will, I will undertake, as Minister of Health, first of all, to draw the attention of the local authorities to the tremendous importance of the object underlying the Amendment, namely, that in the rebuilding of such a large part of the country particular care should be taken to see that the lay-out will he creditable to the country. If in the circumstances I have described and with the sympathy I have expressed, I can find any words before the Report stage to promote the object in view, then I will direct my attention to finding them.
    Viscount WOLMER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to find words to put in, because the mere fact of this point being mentioned in the Measure itself will be of extraordinary value. A Measure of this description will have to be studied and worked out by all the local authorities in the country, and it will have great effect as propaganda. It is a good thing to put into it points which will have the effect of drawing the attention of local authorities to the object which Parliament had in view, even though the enforcement of that object by Act of Parliament may be a difficult matter. I quite understand it may be difficult for the Ministry to enforce what my hon. Friends have in view in every case, but I do not
    444
    see that it need hold up the housing campaign. Surely the Ministry is in close touch with what every important local authority is doing in the matter of housing, and even where town planning schemes have not been formally submitted, the officials of the Ministry must know the intentions and the programmes of the important local authorities in this respect. From their knowledge and experience they ought to know where a difficulty is likely to arise, and nothing would be easier than for the Ministry to call the attention of surrounding local authorities to the housing scheme of a particular authority where difficulty was likely to arise and by conference or mutual arrangement a had lay-out could be avoided. I think that is the procedure which my hon. Friends have in view, and I hope the Minister will take what powers he can to give effect to what I believe is the universal wish in the Committee.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I desire to emphasise what the Noble Lord has said. We are all, including the Minister, anxious to deal with this subject, and to examine very carefully the Amendment so eloquently moved by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle). Were it not that I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, I think I could show some objections to it as it stands. I was in part responsible for the Town Planning Act of 1909, which was not the success we had anticipated, but I agree that we should ask the Minister to find words to carry out the general wish of the Committee, or to examine any words which anyone in the Committee may be able to put on the Paper before the Report stage to meet the case. In the circumstances, I think we should close with the offer which the right hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. MACFADYEN: I have an Amendment down on Clause 3 in regard to this matter, but I do not propose to move that Amendment in view of the sympathetic reply which the Minister has given, and I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman very sincerely for that reply. I would like to ask him to go just a little further. What we want is a scheme for the re-planning of England, and I venture to suggest that the powers now possessed lay the Minister are hardly adequate. I should like to obtain from the right hon.

    445
    Gentleman, if possible, an assurance that he will set up in the near future at least a strong Departmental Committee to examine the whole question of town planning with a view to the co-ordination of regional and other schemes.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), after the announcement of the Minister, not to press his Amendment, but I want to emphasise, and I am sure the whole Committee realises, the necessity of the Minister doing his utmost to find some words to put in the Bill dealing with this question. It is not often that I offer a Minister of this Government further powers, but here I am offering him further powers, and I am sure that his great Department will use those powers well. It is not yet quite sure that we have arrived at the best of all proposals with regard either to town planning or the provision of houses. This Bill is to run for another 15 years, if it is successful, and it may be that during that time many great improvements will be made in the construction and design of houses and in the lay-out of villages. I am strongly in favour of what are called satellite towns being provided in large numbers outside our great towns, so as to allow a large band of country space between the town and the satellite towns. I believe that that is one of the greatest possibilities for the spreading of our population and getting rid of the slums in our great towns. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he will consider sending out a circular to the local authorities on this question, but we want him to go further, and to consider with his advisers whether he cannot suggest words in the Bill. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans, who is an authority on town planning, will he only too pleased to confer with the Minister, and evolve, if possible, a satisfactory form of words. In the circumstances, I would ask him not to press his Amendment to a Division, hut to hold it over till the Report stage, when I hope the Minister will he able to give us a Clause.
    Mr. SUNLIGHT: I will withdraw my Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question again proposed, "That: those words he there inserted."
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I want to be quite clear on this point, and I do not want to buy a pig in a poke, and to be let off with a mere circular to the local authorities. I have served local authorities in two capacities, both as chairman and as medical officer of health, and I know that the amount of attention given by local authorities depends on the amount of pressure that stands behind them. I know it is easy for a Ministerial Department to shovel in Ministerial circulars by the dozen, and to get no results at all, except to be able to brandish them in the House of Commons and say: "This is what we have done." That is why I want some definite powers put in this Bill, but in deference, in rather doubtful deference, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), and on the understanding strictly that there will be a very definite provision put in on the Report stage, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I should like to say that there are many of us in this House, and I think outside, who are not by any means sure that a sudden influx of these small brick properties is going to settle the question of housing for England. Changes in the habits of living—and in that respect human nature is more capricious than in anything else—are sure to occur, and what is it that produces the slums in our great cities? It is the production in far too great quantities of houses of a peculiar sort, of which people in another generation get tired, and so they sink to base uses and become slums. I hope the anticipation of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health will never be brought into actuality—I mean, that we shall be settled with 2,500,000 of these houses—and I think that in some way or another the right hon. Gentleman should pledge to us that he will not merely proceed blindly with the production and the endless reduplication of these little boxes, but that he will look ahead and, as one hon. Member said, plan for the whole of England. That is what is wanted, and not this reproduction of endless types of the same kind of houses, which will be discarded by a new generation, and rightly dis-

    447
    carded. As I have pointed out before in this House, just look how completely we have changed our habits of life within a few years. A hundred years ago in Scotland people lived in 13 or 14-storey houses, without what we should think even the necessary sanitary arrangements, but 100 years, even 30 years, have changed the habits of our housing, and where now we require a bathroom in every little house, 30 or 40 years ago it was not even put into many of the best houses. Let not the right hon. Gentleman proceed too rapidly with multiplying these new-fashioned houses, in regard to which the one thing of which we can be certain is that they will be discarded and disliked by our grandchildren.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): The Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson)—
    "In page 1, line 25, at the end, to add new Sub-section.
    (3) In Sub-section (2) of the said Section one, one thousand and fifty superficial feet shall be substituted for nine hundred and fifty superficial feet, and nine hundred and eighty superficial feet shall be substituted for eight hundred and eighty superficial feet"—
    is out of order.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. T. THOMSON: As you have ruled my Amendment out of order, Mr. Entwistle, may I ask the Minister whether it is possible for him in the break periods which he will have power to make later on, to provide for a reconsideration of the standard size of house which he is continuing for 15 years by this Clause? If it is impossible for us under the Financial Resolution to modify the size, I would like to ask the Minister whether it is possible to put anything in the Bill Which would permit of the reconsideration of the size when he has to reconsider the general financial position three years hence. Otherwise, we are stereotyping for 15 years to come the miserably inadequate size provided for in the 1923 Act. I do not want to repeat the various arguments that might be used in favour of the larger size, but I would submit to the Minister that in the negotiations with the
    448
    local authorities there has been a very considerable difference of opinion as to whether the size in the 1923 Act, which is continued in this Bill, is really satisfactory, and I would like to ask him whether he is satisfied in the light of later information, that this miserable size for which he provides is really the size that he wants houses to be built in the next 50 years. If he is not satisfied on that point, will he put into a subsequent Clause a provision whereby he or the House can revise that limit, say, three years hence? I think the Minister should give the Committee some assurance on this question.
    Sir K. WOOD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay some attention to what the hon. Member for West Middles brough (Mr. Thomson), has said, even if it be only on personal grounds, because no one has been more faithful in supporting the Minister of Health than has the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough. I can recall almost every Bill that has been in this House from the time the right hon. Gentleman began and I have never known the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough put up a finger against anything that has been suggested by the right, hon. Gentleman and his Government. Therefore, I really do hope, on that ground alone, that attention will be paid to the hon. Member's remarks. I have known the hon. Member for some time, and he has never deviated from this object of his to increase the size of these houses, and I must say that I am surprised, having regard to all the things that he has said in the House, that he could see his way to support the Second Reading of this Bill and vote for the Financial Resolution. No doubt, he will be o able to reconcile his views and his acts to the satisfaction of his constituents, but, apart from that, I was one of those, and I think there were several Members or this side also, who did take exception to the size, and, for myself, personally, I would like to have seen it increased. I must say that it would not give me much satisfaction or even hope if the right hon. Gentleman made a promise as to what should happen in three years' time, but if it be a satisfaction to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, well and good. I hope the Minister of Health will take the personal ground which I have mentioned into account.
    Mr. SUNLIGHT: I hope I may be allowed to say something on this question, and that is that I am in entire agreement with the Minister of Health in holding on to the 950 feet, because he has to cater for people who cannot afford to rent large houses, but I want to suggest as a compromise that I think it ought to be a logical conclusion that the smaller subsidy of £75 permitted under this Bill to private enterprise shall apply to houses of 1,050 feet, so as to differentiate between, the larger and smaller subsidies in respect to area.
    Viscount WOLMER: My right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) called attention to the great change that has taken place in public opinion during the last 100 years, but I can draw attention to a much more remarkable change of opinion, and that is the change that has taken place in the opinion of the Labour party during the last 12 months. A year ago, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) was piloting his Housing Bill through this House, we were held up to contumely and scorn by the present Minister of Health on this specific point of the size of the houses that we were providing under that Bill. All the vitriol of the Clyde was poured on the heads of Unionist Ministers and Members, night after night and week after week. We were told that we were heartless, and inhuman, and selfish, that we had never lived in such houses ourselves, and that we were unfit to legislate for the people if we really believed that people could live in such houses. Yet now the right hon. Gentleman himself, when he is faced with the housing problem, not only proposes to continue the houses of the size laid down by my right hon. Friend, but he has taken care to tie this House up with a Financial Resolution so that no proposal can be made that the size of these houses should be increased. Surely that is a very remarkable conversion, indeed. After we have witnessed such a change in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman himself and of his supporters in the Labour party, I do not think we need despair of converting them to anything at all. But Perhaps the Committee will allow me to draw attention to this fact, that we have now a patent admission from the Labour party that their chief and fundamental
    450
    objection to my right hon. Friend's Bill of 1923 has fallen to the ground. If they admit that it is plain it was wise and right, and they are following it.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: May I remind the Committee, in reply to what has been said about the pouring of vitriol, that that process succeeded in effecting a remarkable conversion, which was the conversion of the Bill, and not the conversion of the Labour party. The Bill upon which I poured my denunciation was a Bill having a house with a maximum of 850 ft. The pouring of that vitriol expanded that 850 ft. to 950 ft., and it is that expanded Bill which is being pushed through now.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? Will he tell us what is the average size of the houses that have been erected under the Act?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am told, 816 or 817 superficial feet. Now I want to say a word about the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson). I am advised there will be nothing to prevent the size of the house being revised when we are considering the subsidy terms in 1927. Whether it would be possible to insert words to that effect in the Bill which is now before the House, I am not quite certain, but, as I am advised. in any ease the words are unnecessary. There is no doubt that between now and 1927 we will do very well if we erect all the 950 feet houses which we would erect if there was no maximum at all, so that no great injury can be done in the course of the three years. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the lofty ideal, I say so in all sincerity, of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am very glad to hear the statement of the Minister as to the possibility of enlarging the size of the houses. I am not at all concerned about the average size, but what I am concerned about is the very real feeling in the minds of many thousands of people in the country who have the possibility of getting larger houses. Round about Rugby there are many districts where the feeling is very strong and that was shown to me at the last election. Much discussion seems to suggest that the whole of

    451
    Britain is centred in Glasgow and the Clyde but, at the last election more questions were put to me about these larger-sized houses than any other single problem. I am very glad to welcome the statement of the Minister that there may be a possibility of enlargement in 1927.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: As it would appear that the pouring of a little vitriol upon the Bill of last year resulted in an increase of the size of those houses, which the right hon. Gentleman called rabbit hutches, from 850 to 950 feet, I could wish that he would pour a little more upon his own Bill, and so carry still further the size of the houses, and not stereotype the present size. I can only speak as one amongst many Members who represent local authorities when I say that we are very anxious to build larger houses, if possible. I know that the Chairman of the Housing Committee of my own borough has felt great difficulty in the way of building houses that were really satisfactory. If the right hon. Gentleman brought in a proposal—and the Committee considered it, without regard to party—for this is not a party matter—to meet this desire to build better houses, I feel quite sure that the country would he very satisfied, especially if the Minister is enabled, before this Bill reaches its final stage, to put words into the Bill which will make it clear that he is not stereotyping for 15 years this type of houses as the largest possible house.
    Mr. PRINGLE: As I understand it, the Minister has just said that he might be able, at one of the three yearly periods, in view of the circumstances that then exist, to modify the size of the houses for which subsidies are to be granted. I should ask him whether this could be done without a new Act of Parliament? If he says that it can be so done without a new Act of Parliament, can he refer me to words in this Bill which will enable him to do it?
    Mr. W. GREENWOOD: May I also put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, as to whether it would not be possible to arrange, in regard to the subsidy, some sort of sliding scale so that where the local authorities, owing to the peculiar circumstances of their neighbourhood, do wish to build larger houses, they shall be able to build them with the reduced subsidy?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I should like to say in reply to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) that what would be required would be legislative provision. What is standing in the way is the agreement with the local authorities. When that agreement expires so far as this particular point is concerned, and when we come to review, in the light of the then existing circumstances, what the subsidy is to be for the next period, that would be a favourable opportunity for reconsidering the size of the houses.
    Mr. PRINGLE: My question was only directed to this: I say that when the conditions arise under which the right hon. Gentleman may agree with the local authorities to alter the subsidy that there is power for him to make an Order, which needs to be approved by Parliament, whereby the subsidy can be altered, but in the Clause which lays that down there is no provision for altering the size of the houses.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Something has been said about the pouring of vitriol, but the success of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health in enlarging the houses to 950 feet seems to have brought about a condition more of honey than of vitriol. I do want to note quite clearly that under the Money Resolution and under the provisions of this Bill there is no power whatever to alter the size of the houses. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) is, I think, quite correct. No new Minister of Health, even if the matter were approved by this House, could possibly do without another Money Resolution and another Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, we understand, is going, as he threatened a little while ago, to have a housing campaign in the country.
    Mr. PRINGLE: A "no-interest" campaign!
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HIKS: A campaign far the vilification of the Tories and the Liberals and all their works! Is he going to make it a part, of his campaign to have larger houses than 950 feet? We want to know, and it is right that he should tell us. Is he going to introduce, if he has the opportunity, into this Bill words to increase the size of the houses?

    453
    I should like to ask quite definitely before he starts his campaign. What guarantee is he able to give that he will be in a position to enlarge the size of the houses? The right hon. Gentleman is fond of stating what he is going to do, and I think we in the House of Commons, quite respectfully, may ask for first knowledge of what he is going to do.
    Captain W. BENN: In view of the very confident predictions as to the Parliamentary success of his own party which the right hon. Baronet is making from the benches opposite, I rather think that it would be far more interesting to know what he is going to do. I would suggest to the right hon. Baronet and to the Minister that there is no difficulty presented here because, when the time comes for revising the subsidy, whoever is Minister of Health has merely got to introduce an Estimate for the purpose of giving a subsidy to houses of 1,020 feet, and that Estimate, when passed, becomes an Act of Parliament and modifies any Act that may be on the Statute Book, and consequently gives the necessary authority to increase the size.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Increased Government contributions in case of houses which are subject to special conditions.)
    Mr. FRANKLIN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, after the word "Act," to insert the words
    "a local authority purchases houses completed after the passing of this Act, or."
    The object of this Amendment is to enable those who are prepared to provide houses to provide those houses, and to offer them to the local authority, who, although they have not initiated the putting up of these houses by the giving out of the contracts, will be able to purchase them. Our object is to get houses, to encourage anybody who will produce houses, as has already been said below the Gangway, to enable contractors who will produce houses in another form and at another rent, to be taken over by the local authority; to get on the same terms the advantages of the subsidy, or otherwise, as the houses that they themselves have let out to contract, and have provided.
    This Amendment I commend especially to the Minister, as it will enable—we will
    454
    call it private enterprise, though others say the speculative builder—the man who used to put up the houses in the past days, and who expected to get these houses sold to prospective tenants to sell them; and if not in accordance with the standard required by the local authorities, that the local authority shall not be debarred from accepting such provision of houses, and shall not be forced to accept anything that the buliding trust may put upon them. It is an additional power which I venture to hope the Minister may see his way to accept, as it gives the opportunity to those willing to help in this time of housing scarcity to do fair things in helping to solve this question.
    Mr. SUNLIGHT: This is really a very important Amendment. If the private builder, after putting up these small houses, finds that he has not got a private purchaser, under this Amendment the local authorities are empowered to purchase from such a speculative builder. This is a thing which is going to help the Minister of Health to achieve his object of keeping down the cost of the houses. Instead of local authorities being obliged to put this work out to tender in the face of rings and combines in the building trade, it would give the speculative builder and private enterprise a chance of putting up these houses on a small scale, and then the local authorities could take them over. Personally I have had, many years ago, a large experience of house building on my own account, and I know there are many professional men who, in the absence of work in their own profession, would he quite ready to commence in a small way to build, say, a dozen cottages, provided they could be assured that the local authority would be likely to come along and take them over at a competitive price. For these reasons, I beg to support this Amendment.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am afraid there is little to be said in support of this Amendment. The object of this proposal is that a man should be encouraged to build a house in the hope that it will produce competition in house building with the local authority. It is suggested that if the private builder fails to find a purchaser for the houses he has erected he will be able to dump it on to the local authority. I do not think people should be encouraged to put, say, half-a-dozen

    455
    houses in probably unsuitable districts, in the hope that the local authority, in its extremity, would purchase them without any regard to the general housing schemes of the district.
    Sir R, KAY: I do not think the Minister of Health has had much experience in regard to housing in England either past or present, and if he knew the custom that has existed for many years, I am sure he would not turn down an Amendment of this sort. Prior to 1914, the man who is called the speculative builder provided most of the houses we have in this country. A certain number were built and sold to individuals who bought them for themselves. Larger blocks of houses and houses of the smaller type now required to meet the housing shortage were built by him and sold to small people, who kept them as an investment for their money. At the present time that same builder can find a ready market for the larger houses which he sells to individuals for their own occupation, but if he builds the smaller houses needed to-day, he cannot, find any private investor to buy blocks of small houses as an investment, and yet they might be purchased from such builders for letting purposes at a lower price than any local authority can build them. These private builders keep no expensive staff. The whole superintendence of the building operations is done personally, and therefore they are in a position to meet the housing shortage better than the local authority. Again and again we have deplored the fact that we have no power to buy suitable houses from a person who builds them in order that we might let them to those who need them. I think in his reply the Minister of Health has missed the point entirely. If a municipal authority does not want such houses, they need not buy them, but I think you should give them the option of purchasing in order to let them, and in this way they would take the place of other houses which they would have to build themselves, probably in a more costly way. For these reasons, I hope my hon. Friend will carry this Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I regret that the Minister of Health has dismissed tin's Amendment in such a summary fashion. The speculative builder in the past has
    456
    built most of the houses in the country. This is the last hopes of being able to provide any alternative to the schemes of the local authorities, which may develop a building trust and a combination of employers and employed hostile to the general interests of the country, and merely desirous of putting up prices. I do not say the employers are worse than the employers in this respect, but it has been said upstairs, and it has been stated in the building report, that these people intend to ration labour to the municipalities and decide what price they shall charge for the houses, and they have declared that they intend to stamp out all competition; in fact, they say that they intend to do just what they please. If a local authority finds itself up against such a trust as that with the public money behind it, why should that local authority not be allowed to employ or purchase houses from those who are willing to build them, and which are wanted for the very poorest people in the land? This Amendment is so much in harmony with all that the Minister of Health has pleaded since last April that I was amazed when I heard him say he declined to accept it, and if he will not state that he will reconsider this point on Report, I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I hope hon. Members on this side of the House will vote for this Amendment. I cannot understand for what reason the right hon. Gentleman has opposed it, because it gives him a chance of getting a number of other houses built. It seems to me that the Minister of Health wishes to prevent a larger production of houses by private enterprise. This Amendment would open up a fresh source of capital for the use of the building industry, because the small speculative builders would get a supply of capita from the saving people in their district, which would otherwise net be tapped for the purpose. If the hon. Member opposite goes to a Division, I shall certainly go into the Lobby in favour of this Amendment.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not really understand what this. Amendment meant until a few minutes ago, and now I understand it I must say that there is something in it. I want to ask the Minister of Health if this Amendment is

    457
    necessary, and whether it gives him any power which is not already possessed under the Bill by the local authorities. What is the difference between these two cases? Firstly, the case of the local authority purchasing houses under this Amendment; and, secondly, the case of a local authority, which in the words of the Bill, provides the house itself and places an order with the builder to build the houses? Is that not the same thing? Is not the whole object of this Amendment already obtainable under the Bill? If not, I think it would be a good thing to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. LINFIELD: The intention of this Amendment is to put the small builder on his feet, again. I happen to have had some experience in regard to this subject, and I know that the small builder has been entirely squeezed out in recent years. Things were bad enough for the small builder in the old days. In the first place, he had to employ an architect and a lawyer, which meant expense, and, when drawing his advances, he encountered still more expense. If a small builder has a little money of his own and in the course of the building business he requires more money, he finds it impossible to secure a mortgage, because financiers will not, as a rule, advance money on small property. I think the Minister of Health will be doing an excellent thing if he encourages this class of builder who, in the past, has supplied nearly all the houses in the country. In the majority of cases he is a working man who has worked his way up from being a bricklayer or a carpenter, and who has afterwards started for himself.
    The vast majority of our small houses have been built by this class of man. If you had financed these men on a building society scale, and allowed them to draw money as the houses proceeded, and then had allowed them to sell the houses, you would in that way have enabled the working men of this country to have acquired their own houses on very easy terms. You could have advanced the money as the work went on, and allowed repayments to be made, and the man could have sold his houses at any price ho might be able to obtain. I hope that the Minister of Health will reconsider this matter, and I can assure him, if he will accept this
    458
    Amendment, that it will assist him very materially in providing houses. I do not believe the scheme will find houses; but as I want to give him a fair opportunity, if I had my way I would pass this Bill.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is going far beyond the terms of the Amendment.
    Mr. LINFIELD: I was just appealing to the Minister to listen to reason and consider this Amendment.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lady-wood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) I am afraid I cannot add much to his knowledge as to the difference between these two classes of houses It will be obvious to him that the essential difference is that in the one case you have had houses built according to plans prepared and approved by the local authorities and of which they have probably more knowledge than of the houses which are presented to them as complete in the other case. That is really the only substance between thorn. I think that is a difference. I candidly confess that I did not attach a great deal of importance to the Amendment. My objection is that it would, or, putting it in the most friendly way, that it might be intruding into local schemes in a way that would deface the locality. I have no objection co an Amendment which will give me more houses. I stated from the outset that I do not expect to upset the capitalist system of society with this Bill. I have told lion. Members from the be ginning that this was not my object at all. My object is to get houses. If it will satisfy the promoters of the Amendment to allow me to draft something which will give effect to this and at the same time protect the localities, I will do so.
    Mr. FRANKLIN: I am, on that assurance, quite willing to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir BEDDOE REES: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, after the word "Act," to insert the words " or by any person approved of by the Minister."
    The Clause would then read:
    "… any houses provided by a local authority themselves, or by society, body of trustees or company within the

    459
    meaning of Section 3 of the said Act or by any person approved of by the Minister—"
    The object is quite obvious. I can best state what I want by an illustration. I know one substantial industry owned by are individual. If he wants to build houses under this Act, he is not entitled to do so. If his business were run by a limited company, they could go to the Minister and ask to come under the Act. What I am anxious to do is to try and encourage everybody to put up houses. I am not antagonistic to the Bill. I think it is an attempt. Whether it will succeed or not time will tell. I move the Amendment in the hope that the Minister will accept it. It is a new principle. I agree that it has never appeared in a Housing Act before. That does not prove it is wrong. If we are going to make the Act a success, I think it is for us to extend the Scope of it to the furthest limit possible with safety. I think that the words "any person approved of by the Minister" gives the Minister what he needs. I cannot imagine anybody building a house to-day with the hope of making any profit out of it, even with the subsidy provided under the terms of this Bill. The bulkier may get a profit but not the man who owns it. I am speaking not for the man who is going to build a house but for the man who is to be the owner. There is the ease of the farmers and the landlords who would like to put up houses on their estates. They cannot come under this Act. If I wanted to put up two houses on my estate for farm labourers, I ought to be able to come under this Act and to claim the subsidy. But I cannot do it as the provisions now stand.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. A. Greenwood): I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment. I think he has put it down under some misapprehension. It has been established that relations between individuals and the Ministry of Health shall be through the local authority. If every individual who cares to take advantage of the Act has to be approved by the Minister, then the Department will be overwhelmed by the volume of work. I cannot think the House would desire that that should be so. I think, and I am sure hon. Members will agree, there is no alternative to the
    460
    method of allowing individual cases to be dealt with by local authorities and to become parts of the general proposal to be approved of by the Minister of Health.
    Earl WINTERTON: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question, because my experience is entirely that of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. I understand that under the present Act, if a private individual puts up a house in all respects conforming with the conditions laid down by the Act of 1923 as the type of house which, shall be put up, and, if the local authority has refused to put into operation any part of the Act he cannot obtain the-subsidy. One hesitates to bring personal instances to the notice of the Committee but in the circumstances I venture to do so. I erected a cottage for a bona fide working man. I applied to the local authorities. They refused to pay the subsidy. I asked on what grounds. Did they object to the type of house? And they said, "No. They had not put the 1923 Act into operation." Two other individuals are now trying to erect urgently-needed houses. The district in question has as great a housing need as any other district in the country. They were met with the same refusal. As I understand the Amendment, it would give the right to a private individual who wished to erect houses in the way I have described to go to the Minister and obtain the subsidy Personally, I am not familiar with ail the conditions of this Bill, but I can see no objections to that, and I think it will assist very materially a getting houses built. I would like to ask whether I am right in my interpretation of the existing Act.
    Mr. G. SPENCER: I am surprised the Parliamentary Secretary has made the statement that he has. A number of working men in my constituency built seven houses for themselves. They were under the impression what the 1923 Act gave them the subsidy, but the local authority, a rural council, refused to adopt that part of the Act which gave them the right to the subsidy. They went on building, and when they had erected their houses, because the local authority itself had refused to adopt that part of the Act, they did not get the subsidy, and now they cannot get it. If the Bill be passed as it is now, and this Amendment or some

    461
    other form of Amendment be not adopted, and some other councils refuse to put the Act into force, other individuals who have built their houses will not get the subsidy. The Parliamentary Secretary should give far more attention to this Amendment. I take it the object of the Mover of the Amendment is to protect the individual who is going to build a house for himself. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say that if a working man puts up a house, irrespective of what the local authority has done or has not done, he will get; this subsidy? If he cannot tell us that, we have a right to ask him to consider this or some other Amendment which is going to protect every individual.
    Mr. LINFIELD: I should like to bring another case to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary, because it occurred in his own Department. A similar case to that mentioned by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) occurred in my Division. The local authority declined to put the Act in force, and the Minister of Health sent down an inspector and used all the powers he could to persuade the authority to put the Act into force. Now, we want to give the Ministry power to do what they themselves endeavoured to do and had not the power to do, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will see that there is something very substantial in this Amendment, and, as be is being pressed from all sides of the House, I trust he will see his way to accept it.
    Mr. BECKER: it is a most extraordinary thing why the Government are refusing those minor Amendments. They call themselves Socialists, and the hon. Gentleman who has spoken for the Government should be only too delighted to increase the number of the staff in his Department. It is an extraordinary thing that he should have opposed this Amendment on the ground that the applications of individuals who wish to get the financial benefit of the Bill when building their own houses would involve a large addition to the staff of the Department. Surely a real Socialist cannot say he objects to State employment. Is it really honest to say that the Labour party, which is really a Socialist party, is against State enterprise? Did not Members of the last Parliament who were on the Labour Benches daily slam private enterprise and declare that State and muni-
    462
    cipal enterprise was so much better? Is it not evident that the motive behind the objection to these Amendments is that hon. Members do not want men to build their own houses? Recently it was stated by one of the Labour leaders that a working man could not afford to put up his own house. Is not that the reason why the Government do not want to give the financial benefit of this Bill to men who are willing to build their own houses? Is it not because it would remove them from the category of working men and put them into the category of capitalists? On the past of hon. Members opposite—and it is a particularly lurid past in this respect—I say I am justified in assuming that the sole object of their objecting to this Amendment is to secure State and municipal control—
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to go into a discussion of that nature. It is far beyond the scope of the Amendment.
    Mr. BECKER: I am sorry I overstepped the mark. I tried hard not to do so. What I want to point out is this, that if you are not going to give these advantages to individuals who wish to build their own houses, or if you are only going to give them providing the Council takes power under the Bill to build the houses for them, then you are opposing private enterprise, for it is private enterprise on the part of the man who wishes to build the house for himself. Cannot the hon. Gentleman now in charge of the Bill reconsider his decision on this Amendment f Cannot we forget politics on the question of housing, and on this one occasion at any rate allow these individuals, or any private person who wishes to build houses to get the benefit of this legislation? I am sure if the hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment his party will go up considerably in the estimation of the Committee.
    Mr. VIVIAN: Would it help the Committee out of the difficulty if the Amendment were limited to those cases where the local authority refuses to adopt the Act?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: All the objections raised to this particular Amendment, deal with the Act of 1923. If the hon. Members will look at another Amendment on the Paper in the name of

    463
    the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) they will see that that also deals with the Act of 1923. But the Clause under discussion only applies to houses which are built for the purpose of letting, and all the speeches which have been made on this Amendment deal with the case of the working man who desires to build a house for himself but who does not come under this Clause at all. The real difficulty arises from an omission in the Act of 1923. If the local authority under that Act does not choose to put the Act into operation, no one can do so. I shall be glad to know if the Government will accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hereford to substitute for the words
    "a society, body of trustees or company,"
    the words
    "any person, or body of persons, or company."
    Mr. SPENCER: If that is to have retrospective effect, it is what we want.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid it would not have retrospective effect. It would not be fair to ask the Minister to accept an Amendment having retrospective effect without offering him an opportunity of considering with his officials what its effect would be. The particular Amendment to which I am referring would meet the points raised by the various speakers.
    Mr. LINFIELD: This only refers to houses erected for the purpose of letting.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Amendment moved by the hon. Member opposite only affects houses built under the provisions of this Bill, and those houses are all subject to the restriction that they must be for letting.
    Sir B. REES: That is the intention of our Amendment.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not object to the hon. Member's Amendment as it stands, but I do not think it would have very much effect. I do not suppose that many individuals are likely to desire to build houses subject to the restrictions of the Bill we are now discussing. If there are any individuals who wish to do that, then I have no objection to the Amendment, and, if it be pressed to a Division, I shall consider myself free to
    464
    support it. But the real point I want to discuss is the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford.
    Sir B. REES: Would not that Amendment have precisely the same effect as if the words were put in, in page 2, of the present Bill? My Amendment really affects the Act of 1923, and I suggest that it will have precisely the same effect as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hereford.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is a matter which should be dealt with by the Minister in charge of the Bill. If hon. Members will look at the Act of 1923, they will see that Section 3 relates entirely to houses built under the provisions of the Act and the giving of a subsidy for 20 years or the compound sum of £75, which is what everyone wants when building a house. The Amendment we have in the name of the hon. Member for Hereford is to the effect that when the local authority chooses not to put that Section of the Act into operation and will not build cottages in the district then a company may build the cottages, but not a private individual. We want to give power to any private person, where the local authority will not build under the Act of 1923, and will not give the subsidy of £75 to build the house and to get the subsidy. I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be prepared to accept our Amendment. As far as the particular Amendment now under discussion is concerned, I really think he might also accept that.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: May we deal with one Amendment at a time? I am sure that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Roberts) will receive due consideration when it is reached. I venture to assert that the Amendment now before the Committee is a grotesque proposition. It will allow a person who has built a house which he cannot sell and which he wishes to let at some very high rent—
    Mr. PRINGLE: He will be subject to special conditions as to rent.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: He is to be allowed to appeal to the Ministry of Health against the local authority. He does not want to reside in the house himself, but he desires to let it at whatever price he can get to someone else.
    Mr. PRINGLE: No, he must let it at a statutory rent.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: We all know what a statutory rent is. It will only mean that if this provision comes into operation there will be a perfectly grotesque amount of correspondence with the Minister of Health and there will also be an abnegation of the normal relations between the local and the central authorities. I hope the hon. Gentleman will persist in his opposition to the Amendment. I agree that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hereford is a totally different one, and we shall be glad at the proper time to hear what there is to be said for it.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is quite impossible, of course, to say now what the attitude of the Government will be towards the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Roberts). We-must first dispose of the Amendment before the Committee, and as to that I want to say a word or two, I cannot help thinking that hon. Members who have given their personal experiences on this matter have not spoken of houses which were built for the purpose of being let—
    Earl WINTERTON: In my case I particularly said the house was to be let.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I venture to think that most hon. Members will think the difficulties in the path of accepting this Amendment are insurmountable. The houses built under this Clause have to be let subject to certain conditions, and one vital condition is that the tenant shall not assign, sublet, or part with the possession of the house. I assure hon. Members it would be absolutely impossible for He Minister to deal with individual cases in the way suggested in this Amendment. If any single person—a builder or otherwise—applied for the facilities suggested, there would be no power whatever of getting a guarantee from him that the special condition I ha-v mentioned would be complied with. I really feel that this Amendment is wholly impracticable. Although I agree that there may be some individual cases in which hardship might be created, as, for instance, the one that has been given in which builders individually built houses under a mistaken interpretation Of the Act, I think it is fair to remember that this Measure is not intended for
    466
    the purpose of relieving people who are building or have built under a misapprehension; it is intended to be an incentive to get houses, and it really would be quite impracticable if every individual were allowed to make his application. The conditions could not be enforced, and, as the conditions go to the root of the Bill, I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Earl WINTERTON: After consulting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), I do not wish, at this stage, to press the point which I made in my previous speech, and, indeed, it would be out of order to do so; but I should just like again to emphasise what the difficulty is. In the case of the particular local authority to which I referred—I will not give the name, though I am strongly tempted to do so—that authority refused to put into operation, or, at any rate, did not put into operation except to a very limited extent, the original Act of 1919, and it has not put into operation the Act of 1923. There is in that district a very great lack of houses indeed, partly owing, I am sorry to say, to people coming from the towns and buying up agricultural cottages and occupying them. Several landowners in the district, of whom I am one, have been anxious to build houses under the 1923 Act in order to house genuine working men, but we have been unable to obtain the subsidy, and those who have been in negotiation with the local authority have been informed that the authority have no intention of obtaining the subsidy under the 1923 Act. I maintain that that is a scandalous state of affairs, which there is a chance, during the consideration of this Bill, of getting amended, and I very much hope that the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Secretary will, between now and the time when we come to discuss the Amendment in question, give careful consideration to the ease and see if that difficulty cannot be got over.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think that this is a matter which should be further considered, because the difficulties in connection with it are very real. There are many rural areas where it has been impossible to provide houses, and even now, with the increased subsidy, the local authority may be either unwilling or

    467
    unable to do it. They may not have the necessary enterprise. I suggest that the Government should take this particular case into consideration. I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) should have described this proposal as grotesque. He cited the case of an individual in the middle of Manchester putting up a single house, but I do not think that that could be done under this Bill, because this Clause is governed by the words:
    "Where in pursuance of proposals approved by the Minister—."
    and in the case of private individuals the Minister could hold them in check. Where there is a bona fide effort on the part of any owner of land anywhere to provide houses to let, subject to the approval of the Minister, I do not see any reason why that should be refused under this Clause, as well as under the 1923 Act. This Bill, after all, is for the purpose of providing houses to let, and the policy of the Government is to encourage the provision of houses for letting. If the Amendment, which is supported by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), is accepted, it will be confined to the case of houses built to sell. [HON. MEMBERS: "Both!"] The assumption is that the proposal will only be entertained by people who wish to sell or who build for themselves; but this is a case where, in rural areas, the owner wishes to build for his workmen. As this is one of the most necessitous cases in the country, I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman who is representing the Ministry of Health that he might well take this into consideration between now and Report.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I must say just a word in consequence of what has been said by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), because I do not think he really quite appreciates the situation, or the difference between the two classes of cases. It must be remembered that, in the special provision that we made for dealing with these societies, bodies of trustees, public utility societies, and so forth, in the Act of last year, we had this in mind: We supposed, when that Bill was first drawn up, that subsidies were going to be paid by the Exchequer and by he local authority in approximately equal amounts; but it
    468
    seemed to us that there might be cases, such as those of railways, collieries, and other cases in which the owners would he prepared to do without a subsidy from the local authority, and in which the houses might be built in the areas of a number of small authorities, so that the owners would not want, to be bothered with those local authorities at all, but would do without their subsidy, and come direct to the Ministry of Health and get the subsidy from the Ministry. This Amendment deals with Clause 2 of the Bill, and Clause 2, so far as this particular part of it is concerned, deals with that Section of the Act of last, year which provided for the case of those companies to which I have referred, Therefore, the houses which would be touched by this Amendment would not be eligible for a subsidy from the local authority; they would only be eligible for a subsidy from the Exchequer.
    What I want to submit to the hon. Gentleman and to other Members of the House is that really this Amendment is not going to be of any use to the people of whom they are thinking, because they are only going to get their subsidy from the Exchequer. They would get no subsidy from the local authority, and they would be bound by these conditions, which really are very onerous indeed. It is not only a question of assigning; this owner may not sell the house. Take the case of an owner who is building houses for someone employed on his land. He may be wanting to sell the whole estate with the cottages upon it, but he could not do so without the leave of the Minister. He cannot be free to let the cottage at what rent, he likes, and there are a dozen ways in which he is restricted. For the difference between the terms he got under the Act of last year and the terms ho would get under the present Bill, it is not. I venture to say, worth his while to tie himself up with these restrictions, and he would rather come under the Act of last year. As far as the Act of last year is concerned, I agree that there has been what I consider personally to be a scandal in the case of local authorities who were not called upon to find any money, but who would not take the trouble to put up a scheme to the Ministry in order that a subsidy from the Exchequer might be available for the purpose of assisting the building

    469
    of houses in their area. There is a need that these cases should be dealt with, and I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider very carefully the Amendment which comes later on the Paper.
    Amendment negatived.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment that I shall call is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. D. G. Somerville), in page 3, line 16, after the word "shall,' to insert the words
    "after reference to the appropriate local authority."
    Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. May I ask why the Amendment in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), in page 2, line 15, to leave out the words " situated in an agricultural parish," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "built for the occupation of workers whose principal moans of livelihood is or has been derived from employment in agriculture."
    That Amendment, surely, raises a very important point, which I think the Committee will want to discuss.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As a matter of fact, that Amendment goes quite beyond the terms of the Money Resolution, and is out of order.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to say a few words on the point of order. As you have mentioned that you have, if I may say so, not relied on your powers of selection in dealing with this Amendment, but have mentioned that it is out of order, I venture, as this case is, perhaps, from the agricultural point of view, one of the most important points in the Bill, to suggest to you that the Amendment might be put in order by omitting the words "or has been," so that it would relate to houses
    "built for the occupation of workers whose principal means of livelihood is derived from employment in agriculture."
    I submit that there is no evidence at all that this would cost more money than would be the case under the provisions of the Bill as it now stands. There are no figures at all in regard to the number of houses which would be built under the exact provisions of the Bill, nor are there any figures as to the number of houses that would be built under the provisions of this Amendment. All that
    470
    it means is that, while both sides are agreed that there should be an additional subsidy in regard to agricultural houses, or houses in agricultural districts, we desire to raise the question, which has been referred to several times at Question Time as to whether the particular Clause of the Bill dealing with the definition of agricultural parishes is an adequate one or not. Questions as to that have been asked from time to time, and we desire to submit to the House that our proposal that it should be for bona fide agricultural workers is better than the proposal of the Government in regard to agricultural parishes. I submit that there is no evidence at all before you that this would create the slightest additional charge. Our suggestion is that this is a better mode of deciding what is an agricultural house, or providing a means for helping the agricultural worker to get the cheaper house for which he has been asking for so many years past. I venture to submit that point to you with the greatest deference, and to ask your consideration of it.
    Viscount WOLMER: With regard to the question of selection, no one in this Committee disputes for a moment your right to select, but I am quite sure you will agree that it has always been the tradition of the Chair that the Chair should be open to representations made from any quarter of I he House as to the force or importance attached to a particular Amendment, which may not have been appreciated by the Chair before the matter was submitted to the House I assure you, Sir, that this raises a point to which enormous importance is attached by agricultural Members, and deals with what we consider to be a vital defect in the Bill. I do not wish to anticipate the speeches that some of us would like to make on the Amendment, but I submit that this is a very important point, which ought to be brought to the notice of the House.
    Mr. BLACK: I should like to enforce the point put by hon. Members opposite, on the ground that a large number of villages in the agricultural parish—
    The DEPUTY-CHARMAN: I am afraid that that is outside the point of order.
    Colonel GRETTON: May I suggest that this Amendment would tend rather

    471
    to diminish than to increase the expenditure in agricultural parishes? The purpose of the Amendment is to confine the subsidy to houses which are to be occupied by those actually employed in agriculture, whereas the words used in the Bill as drafted enable subsidies to be given to any houses coming under the Act which may be erected in agricultural parishes. So far as the Amendment is concerned, it will not increase the cost incurred by the Government.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have listened very carefully to the remarks which have been made. I think that hon. Members have misinterpreted me as having said that the ground on which I ruled that the Amendment was out of order was because it would increase the charge. It is out of order because it goes quite beyond the terms of the Financial Resolution, which clearly and explicitly states that
    "if the house is situated in an agricultural parish."
    This Amendment carries it beyond those areas, and, therefore, it is out of order.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: May I put this to you? Supposing the Amendment were so altered as, instead of leaving out any words, merely to say after the word "parish" to insert the words of the Amendment, I think that would bring it within the Financial Resolution.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would make all the difference in the world, but that is not what the Amendment is, and I presume not what is desired.
    Viscount WOLMER: May L move it in that form?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I am afraid not now, as I have called on the hon. Member for Barrow to move his Amendment.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, after the word "shall," to insert the words "after reference to the appropriate local authority."
    Mr. BLACK: On a point of Order. May I point out to you, Sir, that if you go on with this Amendment, the, next Amendment is in page 2, line 19, and you will shut out about a page of Amendments,
    472
    because you will have gone beyond the others'! The Amendment is out of Order with regard to the paging.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is correct. Does the hon. Member (Mr. D. G. Somerville) agree that it is page 8, and not page 2?
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: It is page 3.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Then I call on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain).
    Mr N. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11), at the end, to insert the words
    "Provided that in any ca6e where a reduction in the contributions can be made without imposing any burden on the local rate, such reduction shall be made and to such extent as is so possible."
    This is an Amendment of some substance, but one of which the significance is perhaps not apparent at first sight. Some time earlier in the Debate to-day, an hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me spoke of the possibility of the discovery of some new method of construction, or some now material, which might greatly reduce the cost of houses. I cannot help thinking myself that now that for the first time, perhaps, a number of acute minds are turning to this problem, it is very possible that we may indeed find ourselves in the presence of such a discovery before any long period. I have asked myself, supposing the case of a local authority having been put in possession of a proposition to build houses which might be satisfactory in every respect at a price far below anything we can contemplate at the moment, what would be the position with regard to the finance of this Bill I have been unable to discover that that contingency has been anticipated by the Minister at all. As far as I can see, it is not possible for him to make any alteration in the amount of the subsidy that he gives per house, although in the circumstances I have suggested the subsidy named in the Bill would be altogether too big. What would happen in that case? As far as I can see, there are two things that might happen. Either the subsidy might go in reduction of the lent below the standard contemplated in the Bill or it might go into the pockets of the local authority, and as there is nothing in the way the Bill in drafted to say the local authority shall ever reduce the rents

    473
    below what I may call the pre-War plus 40 per cent. level, I take it the local authority would put that part of the subsidy which was not required into its own pocket, In fact, the local authority would be making a profit out of the unnecessarily high subsidy provided by the Minister. I quite understand the first effect of cheaper houses will be to reduce the liability of the local authority until the £64 10s. is swept away altogether, but will it possibly go further than that? The Amendment I propose would provide that the subsidy from the Exchequer should be reduced and that neither the local authority nor the individual tenant of the house should be able to take the subsidy, which was not necessary to provide that the house should be built at all.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am glad the mind of the right hon. Gentleman is now turning in a fresh direction. Up to now he has been afraid the houses will be too dear Now he is haunted by the dread that they may become suddenly cheap, and he wants to make provision against the catastrophic result of some invention, within the period provided for in the Bill, taking an enormous amount of money out of the taxpayers' pocket and transferring it either to the pocket of the ratepayer or to the pocket of the tenant. I am delighted at this change towards sanity in I lie leaders of the Opposition on this matter. I heartily join with them in the anticipation hat one of the very earliest results of a continuous building programme will ho the attraction to the building industry of those scientific and organising brains which have been more successful in the past in other industries than in the building trade. But I am only following very respectfully and rather timidly in the right hon. Gentleman's foot-stops. After all, he provided in the 1923 Act that a certain subsidy would be paid, and ho took no protection against the possibility of a reduction in price as the result of his building programme. He said, "You build houses and for two years We will give you a certain amount of subsidy."
    I have provided that at the end of three years we will take stock and see how things are going, and if in the light of the experience of the past three years and the prospect for the future revision will be justified we will make that revision. I
    474
    am sure the right hon. Gentleman, sees the difficulties which would result if I were to adopt the Amendment. He knows from experience the enormous trouble which would be associated with a system of central inspection of every scheme to see whether or not the local authority were about to make a profit on the transaction. One of my objects in dealing with the local authorities was to give them a financial interest in bringing down prices, and, believe me, if they can bring them down I Shall not regret very much, and neither will the country, that within the probable period in which they may do so they may even make a small profit on the transaction. I can conceive of no possible profit that I would accept with greater pleasure than a profit made by people who would bring down the price of houses to a point we can let them at an economic rent.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I am really surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's attitude. This is an extremely reasonable Amendment. Surely it is only the point of view of a business man to try to protect himself both ways. We know that if the houses are built, which I do not think they will be, the country will have an immense sum of money to pay in capital expenditure and in subsidies. The Minister says these houses are going to be built. He is going to produce these men by training apprentices—and I sincerely hope he will—and he is satisfied that it is going to lie a success and that prices are coming down. Why does he object to giving the country the credit of the money which will be saved? It is not putting any additional burden on the country. It is only the possibility of relieving the country, and this means putting up the houses at a price which will very soon bring down the demand. There will be a great many more houses in the country to let and, under the 1923 Act, to Sell. Therefore surely we should save this subsidy if possible. I strongly press that the Amendment should he reconsidered.
    Mr. SUNLIGHT: I respectfully differ from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I think we are all anxious to do everything possible; in fact, I am astonished that the Minister has not offered some premium for the purpose of setting inventive minds to work on designing

    475
    new forms of construction for the purpose of bringing clown the cost. I oppose the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: If one had not heard speeches by the right hon. Gentleman before, one might perhaps be surprised at the way he has dealt with the matter. I am not at all surprised at it. When he talks about a return to sanity I think he had better address himself to a good many Members on his own side of the House. My right hon. Friend has brought forward an Amendment providing what should be done in the event of there being any saving. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable proposal. If you are going into a transaction, surely you always look at both sides to see whether there is likely to be a profit, and if there is going to be one, what you are going to do with it, and if, on the other hand, there is going to be a loss, how you are going to provide for it. I am sure we all hope the Minister's anticipations will be realised, but I have great doubts, and I am deadly opposed to £1,250,000,000, or anything like it, being expended on the scheme. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this. If at the end of the three years you begin to find that the cost of the houses has been cheapened, probably because the bricklayers under a Labour Government lay a larger number of bricks a day, of which I have my doubts, surely you should take some steps to deal with any surplus that may result. I trust, therefore, my right hon. Friend will press the matter in the event of the Government not accepting the Amendment.
    8.0 P.M.
    Viscount WOLMER: I should like to enter a protest against the Minister's reckless disregard of the taxpayers' money. I agree that there is a likelihood of scientific inventions and improvements in building taking place very shortly which will reduce the cost of building houses. That will not be brought about by the so-called guarantee in this Bill, which has been sufficiently exploded this afternoon, and proved to be completely non-existent, but will be brought about by such events as the present building strike, and the exorbitant terms which the building industry, masters and men, are trying to exact out of the community, and in which they are being encouraged by the right
    476
    hon. Gentleman. The public will turn in time, and cheaper methods of construction will be found. In fact, I have been assured there is at the present moment a company which is prepared to bring out concrete-built houses which are a great improvement on any previous concrete houses, in that they are non-porous and completely weather-proof. It will mean a cheaper house of the dimensions of the 1923 Act, costing from £250 to £300.
    If that object can be achieved, this country will be saved not millions, but hundreds of millions, provided the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is accepted. The mere saving of a few hundred millions of pounds, I know, leaves the Minister absolutely cold. He does not care a jot about that. So long as he is allowed to shovel out money, he thinks he is solving the housing problem. That is not going to solve the housing problem. The housing problem can only be solved by providing more men, more material and better methods of building houses. The mere expenditure of the taxpayers' money is not going to solve this question, and I think if this Amendment were accepted it would be of great assistance in the solution of the housing problem. Otherwise, I believe, this scheme will break down just as the Addison scheme broke down, because the public wilt find, in a very short time, that the cost of it is intolerable. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman rejects this Amendment, he is merely cutting his own throat, and giving himself a bad chance in the electoral campaign which he has promised us.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I think the financial principles enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite are perfectly sound, and if the Amendment really meant all that was read into it by him, I should support it. But, really, the Amendment rests upon the hypothesis that there will be a great cheapening of houses in three years. I believe that it is more likely the cost will go up rather than down in the next few years, and therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman is guarding against a wholly fanciful danger. The cost is much more likely to rise than to fall in consequence of his Amendment, and, as the Minister has pointed out, the profit to the local authority can only be for a very short time. We are now only dealing with the three years' period, and not with the 15 years' period. We are

    477
    dealing with a contribution that can be reconsidered at the end of three years, so that I think the Amendment, although excellently designed on what ought to be first principles of sound finance, is really superfluous.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: May I say one word in reply to the right hon. Gentleman? I think he did not understand what was in my mind. I did anticipate that the cost of the present houses, and, in fact, any houses which require skilled labour in their construction, will increase. The only chance to get cheaper houses is to get the kind of house which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health does not desire to see, that is, a house which does not require skilled labour to construct. If you could construct such a house, you would get houses very quickly, and the profits made by the local authorities, therefore, would not be so small as he thinks. If you got these cheap houses, you would get them in large quantities, and the local authorities might, therefore, make a large profit on them.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I have never said anything that could be interpreted in any way as indicating that I would not welcome and new form of building houses quickly, and I want to take the opportunity of publicly repudiating such a suggestion. I welcome any good methods of providing houses.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to contemplate the possibility.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I do contemplate the possibility.
    Major COLFOX: The rejection of this Amendment by the Minister is in itself remarkable, but the reason he gives for That rejection is even more remarkable still, because he has told us that the reason is that the possible profit to be made by local authorities will act as an incentive to them to build more houses. If he really believes that the making of a possible profit would provide the incentive to build houses, why is it that all through his Bill he is doing his utmost to discourage that form of building which, inevitably, must be relied upon to provide the bulk of the houses, namely, private enterprise? It is only the fact that a possible profit may be made that can form
    478
    the real incentive to building houses, and the Minister, in rejecting this Amendment, has definitely shown us that he realises the truth of this statement. Therefore, I appeal to him, in the light of his recent confession, to put into operation his newly-found principle, namely, that the possible earning of a profit is the best possible incentive to the building of houses.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Supposing the houses did become suddenly cheaper, and the local authority were about to make a profit, we are told it would be only for a very short time. Does that provision apply to houses to be put up now, or merely to houses which are put up in the future?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: It will only apply to houses put up after three years.
    Mr. L. JONES: How can the houses put up now be cheaper than they are?
    Mr. GWYNNE: We might see a vast quantity of houses put up in the next two years, and we should be going on paying the subsidy. Therefore, the point of the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway is not met.
    Mr. BECKER: The. Minister of Health explained that he is not against unskilled labour building houses. If that be so, would he consider for the purpose of the new method of bricklaying, which would considerably reduce the price of houses in the next three years, the enrolling of tens of thousands of unskilled men to build those houses? If the Minister would only give the word that he would encourage unskilled labour, it would do a great deal to solve the present problem.
    Mr. ANDREW YOUNG: We attempted a new method of building houses in Edinburgh, and employed large numbers of unskilled workers. We have bought an estate, and propose to build there sonic 2,000 houses. We have adopted a method of using slabs in the building of the houses by which we are able to use something like 80 per cent. of unskilled labour. The price of the houses, however, remains the same as before we employed unskilled labour. The reason for the employment of unskilled labour and the adoption of this method was that we could net get bricks for bricklayers. It did not mean any reduction whatever in the price of

    479
    the houses, and, therefore, it seems quite right of the Minister to reject this Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether these 80 per cent. of unskilled labourers are bound by the regulations as to the number of bricks to be laid?
    Mr. A. YOUNG: They are not bricks.
    Mr. BECKER: The mere fact of pro-during houses where you cannot get bricklayers increases the number of houses that you want, and as you increase the number of houses very rapidly by using unskilled labour, it would naturally reduce the cost of producing them.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I think all Members of the House have received a circular from a company which proposes
    special construction in the building of houses, not to cost more than £200 or £250. In an event like that, what is going to be the position?
    Mrs. PHILIPSON: Might I suggest to the Minister of Health that if he really is keen to get the houses built—and it is houses we need for the poor people—he can help the unemployed ex-service men whom he has already penalised by not taking in apprentices to the building trade, by finding them work on the building of these cheap concrete houses. It is houses we want, and work for the unemployed ex-service men. Will he not, therefore, reconsider his decision in this matter?
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 245.

    Division No. 157.]

    AYES.

    [8. 15p,m.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Ferguson, H.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Alnsworth, Captain Charles

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Pease, William Edwin

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Perring, William George

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Gases, Percy

    Philipson, Mabel

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Pielou, D. P.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Raine, W.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Becker, Harry

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Remer, J. R.

    Berry, Sir George

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)

    Blundell, F. N.

    Harland, A.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Roundel, Colonel R. F.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Samuel, A. H. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Savery, S. S.

    Burman, J. B.

    Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hope, Rt Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Spencer, H. R. (Bradford, South)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

    Cope, Major William

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Titchfield Major the Marquess of

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lorimer, H. D.

    Wells, S. F.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Whaler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    McLean, Major A.

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Windsor-Clive Lieut.-Colonel George

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Wise, Sir. Fredric

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Welmer, Viscount

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Meller, R. J.

    Wood, Sir. H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Deans, Richard Storry

    Nell, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Duckworth, John

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Elliot, Walter E.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Commander B. Eyres-Monsell and

    England, Colonel A.

    Norton-Griffiths, Sir John

    Colonel Gibbs.

    NOES.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Alden, Percy

    Ammon, Charles George

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)

    Attlee, Major Clement R.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Alstead, R.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Baker, Waiter

    Hillary, A. E.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Hindie, F.

    Ritson, J.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Barnes, A.

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Robertson, T. A.

    Black, J. W.

    Hore-Bellsha, Major Leslie

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Romerll, H. G.

    Bonwick, A.

    Hudson, J. H.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Broad, F. A.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Royle, C.

    Bromfield, William

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Brunner, Sir J,

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W, Derby)

    Scurr, John

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Shaw Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Buckle, J.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Cape, Thomas

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kedward, R. M.

    Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Clarke, A.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Climie, R.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smillie, Robert

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, George

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Laverack, F. J.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

    Law, A.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Compton, Joseph

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Snell, Harry

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Lawson, John James

    Spence, R.

    Cory, Sir Clifford

    Leach, W,

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lessing, E.

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Darblshire, Charles W.

    Linfield, F. C.

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Lunn, William

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    McCrae, Sir George

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Dickson, T.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

    Sullivan, J.

    Dodds, S. R.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Sunlight, J.

    Dukes, C.

    Macfadyen, E.

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Duncan, C.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Dunn, J. Freeman

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Tattersall, J. L.

    Dunnico, H.

    Madan, H.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    March, S.

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Egan, W. H.

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Thurtle, E.

    Falconer, J.

    Maxton, James

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Finney, V. H.

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.

    Middleton, G.

    Tout, W. J.

    Franklin, L. B.

    Millar, J. D.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Mills, J. E.

    Turner, Ben

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Mitchell, R.M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Mond, H.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Montague, Frederick

    Viant, S. P.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Morel, E. D.

    Vivian, H.

    Gillett, George M.

    Morris, R. H.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Muir, John W.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Greenall, T.

    Murray, Robert

    Welsh, J. C.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Murrell, Frank

    Westwood, J.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis

    Nichol, Robert

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Whiteley, W.

    Groves, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wignall, James

    Grundy, T. W.

    Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Paling, W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Perry, S. F.

    Williams, Maj. A.S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)

    Hardie, George D.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Potts, John S.

    Windsor, Walter

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Raffety, F. W.

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Rathbone, Hugh H.

    Wright, W.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Raynes, W. R.

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Rea, W. Russell

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Rendall, A.

    Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Warne.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfid.)

    Richards, R.

    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): The next two Amendments are consequential.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, after the second word "Act," to insert the words "and subject to the said special conditions."

    483
    The first Amendment is consequential, and this, the second Amendment, is only a drafting Amendment, designed to make it quite clear that the proviso which begins in line 20 applies only to houses which are the subject of special conditions. That is important because there is another provision a little lower down dealing with paragraphs (a) and (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act of last year, and it would have the effect of knocking out the provision under which the local authority can make a grant by way of lump sum. I do not think that that is the intention of the Minister.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at line 8, he will find words there which I am advised are sufficient for the purpose which he has in view.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, after the word "pounds" to insert the words
    "or in the case of a house situated in an agricultural parish twelve pounds ten shillings."
    This is really a drafting Amendment, and it is put in merely to make the proviso conform to what has been already inserted.
    Viscount WOLMER: May I ask whether the Amendment which I have handed in in manuscript is in order?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have my doubts about that. Perhaps the Noble Lord will speak on that point.
    Viscount WOLMER: On reconsideration I cannot maintain that it is in order, because it is vitiated by the fact that the previous Amendment standing in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) was not called, but I am going to take this opportunity of raising the question of the application of this subsidy to agricultural parishes in the form in which the Minister proposes it in the Bill. With all respect I would like to protest, as strongly as I can, against that Amendment not having been
    484
    selected by the Deputy-Chairman a few minutes ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord should know that it is not in order to criticise the action of the Chairman in that way.
    Viscount WOLMER: The Bill as it is drafted and the Amendment which has just been moved contemplate this in creased subsidy being paid to so-called agricultural parishes, but there is no provision in the Bill or in the Amendment, that this subsidy shall be paid in respect of agricultural workers.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Is it in order to discuss this question on the proposal which is now before the Chair?
    Viscount WOLMER: The proposal is that in the case of houses situated in au agricultural parish, and so on, and my criticism is that there is no guarantee in those words that the subsidy shall be paid in respect of agricultural workers. Everybody who lives in an agricultural parish knows that houses are being put up continuously in agricultural parishes by week-end townsmen, who simply come down to the country to spend their weekends there.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid that I did not make clear the purpose of this Amendment. It is simply to bring the proviso into conformity with the first part of Clause 2.
    Viscount WOLMER: I am quite in order in explaining why I think that this form of the Amendment is insufficient. It seems to me to be a very great defect in the Minister's proposals that no attempt is made under this Clause to confine this increased subsidy to the case of agricultural labourers. Where these week-end townspeople come into country villages—
    Mr. PRINGLE: As the principle of the subsidy in an agricultural parish has already been decided in line 15, and this is merely a verbal Amendment carrying out what has already been placed in the Bill, is it in order for the Noble Lord to discuss this question again?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is true, as the hon. and learned Member has said, that the question of an agricultural parish is dealt with in an earlier portion of the

    485
    Clause, but I do not think the. Noble Lord has transgressed in the discussion of this Amendment.
    Viscount WOLMER: I am very much obliged for that ruling, which enables tee to draw attention to this extraordinary anomaly. Townspeople are continually buying up country cottages, which is, I think, a very serious evil, because it reduces the supply of cottages for agricultural labourers, or else they are coming down and building houses in agricultural villages, and though nobody objects to that, it is absurd that the taxpayers' money should be devoted to that kind of house.
    Mr. E. BROWN: Does the Noble Lord suggest that the money is to be used for that purpose? In an answer to a question put by me a fortnight ago, the Minister of Health assured me that there was no evidence to that effect.
    Mr. G. EDWARDS: Is it not a fact that farmers and landlords are buying up the cottages in order to put the labourers into tied cottages?
    Mr. G. SPENCER: May I ask your ruling upon the point raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle)?
    Viscount WOLMER: He has given it.
    Mr. SPENCER: Am I to understand that, after a principle has been adopted in this Bill, it is in order for a Member to question it at a later stage?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. What I have ruled on is the insertion of the words proposed in this Amendment.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I submit that this principle has been carried and debated already.
    Viscount WOLMER: It has not been debated.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment before the Committee, and I understand that the Noble Lord is taking exception to that Amendment.
    Viscount WOLMER: I am perfectly ready to discuss the question on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill. I do not want to occupy the time of the Committee unduly, but in view of your ruling that I am in order, perhaps it is better to continue here. I have explained the first point, to which
    486
    I wish to allude, but there is also the point, which is of even greater importance, and that is the adequacy of the subsidy as applied to agricultural labourers. My criticism is, that if you are to give it to people who are not agricultural labourers in country districts, you have no business to give it at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because they are not entitled to a particularly high subsidy. And if you are to confine it to agricultural labourers you have not made the subsidy for them high enough. I ask the Committee to consider the finance of these houses. We understand that the houses are to cost, on an average, £500. Practically speaking, a house cannot be let economically, if you are to allow for rates and taxes and repairs, at much less than 10 per cent. of the capital cost. Therefore, a house that costs £500 must have, economically, a rent in the neighbourhood of £1 a week. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to give a subsidy of 10s. a week for houses in agricultural districts. That means that the agricultural labourer will be called upon to pay a rent in the neighbourhood of 10s. a week, if the houses are to be let on economic lines. Anything in the neighbourhood of 10s. a week, even 6s. or 7s., is totally beyond the capacity of the ordinary agricultural labourer to pay.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: Unless he gets more wages.
    Viscount WOLMER: There is nothing in the policy of the Socialist party that is going to give him more wages. I do not want to be drawn into a discussion of the Agricultural Wages Board. I shall have the privilege of discussing that with hon. Members to-morrow. There is nothing in the Agricultural Wages Bill or in any other proposal of the Government that will give agricultural labourers a living wage, and no one knows that better than the agricultural labourers themselves, as has been shown in recent by-elections. This subsidy of 10s. a week for a house in an agricultural parish—
    Mr. PRINGLE: Where does the Bill say that the subsidy is 10s. a week?
    Viscount WOLMER: I am sorry, but I am wrong. It is 5s. a week. I find I have been too generous to hon. Members opposite. Perhaps that is a fault on the right side, for I always like to consider

    487
    my hon. Friends opposite with the most lenient eye possible. But this subsidy will not be of any earthly use to agricultural labourers. The wicked landlords, the Tory landlords, in the past housed their agricultural labourers at rents of 1s., 2s., 3s. and 4s. per week, but none of the houses that are to be built under this Bill is to come within measurable distance of that figure. Therefore, the whole of these provisions, from the point of view of the agricultural labourer, are useless, and as much a fraud and sham as the Agricultural Wages Bill.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I had not intended to take part in the discussion, but the noble Lord's speech compels a reply. I wish to say that if he thinks that by his speech he is doing the agricultural labourer any benefit he is in error. I say quite frankly that this Bill, whatever its defects on the urban side, does give the rural districts of the country the first real chance of getting rehousing for labour that there has been in my generation. Although the Noble Lord is now consumed with the desire to benefit the agricultural worker, it is quite impossible, if you are going to build houses in an agricultural parish, to draw a definition of that kind, without imposing very great hardship on men working in agricultural districts whose wages are very little higher than those of the agricultural labourer. My concern is not with the £12 10s., because it is not generous enough, but my concern is to try to widen the definition of an agricultural parish, in order to get inside the definition those villages which are now left out.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. COMYNS-CARR: I beg to move in page 2, line 31, to leave out the words "and (c)."
    Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act provides, as one of the methods b3 which a local authority may assist the promotion of houses in its area, that they may:
    "undertake to provide, during such period as may be specified in the proposals, any part of the periodical sums payable to a building society incorporated under the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1894, or other body or person, by way of interest on or repayment of advances made for the purpose of building a house or purchasing
    488
    a house the construction of which was begun after the twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-three.''
    It seems to me that that is a valuable provision, as an alternative method by which a local authority may assist in the provision of houses in its district, i.e., assist other persons to provide houses in its district. You have now building societies, institutions which in the past have assisted enormously in the provision of houses and have enabled people to acquire their own houses, and if you are going to cut out or reduce in any way the opportunities of their usefully taking part in the operations under this Bill, and the Act of 1923, it seems to rue that you are unnecessarily curtailing the choice of means by which the provision of houses may be assisted. The object of the Amendment is to leave out the words "and (c)," in order that it may still be open to the local authorities who wish to do so to promote the building of houses by means of calling in the aid of building societies and guaranteeing to them the repayment of the whole or part of the instalments which are due to the building societies from the person who builds or requires a house, although it is quite true that the substituted arrangement of a periodical payment does not achieve the same result from the point of view of the building society, because the fact that their tenant receives it and may or may not pay it over to them, not as sound a security to the building society as receiving it direct from the local authority.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: So far as I can see, without having studied the Amendment too carefully, it is an Amendment to which I have no objection. If the Mover will receive my acceptance of it subject to my reconsideration between now and Report, I can tell him that I am inclined to accept it.
    Mr. COMYNS-CARR: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Let the Bill stand as it is, and I will consider the matter before Report.
    Amendment negatived,
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move in page 2, line 32, to leave out the words, "cease to have effect", and to insert instead thereof the words, "not apply."

    489
    As far as I am aware this Amendment does not raise any question of principle but is simply a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg Ix; move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out from the word "let" to the end of line 41.
    This, again, is purely a drafting Amendment, as the words in question are quite unnecessary.
    Sir T. INSKIP: Perhaps the Attorney-General will give us a little more light upon this matter. These words were put in by the Parliamentary draftsman for some purpose, and presumably they are being left out for some purpose. Will the Attorney-General explain why the omission of the words makes no difference? To my limited understanding the omission appears to have some significance.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The real purpose of the omission is this: The words in the Bill at present are, "in accordance with the requirements of this Act," and in point of fact, the paragraph of which these words form part, takes the place of a paragraph of the Act of 1923, rendering the words "this Act" inappropriate. In fact, the words are not wanted at all. If the hon. and learned Member reads through this part of the Clause, he will see that it provides that paragraphs (a) and (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act of 1923 are to cease to have effect, and that the paragraph following is to be substituted for paragraph (b) of the said Sub-section of the Act of 1923. There is no necessity to provide that a house must be let in accordance with the requirements of the 1923 Act. If a house is let, it is sufficient to meet the obligation imposed. The words are unnecessary and embarrassing, and therefore I propose their omission.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. COMYNS-CARR: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, at the end, to insert the words
    "(iii) In Sub-section (4) of Section two, the words from 'and no addition thereto' to the end of the Sub-section shall cease to have effect."
    Sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Act of 1923 is as follows:
    "Assistance given by a local authority under this Section in respect of a house may be made subject to such conditions as the
    490
    local authority may with the approval of the Minister impose, including a condition that during such period as may be specified by the local authority the house shall not be used otherwise than as a separate dwelling-house and no addition thereto or enlargement thereof shall be made without the consent of the local authority.''
    It seems to be bad enough that we should limit the size of the houses which are to be provided under this or the previous Measure, but it is a great deal worse that we should impose upon a man who has got a house a penalty if he improves or enlarges it. My proposal is that the words
    "and no addition thereto or enlargement thereof shall be made without the consent of the local authority"
    should cease to have effect so that there will be no restriction upon a man improving or enlarging his house after he has acquired it. At present he would be prevented from doing so under the provisions of the Act of 1923 as it is proposed to apply them under this Clause. The effect is not to enlarge the subsidy and once the man has the house I see no valid reason why he should not be permitted to enlarge it.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I have no doubt the object of the Mover is a most laudable one, but I would call his attention to the probable effect of the Amendment. If this Amendment were accepted, anyone who was successful in obtaining the services of a good architect could so prepare the plans of a house that the first section of it would come within the provisions of this Bill and would obtain the subsidy on that first section, and he could then proceed from that to continue the erection of the house. I am sure if the hon. Member looks at the matter from that point of view he will see how dangerous it would be to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment This provision was put into the 1923 Act by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) in order to protect his subsidy from being abused in the same way as the subsidy under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act of 1919 was abused, and I think it is a necessary precaution. Although we desire houses of a larger size we do not

    491
    want money to be used for building mansions and diverted from the purpose for which it is really intended.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am rather surprised at the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), who has made so many eloquent pleas for an extension of the size of these houses. I expected he would be in favour of increasing the size even by a side wind, but there is no accounting for the working of—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Liberal mind!"]—of certain people's minds, and this observation is not confined to this section of the Committee, but applies to other hon. Members in other parts of the Committee at other times.
    Sir K. WOOD: I share the surprise of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) at the attitude of the hon.
    Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), who has been going up and down the country and in this House asking for permission under this Bill to allow a subsidy to be paid and for larger houses to be built. Then why does he object to this Amendment? It is true, as the hon. Member for Penistone said; that this would be getting a larger house by a side wind, but the man would not get any larger subsidy on that account, and I hope the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough will explain to this Committee and to his constituents his objection to this Amendment.
    Mr. SUNLIGHT: I would ask my hon. Friend to amend his Amendment so that no addition shall exceed 1,050 super feet.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 237.

    Division No. 158.]

    AYES.

    [8.58 p.m

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Remer, J. R.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Robertson, T. A.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Becker, Harry

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Kedward, R. M.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Burman, J. B.

    Laverack, F. J.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R.(Prtsmth, S.)

    Lord, Walter Greaves

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    MacDonald, R.

    Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

    Cope, Major William

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Meller, R. J.

    Sunlight, J.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Millar, J. D.

    Sutcliffe, T.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Mitchell, R.M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Tattersall, J. L.

    Deans, Richard Storry

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Duckworth, John

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.

    England, Colonel A.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Ferguson, H.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wells, S. R.

    Gates, Percy

    Perring, William George

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Philipson, Mabel

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Harland, A.

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Raine, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Rathbone, Hugh H.

    Captain Viscount Curzon and Sir Kingsley Wood.

    NOES.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Bromfield, William

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Dicksen, T.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Dodds, S. R.

    Alden, Percy

    Brunner, Sir J.

    Dukes, C.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Buchanan, G.

    Duncan, C.

    Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)

    Buckle, J.

    Dunn, J. Freeman

    Alstead, R.

    Cape, Thomas

    Dunnico, H.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Charleton, H. C.

    Edmondson, Major A. J,

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Church, Major A. G.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Clarke, A.

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Baker, Walter

    Climie, R.

    Egan, W. H.

    Banton, G.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Falconer, J.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

    Finney, V. H.

    Barnes, A.

    Compton, Joseph

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Batey, Joseph

    Cory, Sir Clifford

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Black, J. W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Bonwick, A.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Gillett, George M.

    Broad, F. A.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Gosling, Harry

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    McCrae, Sir George

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Macfadyen, E.

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Smillie, Robert

    Greenall, T.

    Maden, H.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    March, S.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Snell, Harry

    Groves, T.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Spence, R.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Maxton, James

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Middleton, G.

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Mills, J. E.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Mond, H.

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Harbord, Arthur

    Montague, Frederick

    Sullivan, J.

    Hardie, George D.

    Morel, E. D.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Morris, R. H.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Muir, John W.

    Thurtle, E.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Murray, Robert

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hayes, John Henry

    Murrell, Frank

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Tout, W. J.

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Nichol, Robert

    Trovelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Turner, Ben

    Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex, Enfield)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Hillary, A. E.

    Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Hindle, F.

    Paling, W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Vivian, H.

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Perry, S. F.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Hodges, Frank

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Warne, G. H.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Potts, John S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Hudson, J. H.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Raffety, F. W.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Welsh, J. C.

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Raynes, W. R.

    Westwood, J.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Rea, W. Russell

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    White, H. G. (Blakenhead, E.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)

    Rendall, A.

    Whiteley, W.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Richards, R.

    Wignall, James

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Ritson, J.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)

    Kenyan, Barnet

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Williams, Maj. A.S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Robinson, w. E. (Burslem)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Lansbury, George

    Ropner, Major L.

    Windsor, Walter

    Law, A.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Royle, C.

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Lawson, John James

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

    Leach, W.

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Wright, W.

    Lessing, E.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Scurr, John

    Lowth, T.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lunn, William

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Allen Parkinson.

    Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move in page 3, line 7, after the word "parish" to insert the words
    "excluding the value of any permanent railway works."
    The particular point in this Amendment, though it might be covered by the next Amendment requires, I submit, to be separately put, and for these reasons: It may be urged, and an abstruse case might be made out, against isolated exemptions on this question of value. The point I want to emphasise is that in this matter of agricultural policy, there is, first of all, left out one-third of the total net annual value. There are also two
    494
    standards—one the rateable value, and the other the population. The effect of inquiries I have made in 15 counties as to the population definition is that the effect of the railways going through a particular parish is particularly on the small hamlets, and the smaller the hamlet the more likely is it to be cut out of the Bill.
    Perhaps the Committee will allow me to give two definite cases which will focus the point I desire to put in relation to the Amendment. There is in the Rugby division two particular hamlets. One named Combe Fields, with a population of 156, and the other named Easenhall,

    495
    with a population of 199. These are large agricultural parishes with small populations, but it so happens that through both of them the London, Midland and Scottish Railway has its main line running. The result is that in Combe Fields, with a population of 156, the agricultural land pays rates of £2,312, the railway pays £5,317, and other properties £1,451. The total rates paid in that parish amount to £9,080, and the agricultural rates are only £2,312, which is less than the required percentage. This is a small hamlet typical of thousands up and down the country where the main lines of our railways run, which are cut off from the possibility of getting this extra £3 10s., so that the, matter affects the many cottages which are required. Take the other case, Easenhall. The payment there is, agricultural land, £957, the railways, £3,552, other property, £900. The total net rateable value is £5,409, so that although this is a purely agricultural parish—it is so in both cases—there is no raiway station at all and no service given by the railways of these places—Combes Fields being 2¼ miles from Brinklow Station—that is how the matter stands. On the basis of the appeal to population they are out, too. Because this railway line happens to run through these particular parishes the definition in the Bill cuts them out. I submit to the Committee as a reasonable thing that in defining the basis of rateable value the value of permanent railway works should be excluded. I do this, not merely for these two parishes, but for the rural areas generally. If rural Members will go into the particular case of their own county areas they will find that railway works have an extraordinary effect, a paradoxical effect, of cutting out the smallest hamlets in the division if it happens that these hamlets happen to have the railway lines running through them. I hope I have been clear in the particulars I have given, and I trust the Minister will give them consideration, for the trouble is one that exists throughout every county in England wherever a main line of railway goes through a small parish.
    Mr. BLACK: I should like to support the Amendment. I do not propose to go into particulars, but I would only say that in the Harborough Division, which I
    496
    represent, there are two main railways that run through the agricultural portion. These are the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and the Great Central, as well as the lines of the North Western running from Leicester to Nuneaton. Particulars that have been supplied by the Minister of Health show, I think, that there will be at least five parishes in the Harborough Division that really are absolutely rural in their character, and liable to be shut out in the list that the Minister has supplied, and this on account of the railways running through, which, of course, does not benefit the parish at all. I should like, if I may, to enforce the appeal made to the Minister to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: This is a very difficult matter, and I have been very desirous, as far as I reasonably could, of helping the agricultural districts in this matter. No matter what basis I could adopt short of providing an absolute rearrangement, I could not hit upon any basis which would not be open to some objection. Any criticisms, I quite admit, that may he levelled at the Bill in any other way, I am sure could be levelled at any proposals which I could reasonably hope to make. I will deal first of all with the proposal in the Amendment with regard to railway property. I am sure hon. Members will realise that that property in some cases contributes very largely to the local rates, and it is perfectly natural that the representatives of the districts affected by my provisions do not think this is in the interests of their constituents, but it is difficult to get the best of two worlds. Already they get the benefit in the shape of local rates from such property. I will give one or two instances. I find there is one parish in which £211 out of a total of £294 raised by the rates comes from railway property.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the benefit derived from the rates does not go to the parish, but to the county.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I was under the impression that this contribution went towards the parish expenses.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us the name of the parish he has referred to?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: No, I cannot give the name. It is a case where £211 out of a total of £294 is paid by railway property. In another ease £408 out of a total of £853 is paid by such property. In other words, this class of property in these two instances represents 72 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the total rates. I find practically the same thing in regard to institutions. In one parish with 371 inhabitants 231 are in institutions, which pay £302 out of a total of £448 raised by the rates. I am sure the Committee will agree that there will be considerable difficulties in the way of administration if this Amendment be carried, if I have to engage a staff to go out and ascertain what sections of the population should be excluded from my consideration in arriving at the definition of an agricultural parish. I am sure I should meet with the greatest possible difficulties.
    It should be borne in mind that if I exclude railway property, or one institution, I am sure that I should be bombarded with applications for the exclusion of other properties and institutions, and it would be very difficult to decide how far a particular property or institution benefited a particular parish in which it was situated. That is a difficult point in regard to administration which I have to avoid. I have proceeded on the assumption that it is better to take an easy understandable basis which does not necessitate the employment of a staff of investigators to give me the necessary information. The basis I have adopted is one by which I can obtain all my information from sources at my disposal, and that is why I have taken the basis adopted in the Bill. I think I can show that I have taken a very generous view of this matter. The average population for agricultural parishes is only 24 per 100 acres, whereas I have taken 33. The annual net value of agricultural land, on the other hand, in agricultural parishes is 38˙1 for England and Wales, and I have taken 33⅓. So that, both in regard to the annual value of the land and population I have taken a generous estimate in regard to agricultural districts. I may say that I am prepared to go further and accept the Amendment, which proposes to increase the ratio of population from 35 to 50, and I think that will go some way to meet the case put in favour of this Amendment.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment has raised a very important question, but I am not quite sure that the concession just announced will meet the ease. The whole foundation of the Bill is the provision of houses at cheap rents for those who cannot afford to pay the higher rents. This is not a Bill for house building, but it is one to provide a subsidy in relief of rent for those who cannot afford to pay the higher rents now being charged. The essence of this Clause is that there should be a larger allowance to the agricultural labourer because his wages are much lower than those in ordinary industrial work, and he is in fact not in a position to pay the same amount of rent as his co-worker in other industries. The position as it has been left by the Minister of Health is that he does not base his case upon rent, and he is not going to give this assistance because the labourer is poor, but because he happens to live in one parish and not in another. Take the case of the railway which goes through some parishes, and the case which has been given where railway property contributes 72 per cent. of the total rates. That does not affect the wages of the agricultural labourer who remains just as poor and has just as small a wage even though a railway runs through his parish.
    Take the case raised in the other Amendments which no doubt the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. E. Brown) is going to move. What difference does it make to an agricultural labourer earning 25s. a week whether there is or is not a lunatic asylum in his parish, because his income remains the same, and it makes no difference if there happens to be any of these fanciful amenities to a parish which raise the rateable value. You may have a railway, waterworks, lunatic asylums or any other institutions, and they may raise the rateable value of the parish, but they do not make it any easier for the agricultural labourer to pay the rent of his house.
    We know that some of these institutions employ a good many men. I live for part of the year in a large agricultural county where the men warders from these institutions swarm into the agricultural parishes and get hold of the cottages, and this makes it more difficult for the agricultural worker to get a

    499
    cottage at any price. The only possible Amendment the right hon. Gentleman can make—and I ask him to reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage—is to make this higher allowance apply to all agricultural workers. This artificial distinction about the railways and the rateable value does not have the slightest effect upon the agricultural labourer. I am sure the whole House is anxious to provide a cottage at a rent which the agricultural worker can afford to pay, and it is not treating the matter fairly to make one agricultural labourer pay a higher rent or have an allowance of £9 whilst another agricultural labourer on a farm in another parish may get an allowance of £12. The thing will not work and it will create jealousies in all the country parishes. I do not know whether the Mover of this Amendment is going to press it to a Division or not, and it is not always easy to know what is going to happen in the case of Amendments from that quarter. I want the Minister to consider the matter between now and the Report stage. We are anxious that if this Bill is to go through that it should be a success. If the Bill is going through let it be passed in such a form as will remove inequalities. Here we have an opportunity of making it fairer. I ask him to consider the matter with a view to doing that.
    Mr. E. BROWN: My name is down to all four Amendments and perhaps I may—
    The CHAIRMAN: I have taken this Amendment. With reference to the others I cannot allow discussion.
    Mr. BROWN: May I suggest, on a point of Order, that the Minister has made an offer to the Committee and that offer does not consider this Amendment but a further one, and if I am to make up my mind whether I shall—
    The CHAIRMAN: So far as I am concerned, there is only the Amendment I have put to the Committee.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I make a suggestion to facilitate business? I have frequently seen it done. The Chairman has allowed two or three Amendments to be discussed together on the distinct understanding that no further
    500
    speeches are made, but a Division taken, if necessary, on the succeeding Amendments.
    The CHAIRMAN: If that is to be the understanding, I should agree to it, but not otherwise. I could not, allow the hon. Member to discuss the other Amendments.
    Mr. BROWN: As far as I am concerned that is what I was going to do. All I am concerned with is my duty to my own constituents, and I shall do that quite regardless of what Members in other parts of the Committee think of my action. I have raised the point, because all I wish to do is to make this Bill work, and I think it can be made to work. Take the point about public buildings. We have all kinds of public buildings in our constituencies. There is in the Tiverton division the parish of Exminster, which is purely agricultural, with a population of 2,711. Of that population there are 197 officials and families and 1,327 inmates of an asylum there. Because that asylum is in that parish this parish will not be an agricultural parish. In Warwick and Leamington there happens to be Warwick County Asylum. You have the village of Hatton with a population of 1,524.
    Mr. BLUNDELL: Is the hon. Gentleman in order in taking the bread out of all of our mouths?
    Mr. BROWN: In that asylum there are 1,200 people and official families. The result is that if is out. Now take Prince-town in Devonshire, which happens to have, in the parish of Lydford, a prison with 250 officials and families and 1,121 prisoners. Because that happens to be in that parish, the parish is not an agricultural parish for the purpose of the Bill. With regard to the other points, I am sincerely grateful to the Minister for accepting the Amendment with regard to raising the number of 35 persons per 100 acres to 50. You had the paradox that the railway cuts out small families. The population basis cuts out the large village in most of the rural district councils. I am not concerned with the jealousy between one agricultural worker and another. I am concerned with the administrative difficulty inside the rural district council. There are 31 villages in a certain district council. Ten will come

    501
    out under this definition; two, I have already mentioned, because of railways, and eight because the population is more than 35 and less than 50. Seven of them are below 50. I will just taken one parish to show. In the parish of Brinklow, Rugby, there is an area of 1,487 acres, arid the population average per acre is ·5. The right hon. Gentleman's concession will bring this and others like it within the Bill, and I want to thank him for it. I want to press on him between now and the Report stage to see if he cannot give these other cases consideration. I do urge upon the Minister to consider if ha can not only agree to this concession, and give us at lease the railway one, which is universal and not local, and he will be doing a very great thing to help the working of his Bill in agricultural parishes. I personally wish him very great success in the agricultural parishes.
    Mr. BLUNDELL: I think I owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. E. Brown) for not having attacked my constituency. I would like to reinforce the appeal made to my right hon. Friend to consider the question of the individual agricultural labourer as opposed to the parish as a whole or a district council. I would like to point out to him, on the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby concerning railways, that where a railway passes through a rural district council the benefit of rates derived from that railway goes to the council as a whole, and if any individual parish is excluded from the subsidy because of the rateable value obtained from that railway, that parish is going to be penalised though the district council gets the benefit of the rates. I think that is a point of substance in considering the rateable value part of this definition of an agricultural parish. I also want to call attention to another aspect of the rateable value question which has been touched upon by one of the speakers. In my constituency I have an agricultural parish which contain the following institutions and buildings: a powder factory belonging to the Government, a hospital belonging to the Ministry of Pensions, an epileptic colony, a Poor Law hospital belonging to Liverpool, and an isolation hospital; and the inmates of these various institutions outnumber the inhabitants of that agricul-
    502
    tural parish in the ratio of two to one. It is useless, in my opinion, for the Minister to say that an individual inhabitant of that parish derives benefit from the fact that the rates are paid by these various institutions when he cannot have a contribution for housing which will enable him to get a house at a reasonable rent.
    Another parish in my constituency is Aintree. When people go to that parish by special train, they may think that they are in the City of Liverpool, and they are probably under the impression that the racecourse at Aintree is part of the City of Liverpool. The great body of houses in Aintree are within the City of Liverpool, but the racecourse is in the rural district of Sefton, where there is an aeroplane station as well, and these two institutions—the national institution, where the Grand National is run, and the aeroplane station—make up a very large part of the rateable value of the Parish of Aintree. It is no consolation to the individual agricultural labourer, who wishes to get a cheap house, to be told that he has in his midst that great national institution—the Grand National racecourse—and that, therefore, he cannot have a cheap house. If the Minister will turn to the files in his office he will find a large number of protests from the Parish of Scarisbrick, and a large number of letters from myself, against the establishment of a fever hospital for the County Borough of Southport, at a cost of £70,000, in its midst. That district is not only penalised by having a fever hospital, which it does not want, but on that account it is not going to allowed to get the houses it requires because of the provisions which apply to rural districts in this Bill.
    There is another point I should like to urge upon the Minister. Ever since this Bill has been adumbrated, in our part of Lancashire there has been absolute competition for men who have any acquaintance with the building industry, and various builders, large and small, have been paying a penny or twopence or threepence or fourpence more than the trade union rate in order to get men. As soon as this Bill becomes law great corporations like Liverpool and Manchester will draw off nearly all the available labour for their own housing schemes, and the only way that we in

    503
    rural parishes will be able to get any houses built will be by being able to outbid to some slight extent the big corporations because we get a larger subsidy. Therefore I would urge the right hon. Gentleman strongly to reconsider this matter and see whether he cannot arrive at some definition of an agricultural parish which will not, like his present definition, draw a rough and ready line of rateable value and population, which really has no relation whatever to the needs of the individuals who live in those agricultural parishes. I am not tied to the words of my Amendment on the Paper, but I do ask the Minister to reconsider this matter.
    Mr. ACLAND: I understand we are discussing, and I think very wisely, if I may say so, this and the next three Amendments on the Paper in order to save time. I should like to say a word on the subject in general. I am sorry I cannot agree with the suggestion of my right hon. Friend opposite that it would be possible to work this Clause having regard to whether inmates of houses from time to time are or are not agricultural labourers. It sounds very attractive, but I am satisfied it will not do. After all, it would work both ways. I agree that at present the agricultural labourer has a much lower wage than persons engaged in any other industry. I hope in course of time that may be modified and altered, and that there will not be the same discrepancy between agricultural labourers and other workers in rural parishes. But to go on that basis and only to apply the subsidy to houses occupied by agricultural workers would be difficult. What about the man working in the parish as a blacksmith or as a miller? Is the subsidy to be on a lower level for houses inhabited by those men, and is it to vary from month to month or year to year according to who is the inmate of the house? We are thrown back on the line which the Minister has been discussing in response to the Amendment on the Paper. I am glad to say that I rather sympathise with what the Minister has said as to the first Amendment—the one which is technically before the Committee—that if he began to make a reduction with regard to permanent railway works he would find it extraordinarily difficult to draw the line. We know how unfairly public works are rated by the rating authorities in rural
    504
    districts. Their ratable value bears a high proportion to the rest of the ratable value, and, perhaps, the authorities will in consequence see their way to cut down the unfair rating of these bodies.
    I feel with regard to the second Amendment that I should find it extraordinarily difficult to administer it. It means that if you make a reduction in the case of each parish accordingly as the public or private institutions which are erected there being of any special advantage to the parish, the task of the advisers to the Minister would be most horrible if they had to go through parish by parish and make up their mind, what institution confers advantage and what institution does not confer advantage on the parish and make a reduction in the ratable value in one case and not in the other. But when we come to the other two Amendments we are on easier lines, and I am glad to learn that the Minister of Health is going to accept the third Amendment and put in 50 instead of 35. As to the fourth Amendment I think that, too, might be accepted without landing the Minister in the same sort of difficulty as the first and second Amendment would do. My hon. Friend spoke with regard to asylums. It seems to me that to weigh the population of a parish by the persons sent there for their own good and compulsorily detained in lunatic asylums or convict prisons is an extraordinary way of arriving at the true character of a parish. These persons are not allowed out. They are not an effective part of the population of the parish from the point of view of dealing with the village shops. They have a certain number of keepers to look after them, but that number is small is comparison with the number of convicts or lunatics. If I remember rightly when my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby brought this matter up first in the form of a supplementary question in this House the Minister of Health definitely undertook to give the matter consideration and see whether he could act on the hon. Member's suggestion. It seems to me that it ought to be possible to accept now the fourth of these Amendments at any rate, to insert the words
    "excluding the inmates of any public or private hospital or institution."
    If the Minister really desires to have better words—and I can conceive that better words might be devised—I am

    505
    sure the House would be willing to accept such better words on Report. Take the case of Dartmoor. Anyone who knows the nature of the country surrounding that great convict prison knows that, if anything in the world is rural, that is, and yet, because a certain number of convicts are detained in Dartmoor prison, the parish in which the prison happens to be can no longer be regarded as a rural parish. I am sure the Minister recognises that difficulty, and I suggest that, in order to show his recognition, he should do one of two things—either accept this fourth Amendment now, substituting other words later if he likes, or give the Committee a free vote upon it, again with the option of substituting other words if he can find better words to define exactly what is meant. These persons who are compulsorily detained in His Majesty's institutions or in public asylums really ought not to be counted as the permanent population of a rural district.
    Sir T. INSKIP: This discussion is an illustration of the very useful examination which a Committee of the Whole House can give to a Bill, with the object of showing whether its provisions are really workable. There is one question that I want to ask the Minister in connection with the various suggestions that have been made for arriving at the rateable value of an agricultural parish or rural area. Supposing that a large asylum or institution is suddenly planted in a parish which, up to that time, has been an agricultural parish, and which, by reason of the incursion of the new institution, ceases to be an agricultural parish, that fact will not alter or improve to the extent of a single penny a week the position of any person requiring a house. Is the subsidy to cease to he paid then, or does it continue to be paid? Is it a case of once an agricultural parish always an agricultural parish? It appears to me that in this Bill that point is considerably in doubt, and before we accept any of these Amendments, and particularly the one referred to by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, we ought to know what the exact effect of the Bill is, and what it will he if these Amendments are accepted.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I trust that, before the Minister of Health accepts the proposal put forward by hon. Mem-
    506
    bers opposite, he will give the matter careful consideration. That proposal is that the individual agricultural labourer should be subsidised. That is what it amounts to—that, because the English agricultural labourer is very badly paid, because he only gets 25s. a week, therefore he should be subsidised. To show the difficulty into which that gets us, may I point out that, if it is to be a subsidy, not by kind but by cash—
    Mr. BLUNDELL: I certainly never intended anything of that kind. I was only speaking of the agricultural labourer as the section of the population of a rural parish which most needs benefit. I was not speaking merely in an individual sense.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Other proposals that have been made go a little further. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) proposed that the subsidy should be paid to agricultural labourers because of their poverty, because of their inability to pay a higher rent. Let us see what happens now. It is to be by industry. The agricultural labourer gets 25s. a week in an agricultural village, and his house is going to be subsidised to the extent of £12 10s.; but his neighbour, who is not an agricultural worker, is going to be called upon, through tho local rates, to assist in subsidising his poorer neighbour. Obviously, we cannot have that. It is simply a reversion to the old idea of subsidising poverty by class or by industry.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the hon. Member allow me to say that that is the essence of the Bill—that every roan who is a little above the class which is to receive the benefit of the subsidy on these houses is called upon to pay the subsidy of his poorer neighbour?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Let us be quite fair. The Minister of Health is endeavouring to remedy troubles and grievances that have been accumulating for hundreds of years, and I suppose that no Minister could produce a Measure which is going to be watertight and free from, shall I say, little finicky difficulties such as the right hon. Gentleman is raising. The point I am making is that you cannot go into a village and say to one man, "Your house will get a subsidy of £12 10s.," while the house of his neighbour will not get the

    507
    subsidy. Whatever difficulties may lie before the Minister of Health, I suggest to him that he ought never to accept the proposal offered to him by the right hon. Member for Twickenham. Further, a proposal which is going to give a subsidy to a sweated industry is very dangerous. Instead of abolishing useless charges in the industry of agriculture—and there are many—it is now proposed to subsidise the agricultural labourer's cottage, which is presently provided by the farmer or by the estate. That will not be a subsidy to the agricultural labourer, but to the farmer or to the estate. I suggest to the Minister that he should be very careful before he begins to introduce anything of that kind.
    On the other hand, I do not agree with him when he says that institutions—he did not use these words, but this is the idea—in a rural parish are an unmixed blessing, in that the local authorities get the benefit of the rates. That is true, but there is another side to it. The rural parish may get a sanatorium or an inebriates' home, or something of that kind, dumped down in it. The local authority cannot prevent that, but here are people who come in and acquire residence. I do not know about England, but I do know that in Scotland they can acquire residence after three years. Someone says it is the same in England. Here we have the local authorities in some of these districts piling up their Poor Law rates because of these institutions, over which they have not the slightest control, and I think it is adding insult to injury to say that, once an institution, or a sanatorium, or an inebriates' home, or something of the kind, is dumped down in a rural parish, while the local ratepayers are going to have their rates piled up because of that institution, they should, in addition, be deprived of this extra subsidy of £3 10s.
    Mr. BLUNDELL: That is our point.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I say that on that point I disagree with the Minister, and I would suggest that, before closing his mind on this point—and it is a very large one—he should reserve to himself the decision, and not, finally decide until he comes to the House on the Report stage. He has had the benefit of what has been said in all quarters of the Committee, and
    508
    if he makes up his mind, after further consultation with his Department, that there is no way out of these difficulties other than that he has proposed, there is nothing else for us to do but to accept it. But if after having heard the discussion to-night he comes to the conclusion that there are other ways out, I think it will facilitate the passing of the Bill and make it much more popular in rural districts if he will accept the Amendment. Before he comes to the Report stage I would suggest that when he gives the figures of the number of parishes which would come in under the Bill he should not confine them to England and Wales, but should let us know how many parishes in Scotland would come in for the subsidy. He told us there were 24 to the 100 acres on the average in England. He ought to be able to give us the figures for Scotland too, so that we shall know exactly what we are voting for.
    Mr. GWYNNE: It is difficult to know exactly what the hon. Member does want. He started by saying he did not want the agricultural labourer subsidised, but he went on to support the views we take on this side.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: No, I did not. I distinctly said I hoped the individual agricultural labourer, as a labourer, in the parish would not be subsidised. The other proposal is that he should be subsidised by the parish.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Our point is that you are arranging to subsidise agricultural labourers in certain cases and not in others. We say the way of subsidising is not fair, because if you take two agricultural labourers receiving precisely the same wages, in precisely the same occupation, because in one parish there happens to be built, now or in the future, some institution, or a railway running through it, you are going to treat them differently. The whole idea of the Bill is to subsidise the agricultural labourer. It is quite clear to anyone who knows anything about rural districts that unless the subsidy is given you will not get houses built in rural districts. It is impossible to do it. May I remind the Minister of the Conference of the Rural District Councils Association, in which it was put very strongly to him that if this extra subsidy was given in this unfair way it would simply mean that you would

    509
    get no cottages in the purely agricultural districts, where they were most needed. I suggest that we should have a Division on this point and see who is in favour of supporting agriculturists and who is against it.
    10.0 P. M.
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: It is indeed a matter of great satisfaction that the Minister has promised to give favourable consideration to these Amendments because, after all, the question is not how small a portion of the land of England could be devoted to agricultural housing, but how large a portion, and when we realise the great importance of keeping our agricultural workers on the land we realise that every effort should be maintained to secure good housing for them. Housing legislation for the last 50 years has really done nothing, or very little, for rural housing. Last year we gave a subsidy which resulted in a few houses being built. This Bill gives something. It gives a subsidy of £12 10s., which certainly helps. But if we do not allow these Amendments, it will restrict the Bill in its usefulness. I hope the Minister will be able to accept them.
    Viscount CURZON: I am indeed glad to be able to join my voice to those who have preceded me as representing an urban constituency. So far as I am aware, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) is about the only Member representing a fairly urban constituency who has taken part in the portion of the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is rural!"] At any rate, I should like to speak as representing an urban constituency. It is obvious to me, after listening to the discussion, that the Bill as drawn is likely to bear hardly upon agriculture. It is often said in the country that the interests of urban and rural constituencies are quite different. The interests of the country are really all one, and there is no question of town versus country about this at all. It is as necessary for the welfare of the country that the agricultural labourer should be well off as it is for the town dweller. I would ask the Minister between now and Report to think out better instances than he has so far been able to think out. He has distinguished himself, so far as I am concerned—and I have watched him closely—by paying only cursory attention to the remarks which have been made on
    510
    the subject. He has been very occupied in animated conversation. I am only stating an absolute fact which anyone sitting on this side can see for himself. He has been very occupied while the discussion has been going on. He heard very little of the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling, and I would suggest that the instances he has given us to-night are not very impressive. I asked him the name of the parish of which he gave an instance. He could not do that. Why not? Could he not give us the name of the county, for instance? It would give us a better idea as to the value of an instance when he brings it into the discussion. I would ask him between now and Report to bring us concrete instances and to be able to give us the name of the county, if he likes, but I suggest the parish, unless he is afraid the instance is not quite so good as he thinks it is.

    I should like to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell). I think they are worthy of the most serious attention of the House and of hon. Members opposite. It seems to me to be thoroughly unfair for a great city to dump its institutions down in the middle of a rural area and thereby put that rural area out of court so far as its chance of getting a subsidy is concerned. The hon. Member for Stirling suggested that we were being invited to give a subsidy to a sweated industry. Is that all the sympathy he can spare for the agricultural worker, the worst paid worker in the country? It is just as well that the country should know its friends, and when the hon. Member goes to the country and says: "We are not going to do anything to make your conditions better because they are pretty bad at present and we think we might bring extra pressure to bear on the country as a whole if we keep you down." That will not do his party very much good with the agricultural workers.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Before dealing with the subject of this Amendment, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to one remark made by the right hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland), when he made an appeal to the Minister of Health to leave this Amendment to a free vote of the Committee. On that I should like to ask, who is bound and who is free? I am perfectly clear that we on this side are free. As to hon.

    511
    Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, is it possible that they find the yoke is heavy? With regard to the point we are discussing, I should like to ask the Committee to consider what is the real purpose of this extra subsidy. Is this extra money to be given because of the alleged—it is probably true to a certain extent—extra cost of building in distant areas from towns, or is it given in order to do something for the agricultural labourer? If the latter, which I believe is the real intention, then I want to say with confidence that the proposals of the Government under this Bill will do nothing whatever for the agricultural labourer. If this subsidy is intended for the agricultural labourer, because of the difficulties of the agricultural labourer at the present time, then I want to ask the Minister why he will not provide that this subsidy shall go to help the agricultural labourer.
    I do not believe it has ever been said in these Debates at what rents the right hon. Gentleman considers the houses with the larger subsidy can he let according to his scheme. It is very important that we should know it. I do not think I have ever heard definitely what the Minister thinks will be the actual rent that will be received by the rural district council in an agricultural parish which receives the larger subsidy, and which also pays the amount out of the rates, because from calculations by friends of mine who are capable of making such calculations, it appears that the rent, at any rate, will not be anything under 5s. 6d. or 6s. a week. Is that a rent the agricultural labourer can pay? Houses have been built in agricultural districts under the last two schemes. Agricultural workers have not been living in the houses built under the Addison scheme. Very worthy people, no doubt, are living in them, but not the agricultural workers. In the houses under the private enterprise scheme agricultural workers are not living, and are not likely to live. This scheme holds out some hope to the agricultural worker, but, like hope deferred, it will make their hearts sick.
    If hon. Members opposite think that agricultural workers are going to look with pleasure at the present time to paying 6s. 6d. a week for a house, they are very much mistaken. In the past they
    512
    have paid, not an economic rent, but a rent ranging from 1s. 6d. to 3s. Houses in the past have been provided by the landowner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is an absolute fact. They have been provided as part of the equipment of a holding, and not let at an economic rent. The consequence is that you have these houses let to the agricultural workers at from 1s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a week all over the country, and through legislation, for which I am not going to thrown blame about, the landowner has been so impoverished that he can no longer afford it. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh, but they do not know anything about the subject. People cannot go on receiving 2 per cent. or 2½ per cent., or nothing, on their money, and pay Income Tax and Super-tax of 6s. in the £.
    Mr. STURROCK: In view of the possibility of a late sitting, are we to take it that the Committee is to be allowed to range over the whole economic arguments?
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): The hon. Member is travelling rather wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I should not have travelled one inch wide of the Amendment if it had not been for the temptation held out by hon. Members opposite; but I suppose it is our duty to resist temptation as far as possible. I come back to the point that agricultural workers have not received houses under past schemes subsidised by the State.
    Mr. G. SPENCER: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is in order in discussing questions of the £12 10s.? Has not that already been decided? Is not the question before us what is an agricultural parish?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is arguing that the definition of a parish ought to he extended, but his arguments have ranged rather too far.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am very sorry, but I had no intention of allowing my arguments to range too far. I do not think they have ranged further than previous statements made on all sides of the Committee. They have certainly not ranged any further than those of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston).
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to keep to the Amendment.
    Mr. ROBERTS: As I am not allowed to continue dealing with the arguments raised by others, I will conclude by saying it does not appear to me to matter very much what sort of restrictions you put, how you select one agricultural parish from another, if you refrain from accepting the principle that these houses are to be provided for agricultural workers. The Minister should have power to sanction and give a subsidy in agricultural parishes, whatever the rateable value, whatever the size of the village, when he is satisfied that these houses are needed for agricultural workers, and that the local council will provide them for that purpose.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope neither in length of eloquence nor range of subject to challenge the hon. Gentleman opposite in the few remarks I shall make on the question at issue. Like the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), I am the only urban Member, I think, who has taken part in the discussion on this side, and, although I agree with much that he has said, I should like completely to dissociate myself from his attack on the Minister of Health, which, I think, was quite an unfair attack. When, in the process of time, the Noble Lord's party finds itself in office, and he himself is in the position of running a complicated Bill, he will find it rather more necessary to take legal advice.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman keeping within the scope of the Amendment?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better keep strictly to the Amendment.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I can assure you, Mr. Entwistle, it was only a passing remark excited by an observation on the apposite side. On the main point at issue, I submit that if there is any alternative between the two schemes, one on the main lines on which the Bill is built, and the other the suggestions which have been made from the Front Bench opposite, one to include special subsidies to agricultural parishes and the other to try to subsidise the houses of individual agricultural
    514
    labourers, I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston). There is no possibility of working subsidies spread over 40 years and controlled by the Minister of Health for cottages which may or may not from time to time be inhabited by men who are or have been agricultural labourers. Therefore, I should rule that out of any discussion on the Amendments before the Committee.
    I appeal to my right hon. Friend to accept all the four Amendments, or if he cannot see his way to accept them to allow the House a free vote. If he then finds that the general sense of the house is in favour of these Amendments on the Report stage the House would be willing to consider any verbal alterations that may be necessary. It seems to me that the case has been made out overwhelmingly, especially in the brilliant speech of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. E. Brown) and the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell). We keep appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider things on the Report stage. There are now about twenty Amendments, at least, which he has promised to reconsider on the Report stage. The result will be that the Report stage, which may not come for a week or two, will be as long as the Committee stage; that we wish to avoid.
    We have sufficient facts before us now of which to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for the acceptance of these Amendments, tentatively, or to allow the Committee freely to divide. In any event, my friends and I propose to divide. The only difference between ourselves and hon. Members opposite is that they keep a Socialist Government in power when they are wrong, and we keep them in power when they are right. I know that my right hon. Friend has very much at heart the redemption of the deplorable conditions of housing in rural areas, which has been reported on and condemned by Committee after Committee, so long ago as 1908, when we used to frame Bills at the time when I was sitting on the Front Government Bench. [Laughter.] Bills which were sedulously opposed or obstructed by hon. Members now in opposition, who are cheering me. If subsidies are to be given, these are the people who need the subsidies more than any other body of people. It seems

    515
    to me monstrous, and I cannot see how we can face the country, if we say that we have voted for one particular agricultural parish to be allowed to have fairly decent houses built, with a decent subsidy, and that another parish which is equally agricultural, through no fault of its own, is to be deprived of the subsidy. It is an indefensible proposition, and I know that in heart the right hon. Gentleman is with me. I do ask him to accept the four Amendments now, reserving to himself the right of putting them into such form as would be suitable, and we could agree to the necessary verbal alterations on the Report stage.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: May I remind the Committee of what the result would be if I responded to the eloquent appeal made by the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman). Take the Amendment, which seeks to insert the words, "excluding all property in the occupation of the Crown," etc. Supposing I accept that in its entirety, and exclude Crown lands, then what would be the effect? I should immediately exclude from participation a large number of parishes that come in at present. Speaking from memory, I think that I should, in Wiltshire for example, exclude five parishes which are eligible for the grant. I mention that merely to show the difficulties with which we have to contend. These administrative difficulties are matters to which all sections of the Committee, I am sure, will give some attention, whatever their political or constituency bias in regard to the scheme of the Bill. I have gone into this matter very carefully, and I have made what I thought was a very reasonable and generous offer. The hon. Member, after I had made it, stated that of eight parishes in which he was personally interested, the concession would meet the case of seven.
    Mr. E. BROWN: Seven out of 10.
    Colonel ROUNDELL: It is just as important to the people of these parishes.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Yes, but it is just as important to the people whom I would exclude if I accepted the Amendments. It is not practicable to give the higher subsidy, merely because the applicant for the house is an agricultural labourer. You must accept some basis, and if you
    516
    do, you will always have hard cases. I want the Committee to be reasonable in this matter. If there is any particular kind of institution, which would not lead us, say, from an asylum to a hospital or from a prison to some ether institution, and so on, which can be excluded without creating any of these administrative difficulties, and which would bring relief to particular parishes or to parishes generally, then I will consider whether that institution, if we can find it, can be dealt with on the Report stage. I think that that is as far as the Committee might reasonably ask me to go.
    Mr. BROWN: There is a slight difference in this case. This is not the case of individual hardship. The question of railways is universal in its application throughout the country. It cuts out innumerable little hamlets.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: If I said that I would take railways would I not have immediately the advocates of some other form of property. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I have said that I will ascertain whether there is any form of property, institution or otherwise, which I could, without raising administrative difficulties, treat as an additional concession.
    Viscount WOLMER: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman merely shows what a hopeless basis this is upon which to grant the subsidy. What would be the difficulty? You would merely require the clerk of the local authority to certify that, of the council houses so many were in the occupation of agricultural labourers. That is all that would be required. The right hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland) and the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) say that it is impossible to adopt the suggestion made from this side, but there is no administrative difficulty about it at all. You merely ask the local authority to certify every year, when it is applying for the subsidy, how many of the houses are occupied by agricultural labourers, and then you have done all that you want to do. The moment that you try to classify agricultural or non-agricultural parishes you get involved in hopeless difficulties which will cause grave injustice to many parishes, however you draw your definition.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not given

    517
    us all that we asked. There are other Amendments on which, I am afraid, we shall have to divide against him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—whatever we may think of the company in which we may find ourselves. As the Minister of Health recognises genuinely the difficulty, and as he is willing to put into the Bill the concession which he has made as to the number in the parish, and as he has promised to bring up some Amendment on Report—if it is unsatisfactory we can divide upon it—I hope that the
    Mover of the Amendment will accept that assurance
    Mr. BROWN: White I want to impress upon the Minister that this question is really vital all over the country, I beg, in view of what has been said, to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: No.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The committee divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 255.

    Division No. 159.]

    AYES.

    [10.28 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Gates, Percy

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gould, James C. (Cardiff, Central)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Pease, William Edwin

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Beckett, Sir Gervase

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Perring, William George

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Philipson, Mabel

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Raine, W.

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Reid, D. P (County Down)

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Harland, A.

    Remer, J. R.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Burman, J. B.

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Savery, S. S.

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth.S.)

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Smith-Carlngton, Neville W.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Stewart, Maj. R. S.(Stockton-on-Tees)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Sutcliffe, T.

    Cope, Major William

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Cory, Sir Clifford

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Lane-Fox, George R.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    Laverack, F. J.

    Waddington, R.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Linfield, F. C.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Wells, S. R.

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Lord, Walter Greaves

    Weston, John Wakefield

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    MacDonald, R.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Deans, Richard Storry

    McLean, Major A.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Elliot, Walter E.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    England, Colonel A.

    Meller, R. J.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Mr. Blundell and Mr. S. Roberts.

    Ferguson, H.

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    NOES.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Harney, E. A.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Potts, John S.

    Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Pringle, W. M. R.

    Alstead, R.

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Raffan, P. W.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Haycock, A. W.

    Raffety, F. W.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Hayday, Arthur

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Ayles, W. H.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Rathbone, Hugh H.

    Baker, Walter

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A.(Burnley)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Banton, G.

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Rea, W. Russell

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

    Rendall, A.

    Barnes, A.

    Hillary, A. E.

    Richards, R.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hindle, F.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Black, J. W.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Ritson, J.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)

    Bonwick, A.

    Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hodges, Frank

    Robertson, T. A.

    Broad, F. A.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Bromfield, William

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hudson, J. H.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Brunner, Sir J.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Royle, C.

    Buckle, J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Cape, Thomas

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Chapple, Dr. William A.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Scurr, John

    Church, Major A. G.

    Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Clarke, A.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Climie, R.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartiepools)

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Compton, Joseph

    Kedward, R. M.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Keens, T.

    Smillie, Robert

    Costello, L. W. J.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Cove, W. G.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Darbyshire, C. W.

    Lansbury, George

    Snell, Harry

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Law, A.

    Spence, R.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Lawson, John James

    Spero, Dr G. E.

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Leach, W.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Dickson, T.

    Lessing, E.

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Dodds, S. R.

    Lowth, T.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Duckworth, John

    Lunn, William

    Sullivan, J.

    Dukes, C.

    McCrae, Sir George

    Sunlight, J.

    Duncan, C.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Dunn, J. Freeman

    McEntee, V. L.

    Tattersall, J. L.

    Dunnico, H.

    Macfadyen, E.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Mackinder, W.

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Egan, W. H.

    Maden, H.

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

    March, S.

    Thurtle, E.

    Falconer, J.

    Marley, James

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Finney, V. H.

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Franklin, L. B.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Tout, W. J.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Maxton, James

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Turner, Ben

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Middleton, G.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Millar, J. D.

    Viant, S. P.

    Gillett, George M.

    Mills, J. E.

    Vivian, H.

    Gorman, William

    Mitchell, R.M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Mond, H.

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Montague, Frederick

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Greenall, T.

    Morel, E. D.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Morris, R. H.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis

    Morrison, R. C, (Tottenham, N.)

    Webb, Rt. Hen. Sidney

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Welsh, J. C.

    Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.

    Muir, John W.

    Westwood, J.

    Groves, T.

    Murray, Robert

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Murrell, Frank

    White, H. G (Birkenhead, E.)

    Guest, Capt.Hn.F.E.(Glouestr., Stroud)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Whiteley, W.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Nichol, Robert

    Wignall, James

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Harbison, Thomas James S.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Palmer, E. T.

    Williams,. Maj. A.S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)

    Hardie, George D.

    Perry, S. F.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    520

    521

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Wright, W.

    Mr. Warne and Mr. Allen

    Windsor, Walter

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Parkinson.

    Wintringham, Margaret

    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell) desire formally to move the next Amendment on the Paper?—[In page 3, line 7, to leave out from the word "basis" to end of Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words
    "excluding all property in the occupation of the Crown, and all public or private hospitals and institutions and buildings erected for the public service or for public purposes conferring no special advantage on the parish concerned."]
    Mr. BLUNDELL: In view of what the Minister said in regard to the difficulty of dealing with property in the occupation of the Crown. I do not propose to ask for a Division on this Amendment, but if the hon. Members below the Gangway opposite would like one, I should be very pleased to ask for it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not move.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, to leave out the word "thirty-five," and to insert instead thereof the word "fifty."
    Mr. WHEATLEY: This Amendment is accepted.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. BLUNDELL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, at the end, to insert the words
    "excluding the inmates of any public or private hospital or institution."
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 255.

    Division No. 160.]

    AYES.

    [10.40 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Deans, Richard Storry

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Duckworth, John

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lane-Fox, George R.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Laverack, F. J.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Elliot, Walter E.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase

    Elvedon, Viscount

    Linfield, F. C.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Eyres-monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Lord, Waiter Greaves

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godiray

    Lumley, L. R.

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Ferguson, H.

    MacDonald, R.

    Bourne, Robert Croft

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    McLean, Major A.

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Gates, Percy

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Meller, R. J.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Gould, James C. (Cardiff, Central)

    Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Burman, J. B.

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Moulton, Major Fletcher

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth.S.)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Oman Sir Charles William C.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Harland, A.

    Pease, William Edwin

    Clayton, G. C.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Perring, William George

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Philipson, Mabel

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Cope, Major William

    Hogbin, Henry Cairns

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Cory, Sir Clifford

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

    Raine, W.

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Romer, J. R.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A, U.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Ropier, Major L.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Howard, Hon. D.(Cumberland, North)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Daikeith, Earl of

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Savery, S. S.

    Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)

    Tichfield, Major the Marquess of

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)

    Waddington, F.

    Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Stewart, Ma). R. S.(Stockton-on-Tees)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wells, S. R.

    Sutcliffe, T.

    Weston, John Wakefield

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.

    Mr. Blundell and Mr. Lamb.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    NOES.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Grenfell, D. F. (Glamorgan)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis

    Maxton, James

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Meyler, Lieut-Colonel H. M.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.

    Middleton, G.

    Allen, F. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)

    Groves, T.

    Millar, J. D.

    Alstead, R.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Mills, J. E.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Guest, Capt.Hn.F.E.(Gloucstr.,Stroud)

    Mitchell, R.M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Mond, H.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Montague, Frederick

    Baker, Walter

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Morel, E. D.

    Ranters, G.

    Harbison, Thomas James S.

    Morris, R. H.

    Barclay, R. Noton

    Harbord, Arthur

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hardie, George D.

    Morrison, F. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Barnes, A.

    Harney, E. A.

    Muir, John W.

    Batey, Joseph

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Murray, Robert

    Black, J. W.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Murrell, Frank

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Bonwick, A.

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Nichol, Robert

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Nixon, H.

    Broad, F. A.

    Haycock, A. W.

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Bromfield, William

    Hayday, Arthur

    Oliver, George Harold

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Oliver, P. M (Manchester, Blackley)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Paling, W.

    Brunner, Sir J.

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Buchanan, G.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Perry, S. F.

    Buckle, J.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Hillary, A. E.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Cape, Thomas

    Hindle, F.

    Potts, John S.

    Chapple, Dr. William A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Pringle, W. M, R.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Raffan, P. W.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

    Raffety, F. W.

    Clarke, A.

    Hodges, Frank

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Climie, R.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Rathbone, Hugh H.

    Close, W. S.

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hudson, J. H.

    Rea, W. Russell

    Compton, Joseph

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Rendall, A.

    Costello, L. W. J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Richards, R.

    Cove, W. G.

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Ritson, J.

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Robertson, T. A.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Robinson, S W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Dickson, T.

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Dodds, S. R.

    Kedward, R. M.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Dukes, C.

    Keens, T.

    Royle, C.

    Duncan, C.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Dunn, J. Freeman

    Kirkwood, D.

    Samuel, H. Waiter (Swansea, West)

    Donnico, H.

    Lansbury, George

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Law, A.

    Scurr, John

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Sexton, James

    Egan, W. H.

    Lawson, John James

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

    Leach, W.

    Sherwood, George Henry

    England, Colonel A.

    Lessing, E.

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Falconer, J.

    Lowth, T.

    Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)

    Finney, V. H.

    Lunn, William

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Franklin, L. B.

    McCrae, Sir George

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

    Smillie, Robert

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Macfadyen, E.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Mackinder, W.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Gillett, George M.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Snell, Harry

    Gorman, William

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Spence, F.

    Gosling, Harry

    Madan, H.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    March, S.

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Marley, James

    Stephen, Campbell

    Greenall, T.

    Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincld'ne, E.)

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    524

    525

    Sullivan, J.

    Vivian, H.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Sunlight, J.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E,)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)

    Tattersall, J. L.

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Williams, Maj. A.S. (kent, Sevenoaks)

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Warne, G. H.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)

    Windsor, Walter

    Thurtle, E.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Welsh, J. C.

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Westwood, J.

    Wright, W.

    Tout, W. J.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

    Turner, Ben

    Whiteley, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Varley, Frank B.

    Wignall, James

    Sir Frederick Hall and Mr. Allen

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, A. (York, W. B., Sowerby)

    Parkinson.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, after the word
    "shall" to insert the words
    "after reference to the appropriate local authority.''
    In bringing forward this Amendment I do not cast any reflection upon the ornament on the Front Bench, but it is a very important question as to whether a parish is to be taken as a rural parish should be, referred to some local authority, such as the London County Council.
    It is a very big responsibility for the Minister, and I think it should be decided by some local authority which has real knowledge of the circumstances. In several of the last Amendments we had very animated discussions as to what constitutes a rural district and how question of an institution or a railway in a particular village affected the question. Under this Clause as it is drawn in the Bill the Minister is the sole arbiter, and I think before this final decision is given the local authority should be asked to give their opinion on the matter.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I want to suggest to the hon. Member that there is really no need for the insertion of those words. In actual fact the Minister could not determine without consulting the local authorities. He would apply to local authorities for the facts, and on that statement he would make his judgment. If the hon. Member could have suggested any other way in which it was possible for the Minister to determine, I might be disposed to consider it. I see no reason for it.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Supposing the Minister of Health does not consult the local authority, what protection is there in the absence of these words?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: My advice is that there are no words that could be regarded as absolutely harmless in a Bill. Any information the Minister could possibly get by these words being inserted he would require to get.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Might I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should try by the Report stage to find some means of assistance with regard to his own judgment. It is admitted by the, Minister that there is bound to be hardship on one line or the other and in regard to many individuals, hardship with regard to agricultural parishes. The Minister claims in the Bill as now drawn that he should have the absolute decision, and no appeal of any kind is given to anybody. I suggest that, before arriving at a decision, he should at least consult the county council; that he should have a reference to them and a report from them whether or not they consider the particular parish an agricultural parish. They would be removed from local feeling such as might affect the parish council or even the district council. They would take a much larger view of the whole question than the local bodies would be likely to do. Take a parish in the County of Yorkshire. Surely the County Council of Yorkshire would be able to give the right hon. Gentleman a better opinion whether a particular parish is or is not an agricultural parish than anything that he could get out of his own head or even out of the heads of his staff? I hope he will consider this point. I have not a form of words ready, but I am sure if he desires to make this a workable Bill he must carry with him the county councils. Let him see whether he cannot arrive at some form of words which will enable the matter to be referred to the county council.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: This is not a question of opinion at all. It is a question of fact. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a solitary reason for my coming to any other decision than I have done?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, I am not prepared to leave the whole matter to the determination of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has given a reason which has no bearing on the present difficulty, because, after all, the decision will have to be the decision of the Minister himself. I do not think it really matters if the Amendment is accepted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, at the end, to insert the words
    "In an agricultural parish no more than eight houses shall be built to the acre."
    The aim of this Amendment is to provide that every house built under this scheme shall have at least on the average one-eighth of an acre of ground as garden. I know of many agricultural workers who would rather live in a poor house with a good garden than in a good house with no garden at all. I think I have taken quite enough of the time of the Committee this evening, and so I will content myself with merely saying, with regard to this Amendment, that I have put questions to the Minister with regard to the advice now given to local authorities when building houses. The advice given is that they should only build eight houses to the acre, and the object of my Amendment is to give that advice statutory force because too often such advice is disregarded by what I may call without offence pre-Victorian rural district councils. I want to see a good garden given to every agricultural labourer's home, for nothing is more likely to make him contented.
    11.0 P. M.
    Viscount WOLMER: I should like very strongly to support this Amendment. There is nothing more important in regard to the housing of the people of this country than ample gardens, and I would point out that this proposal is not going to add appreciably to the cost of the houses, because the cost of agricultural land is so small that, with eight houses
    528
    to the acre, the land will represent but a very small portion of the cost of the house. In the village in which I live, a little slum was erected about 20 years ago, in a totally unnecessary way, by a small builder, and I am sure that that must be the experience of many hon. Members. It is largely through lack of imagination and enterprise. A man buys an acre or two of land and crowds 12, 15 or 20 houses upon it, when there is plenty of land all round, very often without even going to the trouble of asking the neighbouring landowners to sell him a little more land in order that he may extend his houses. That is the cause of some of the worst housing in our countryside. This Amendment would make that sort of thing impossible, and at practically no increase in cost. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept it.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I propose to accept this Amendment, but I think the Committee will agree that I shall be safer in bringing up a new Clause on the Report stage giving effect to the proposal. I do not agree with those who say that in adopting that course I am providing facilities for increased oratory at a later stage, because I am sure the good sense of the House will prevail when they see the Clause. I want to take this Amendment in conjunction with another which I propose to accept, limiting the number of houses to be erected in an urban district to 12 to the acre. I would point out that, as has been mentioned by the Mover of the Amendment, this is not any departure from the policy that is now adopted by progressive local authorities. In urban districts at present propressive authorities do not exceed, or only very rarely exceed, 12 houses to the acre. The advice of the Ministry of Health to them is that they should not exceed that number unless there are special reasons for doing so, and they can-got build more than 20 to the acre without our consent. In the Clause which I shall submit to the House I will limit the number to 12 without the consent of the Ministry of Health, and, as I have said, to eight in a rural district. What weighs with me is that we are embarking on a scheme which I think we all hope will result in the erection of a large number of houses, and I think chat a proper layout is at least as important as the size of

    529
    the houses; and I hope that one of the results of this Bill will be to give us a good lay-out in the case of these working-class houses. I regard this Amendment as a contribution to the Bill, and I accept it.
    Mr. BROWN: I thank the right hon. Gentleman fm what he has said, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. GWYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman tells us he is accepting the Amendment to limit it to eight houses to the acre in agricultural parishes and he is going to accept another Amendment which will limit it to twelve in urban districts. What limitation is there to agricultural parishes which be does not look upon as agricultural, which come within the terms of the Bill?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: The Clause I propose to submit will cover all houses whether subject to special conditions or not.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Under which Clause will those houses come in agricultural parishes which are really agricultural, but which the right hon. Gentleman does not look upon as agricultural?
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: The numbers are eight and twelve, but I understand in both cases the Minister in his discretion may allow a larger number.
    Colonel GRETTON: May I point out to hon. Members opposite that if they withdraw all their Amendments there will be no Report stage.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow hon. Members to speak unless leave to withdraw is refused.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: On a paint of Order. The Minister said he would accept the Amendment. Are we not therefore discussing the Amendment?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the Minister said he would accept the Amendment in other words which lie would introduce on Report. On that the hon. Member asked leave to withdraw, but the Committee can refuse it. Is it the wish of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?
    HON. MEMBERS: No.
    Mr. VIVIAN: I should like to submit a point in connection with land for
    530
    cottages—the importance, as far as possible, of arranging that larger areas still should be available for cottages. I had the privilege of sitting on the Housing Committee in 1906–7, and it might be of interest if I quoted a paragraph from our Report, indicating the value the Committee attached to the question of land attached to cottages:
    "There is abundant evidence to show that the difficulty of rent would be largely diminished by the addition of land to the cottage. The labourers and others who gave evidence before the Housing Commission of 1885 on the subject said the men could pay higher rents, and would he pleased to do so, if land, arable or pasture were attached to the dwelling. One witness of considerable experience, while admitting the difficulty of paying rent for good cottages alone, said it was easier to pay a fair rent for land and cottage together. He considered the two to be so necessary that he declined to consider them apart. The above evidence as to the great value to the labourers of small plots of land to supplement their wages has been amply confirmed by the evidence received by this Committee."

    I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whenever he is dealing with the rural problem of housing to try to secure that these groups of cottages should not be confined to areas where there are small gardens of the type my hon. Friend has in mind, but where it is also possible for these labourers to get hold of a quarter, a half or even an acre of land if they desire it. I am conscious that all labourers do not desire it, but the key, to a large extent, to the agricultural problem is to provide the land step by step from a quarter of an acre, if necessary, up to two or three acres. The agricultural problem in regard to housing should be thought of in that connection. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to bear that in mind.
    Viscount CURZON: There is one very small point, but a very material point in connection with this I would like to submit to the Minister, and that is with regard to the question of roads. The wider you spread the houses, while we have every sympathy with this, the more difficult will the problem of roads become and the extra the burden on the rates. I have every sympathy with the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Vivian), but we ought not to lose sight of possible difficulties with regard to the roads.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will give pause

    531
    before committing himself to the actual wording of an Amendment such as this. I am sure nobody will accuse me of being backward in this direction. I only ask the Committee to recognise what they are doing. We accept, generally, 12 houses to the acre as being ideal for health, apart from allotments or fields to work. It is not proposed to have eight to the acre because of conditions of health. The villagers like to have their few houses close together. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Perhaps hon. Members who are questioning that statement do not know village life. As a housing reformer, and as a medical officer of health who knows village life, I repeat that villagers themselves like to live closely together, largely for the sake of their womenfolk, their children and themselves, so as to be near the school, the church, some of them, and near one or two shops and public-houses in the village. I am all in favour of those houses not being crowded together too much—12 to the acre—and of having attached to them, in a convenient site, a proper holding for them to cultivate, as well as their garden, but the proper site to get a holding will not be round the village street or round the cluster of houses on the green. A single field divided up amongst the villagers may afford better tilling than to have strips at the backs of their houses. So long as there is a proper provision of land available for those who live in those houses, it is quite unnecessary to insist on the houses being so arranged that you have got to have only eight to the acre.
    Mr. G. EDWARDS: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but after the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), who claims to have full knowledge of the rural worker, I cannot allow his remarks to go unchallenged. I know what I am talking about. He said that the rural workers wanted to have their houses together and their allotments away from their houses. I flatly contradict that statement. I would rather have six houses to the acre than eight houses as suggested in the Amendment, which hon. Members opposite refuse to allow to be withdrawn. One thing that the labourer does want is a garden close to his house. Does the hon. and gallant Member want the labourer to
    532
    have to walk half a mile when his day's work is done in order to cultivate his allotment? I hope the Minister of Health will not accept the suggestion of 12 houses to the acre. We do not want such slum conditions in rural areas we want plenty of air, and plenty of garden, so that the labourer can grow vegetables for himself and family.
    Mr. L. JONES: The right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the Amendment on the understanding that it is withdrawn, but the Opposition refuse to allow it to be withdrawn. I suggest that we should insert the words now and alter them on Report, if necessary. That will not worsen the position, and it will have this advantage, that it will not put the Committee in a false position by our having to vote against an Amendment with which we are in agreement.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. BLACK: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, to leave out sub-section (3), and to insert instead thereof the following new sub-section:
    "(3) This Section and the contributions payable by the Minister thereunder shall apply to houses provided by a county council under Section eight of The Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act, 1919, for persons in their employment or paid by them or by a statutory committee thereof in like manner as they apply to houses provided by a local authority."
    This Amendment has been passed unanimously by the County Councils' Association, and I have been requested on their behalf to bring it forward. The Bill proposes that any houses put up by a county council shall not enjoy the same subsidy as is given to ether houses put up by the other local authorities in the same area. I do not claim that the county council will need to erect a very large number of houses in order to provide for its officials and policemen and other employés. It does not appear to be fair to differentiate between the county council and the rural district council. A man working on the roads may be employed by the rural district council, and if they desire to erect a house for him the full subsidy would be allowed, but if the same man were employed by the county council, and they desired to put up a house for him, they would have to take the reduced subsidy. Why should this differentiation be made? If it is persisted in it will be

    533
    an inducement to the county councils not to provide houses, although to the extent to which they do provide houses the situation will be relieved. If the Amendment is not: accepted there will be an inducement to the county councils to get the rural district councils to do for them what they might do for themselves.
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: In considering this Amendment, the Committee should have regard to the purpose of the additional subsidy of £3 10s. It was included because the agricultural labourers have received such low wages, and have been accustomed to pay such low rents that, if any houses were to be built for them, an additional subsidy was necessary. In our view it would be an unwarrantable expenditure of money for the Exchequer to extend the scope of the additional subsidy to the employés of county councils who are, for the most part, in receipt of wages considerably superior to those of agricultural labourers. We feel that we should be extending the scope of the Bill unduly if we accepted this Amendment. After all, the county policeman to-day is in an economic position vastly superior to that of the agricultural worker; and to suggest that the county council, in order to enable the policeman, with his high wages, to enjoy the relatively low rent, which is the only rent the agricultural worker can pay, should give the additional subsidy of £3 10s., is to ask the Exchequer to bear a burden which it would not be justified in accepting. I, therefore, hope that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, at the end, to insert
    "(4) In Sub-section (1) of Section three of The Housing, etc., Act, 1923, for the words a society, body of trustees or company, to which this Section applies,' shall be substituted the words 'any person, or body of persons, or company,' and Subsection (2) of the said Section is hereby repealed."
    This Amendment was alluded to earlier in the Debate and the attention of the Government was drawn to a very important point in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) and in the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I do not wish to go over the ground that they traversed so
    534
    ably, but the Committee would like to hear a statement from the Government as to their attitude towards the Amendment. In case any hon. Member was not present when the right hon. Member for Twickenham made his speech, I would say that the Amendment is designed to remedy a defect which has shown itself in the Act of 1923, whereby private individuals, who happen to live in a district where the local authority has refused to apply the Act, have been prevented from obtaining a subsidy under the Act.
    Mr. G. SPENCER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, after the word "company" to insert the words
    "and the words substituted shall have effect retrospectively to the date of the Act coming into force."
    There is no disagreement between myself and my hon. Friends opposite on this Amendment. It has been our misfortune, or the misfortune of some of our constituents, that we have had to approach the Ministry with regard to the effect of the delinquencies of local authorities on men who have erected their houses. In more than one constituency men who have little knowledge of the Act have been led, to believe through the newspapers that when the Act was passed, in whatever part of England or Wales they lived, they were entitled to receive a certain subsidy if they erected houses that complied with the conditions laid down. At various places in my own constituency men have sent in plans, which were inspected by the surveyor of a certain rural district council, and when these plans were accepted as complying with the provisions of the 1923 Act, and the men proceeded to build, they thought that they were to receive the subsidy when the houses were completed. If a rural district council failed to adopt the Act, these men were deprived of the advantages of the Act. This might mean cases such as one which has actually arisen, where one side of a road belongs to an authority that is carrying out the provisions of the Act, while the other side of the road belongs to an authority which is not carrying out the provisions of the Act. A man who erects a house on the one side of the road gets a subsidy: a man who erects a house on the other side gets no subsidy. The original intention of the framers of the Act was that any man who erected a house for himself, and complied

    535
    with the conditions laid down should get the subsidy. They expected undoubtedly that the authorities could readily adopt the Act. In some cases the authorities did nut do so, and had to be pressed by the Ministry, but I suggest that no man who has complied with the conditions should be made to suffer because certain authorities were opposed to the provisions of the Measure, and had to be forced to operate it. There is another ground on which I advocate this proposal, and that is the expenditure which has been incurred by these men. If the Amendment in its original form be accepted, it means all future houses built will get the benefit, but my Amendment to the Amendment makes the provision retrospective, and is limited both as to time and as to money, because only the houses which have been built would get it. Therefore it distinctly lays down a clear-cut limit. If the Government look into the matter, they will find that the amount of money they would have to pay as their share would be very limited and it would remove a sense of injustice which rankles in the minds of those men who should have had the full advantage of the Act.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am rather dubious about the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, but I shall hear what the Minister has to say.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Before dealing with the Amendment, I would appeal to the House in the interests of frail humanity to allow us to finish Clause 2 of the Bill as speedily as possible, and we will then say it is sufficient for the day. With regard to the Amendment, it is intended to bring relief to people who are resident within areas which have reactionary local authorities, who will not deal with housing under the 1923 Act, and are not likely to do so under the Act of 1924. I would like to remind the sponsors of the Amendment that in such cases, of course, the person applying for assistance would have to depend entirely—
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the Amendment to the Amendment, which is the question now before the Committee.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I think, if you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, to make a statement on the whole question, it will be found to be the more convenient course.
    536
    I propose to ask the Committee to withdraw the Amendment and the Amendment to the Amendment. Then I will consider, between now and the Report stage of the Bill, the insertion of words that will, at any rate, give assistance in the manner indicated, and for the reason indicated, to houses to he built in future. I will make that promise definitely, and will consider the retrospective side of it, but on that I cannot make any promise.
    Mr. VIVIAN: In this Amendment it is proposed practically to delete the word "society" entirely, and to substitute for it the term "a body of persons." I have a certain parental responsibility for the term "public utility society." I think I was the first to get it inserted in an Act of Parliament, and it was utilised in the Housing Act, 1990. I would like to ask the Minister to make sure that the word "society" is retained in this Bill, and I cannot understand why the movers of the Amendment should seek to leave it out. The Amendment deliberately excludes the very society for which the Clause originally was purposely drawn. If a society is a body of persons, why is not a company a body of persons? A society is a limited liability concern in the same way in which a company is. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am speaking of something that I know, and I suggest that it would probably be found at law that the term "a body of persons" no more covers a limited society than it does a limited company, and if the movers of the Amendment think they have included a society in the term "body of persons," I suggest that they have included a company as well, and that, therefore, the wend "company" in the Amendment is not necessary. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not permit the word "society" to be left out, and I suggest that the fact that it is being deliberately left out, when it has been retained in all the previous Acts, is in itself somewhat suggestive that the movers of the Amendment intend to exclude these societies. There is no Housing Act that has been passed since 1909 that has not included the word "society," so why deliberately exclude it now?
    Earl WINTERTON: I was associated with the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) in pressing the Amendment, to which the hon.

    537
    Member for Broxtowe (Mr. G. Spencer) alluded, and I agree with what he has said, except that I do not think it is feasible to make the provision retrospective. I should personally be inclined to advise my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), who does not seem to be in the House at the moment, to withdraw the Amendment, if I understand that the Minister is, if I may so put it, thoroughly sympathetic to the real grievance or difficulty that has arisen under the Act as it stands. If we may have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will himself deal with this question by an Amendment on the Report stage of the Bill, I think this Amendment could be withdrawn, but I should like an assurance that he is prepared to deal with the matter, and I hope we may take it that he has accepted the position that the present situation is impossible and must be amended.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I thought I had made that clear to the Committee.
    Mr. VIVIAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me some assurance in regard to the word "society"?
    Sir B. REES: I still think the Amendment would be better in Clause 2. We should like the Minister to consider between now and the Report stage whether words cannot be introduced which will give us all that we ask. If we have an assurance that the matter will be reconsidered in the light of discussion, and that the point would be dealt with between now and the Report stage, that will meet our case.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: On behalf of those who have put down this Amendment, we are grateful to the Minister for the way he regards it. With respect to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Totnes (Mr. Vivian), there was no intention at all to move out the word "society." I hope the Minister will put it down in the New Clause that is to be drawn. There is one thing I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider, which I, not having had the advantage of the legal advice which he has, have not been able to find out where or how to put. The point is this: the private builder who is content with the £6 Chamberlain subsidy—if I may put it in that way—does not want the £6 yearly for 20
    538
    years; he wants the equivalent value. That is what would help him. That is what he will get if the local authorities have the opportunity of being able to give him £75 or £100, which would mean the capital value of the Government subsidy. I hope some way will be seen to do this, because this concession which the Minister is making will not act very fruitfully unless this is done. I do not think the question is one of the actual authorities. They, for various reasons, may be a little afraid of transactions with the Ministry in view of the experiences of the past, or for other reasons.
    Mr. G. SPENCER: Under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment. If what has been suggested is done it will go a long way to meet what is in our minds.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some answer to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Vivian). The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) says that those who are responsible for this Amendment have no idea of excluding socieites. I observe that the words at the end of the Amendment are
    "and Sub-section (2) of the said Section is hereby repealed."
    What are the words of Sub-section (2)—
    "This Section applies to any society, body of trustees, or company established for the purposes of, or amongst whose objects and powers are included those of Controlling …"
    I do not think that it is the policy of the Government or of this Committee to eliminate societies or to hamper them in doing this kind of work. In this matter it seems to me that the method chosen by the supporters of the Amendment is unhappily chosen, and their object can be achieved without depriving societies of the benefits of this Bill.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Mr. VIVIAN: Surely we are entitled to an answer from the Minister of Health on the point which I have raised. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Amendment is going to be withdrawn."] Yes, it is to be withdrawn on the understanding that certain action will be taken, but I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is

    539
    going to deal with the point which I put to him.
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: The intention is that no body of persons or society shall be deprived of any benefit and even in areas where they do not choose to put this Bill when it becomes an Act into force will get the advantages offered by it.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Sir T. INSKIP: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, to leave out the word "provided", and to insert instead thereof the word "commenced."
    This is in the nature of a drafting Amendment and I want the Minister of Health to say what is really intended. In the Act of 1923 there was a Clause containing the words completed before such and such a date. If the right hon. Gentleman now means "completed" I am quite willing to put in that word. The words used by the: Minister on this point were:
    "I felt in framing these proposals that it would not be fair to reward any local authority which had withheld building in anticipation of this Bill."
    I imagine that in such a case the proper word to use is "commenced."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The point raised by my hon. and learned Friend is really met by the Amendment which stands next on the Paper in the Minister's name. The words in the original Clause were undoubtedly ambiguous and the Amendment will make the position clear. It is proposed to insert after the word "Minister" the words
    "before the passing of this Act, if the contract for the construction of the houses was entered into or, in the case of houses constructed otherwise than under contract, the construction was begun."
    I think that will make the point clear.
    Sir T. INSKIP: That meets my criticism perfectly. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, after the word "Minister" to insert the words
    "before the passing of this Act, if the contract for the construction of the houses was entered into or, in the case of houses constructed otherwise than under contract, the construction was begun."
    540
    I need not repeat what I have just said. I think this is really more favourable to the local authorities, and I hope the Committee will accept the words.
    Captain ELLIOT: May I ask the Minister what really is the position of a local authority which has had a fairly large scheme approved and has commenced the work in a certain section. What happens to the houses under the remainder of the scheme? Has it to clear off these Chamberlain houses before it comes under the 1924 Act?
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I was going to raise the same point. I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his dealing with this matter. It is one of very great importance to local authorities throughout the country. There is a great number of schemes which have been embarked upon under the 1923 Act. Some have been approved and work has commenced upon them, while in regard to others no work has been done. The authorities in some cases have consulted the Ministry of Health or the Board of Health in regard to the schemes, and they wish now to be assured that the course which the Minister is proposing covers schemes for which contracts in whole or in part have been accepted. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear to the Committee that he is prepared to cover the cases of all schemes as to the whole or any part of which contracts were entered into before the 1st November.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to thank the Minister for the way he has met this Amendment, because there are undoubtedly authorities which, if this proposal had not been accepted, would have been seriously prejudiced as against more dilatory neighbours. I should like the Minister to give the Committee an assurance that in every case where part of a scheme was contracted for but not commenced the local authority will be entitled to enjoy the benefit of this Bill and not be penalised in comparison with local authorities which have delayed putting housing legislation into operation. We want too to secure something like continuity of policy in this matter.
    Mr. SUNLIGHT: I rise to oppose this Amendment. Hon. Members opposite are frequently declaring that we are giving too much in subsidies, and yet the moment

    541
    a subsidy is authorised, hon. Members in every part of the. House are seeking to increase the burden on the State by proposals of a more or less retrospective character. I think it would be far better to start afresh with schemes introduced under this Bill and not to go back on old schemes.
    Captain ELLIOT: No doubt the Minister has gone far to meet us, but he has not answered the point I put to him as to the position of schemes on which construction has not actually commenced. There are cases, particularly in Scotland, in which extensive schemes have been brought forward and approved by the Board of Health, but of which large portions have not yet been contracted for. I want to make sure that no loss will be suffered by local authorities who have brought forward schemes for approval but have not yet entered into contracts in regard to portions of them. If we get that assurance it will go far to provide us with the continuity of policy which is so much desired.
    12 M.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Perhaps I had better make it quite plain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—that there are two cases—[HON. MEMBERS: "We cannot hear a word!"] I was saying that there are two cases, one in which a contract has been entered into that cannot be extended. If that contract has been entered into, the date is the date on which that contract was entered into. That is one class of case. There is another class of case where there is no contract but the work is done by a local authority, and where there is a general scheme, and as part of the scheme the first houses have been commenced. The date when those houses have been commenced is to apply to cover the whole scheme of which they form part. That is to say, that in the case of a contract, the date of the actual contract, neither more nor less, is material. As to a scheme which is undertaken otherwise than by contract, the date when the first houses under the scheme are commenced is the date which applies to the whole scheme of which they form a part.
    Sir T. INSKIP: If that be the intention, I am afraid that the Attorney-General will have to alter his Amendment to give effect to what he has said.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It may be necessary.
    Sir T. INSKIP: If the Attorney-General realises that it will be necessary, I will say no more.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It may be necessary. Now that I understand that that is the intention of the Minister of Health, it strikes me that, in all probability, these words will have to be varied on the Report stage. That is why I have tried to make it perfectly plain what this Clause is intended to do.
    Captain ELLIOT: There is the Middle Ward of Lanark which has a scheme approved but has no work done under the scheme. It is a scheme under the Act of last year. I want to be sure that they will not be put in a worse position than other local authorities.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: The Middle Ward of Lanark assure me that they are not in the position stated by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Captain ELLIOT: The hon. Member may have had more recent communication with them than I have had. I understood that I was quoting an actual case. We have the assurance from the Minister that the Amendment which he has brought forward is not sufficiently clear to cover all the cases which he has in mind. We have the assurance that the Amendment is to be re-drafted. While accepting that assurance we wish to make it clear that we desire the cases which we have in mind to be covered. [[Interruption.] I am sure that the Attorney-General will be fully seized of my view all the more quickly if I can develop my argument without interruption. I have no desire to return to my earlier days of obstruction which I carried on against my own Government—[Interruption.] If hon. Members want trouble, they can have it. [Interruption.] If they want an address of several hours' duration, I will give it to them, but I have more consideration for an overworked Minister than they have. The three points are, firstly, the case of the house which has been contracted for and on which construction has actually been commenced; secondly, the case of the house which has been contracted for but the construction of which has not actually been commenced; and, thirdly, the ease which I wish the Attorney-General and

    543
    the Minister to take into consideration, namely, that of the scheme which has been approved by the Board of Health but on which no part of the construction has been begun. The hon. Member for West Fife has brought forward an Amendment covering these three cases. I desire to draw the attention of the Attorney-General and of the Minister to the fact that that Amendment covers all these three cases, and ask them to take that into consideration when they are considering their Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, at the end, to add the words
    "notwithstanding that the houses do not comply in every respect with the conditions imposed by or under this Act."
    These words are taken from the Act of 1923, where they appear at the end of Sub-section (2) of Section 1. The conditions referred to are not the special conditions which occur in the Bill, but, if the Committee will look at the Schedule, they will see that it is proposed to alter one of the conditions under which houses can be subsidised under the Act of last year, and to lay it down that the houses must have a bath in a bathroom. That is a new condition which did not apply to houses under the Act of last year. If authorities have been going on putting up houses which were perfectly in conformity with the Act of last year, and that alteration is made in the conditions, the Minister could not approve of them under this Measure unless the words I am proposing are put in. It would be necessary to alter the provision of the Schedule so as to limit its operation to the period after the passing of the Act, and this seems to be the simpler way of doing it. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept it.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: This Amendment is one which I have no difficulty in accepting.
    Major COLFOX: While the Minister has accepted this Amendment, which, looked at from one point of view, is nothing short of justice, yet one cannot help feeling increasingly apprehensive as to the cost which is going to be thrown on the taxpayer by all these additions and widenings of the Bill as we go along. The original cost of the Bill was estimated
    544
    at an enormous sum, and as we have been going on to-day, adding amendment after amendment, there is no doubt that we have been very much increasing the amount which will have to be found by the taxpayer. I cannot help thinking that it is due to the House that the Minister should give us an estimate, which obviously must be rather a rough and vague estimate, of what will be the increased cost of this Amendment which he has now accepted. The least he can do is to tell us as nearly as he can the amount of the excess cost that will be necessitated by this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, at the end to add the words:
    "Outside extensions of rural houses shall not be reckoned as part of the nine hundred and fifty superficial feet."
    There is a real need which is felt greatly in rural areas that the back extensions of these houses should not be included in the allotted measurement. Rural conditions are very different from town conditions, and what suffices in the town will not quite suit the country. In country districts it is very important that there should be a place where a workman can keep his tools, where his bicycle can be stoned, where firewood can be put the baby's perambulator kept, where the garden tools and wheelbarrow can be kept, and very often where a bath can be taken when there is no fixed bath. One feels that there must he a place also for the storage of such things as potatoes, which have to be bought in large quantities in the country, owing to the lack of shops and of facilities for shopping. Also, when the labourer comes in from his work he is very often wet, and there must be a place where his clothes can be dried. The Minister will probably say that there are certain regulations under the 1923 Act whereby such extensions are allowed to be excluded from the calculation of the area, but I do not think those regulations include such buildings as tool sheds, bicycle sheds, and other extensions of the kind I have indicated, and I would ask the Minister to bring in an amending regulation to allow them also not to be reckoned as part of the 950 superficial feet.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: One of the Rules under the 1923 Act, I think, really meets the difficulty which the hon. Member has in mind. Under that Rule, tool sheds and bicycle sheds are not included in the measurement of the house.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Could the Attorney-General tell the Committee how the answer he has given affects fishermen's lofts for the drying and storage of nets? Could he say whether the fisherman is allowed to have this extra space or not?
    Mr. MILLAR: I should also like an assurance from the Attorney-General that the fishermen's garrets will have consideration. The Amendment as drafted only deals with out-buildings. I have put down an Amendment to the Schedule, but I hope, in order to save time, it will be possible for the Attorney-General to deal with the point now. The present limit has been found inadequate for storing nets and gear. I have communications from my own division on this subject calling attention to the necessity of having increased garret accommodation for the purpose of storing and drying nets, and I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this is a perfectly sound point in regard to a very considerable area of our coasts in Scotland. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, whether he cannot accept the Amendment I have on the Order Paper.
    Mr. E. BROWN: We are very grateful to the Attorney-General for his clear statement in the case. We, have brought this forward because, in several areas a good deal of trouble has arisen about this matter, and in this and other matters it would be of very great use to rural areas if, after the passing of the Act, some notice could be given in Post Offices informing the parishioners what their rights are.
    Viscount CURZON: I would like to support the argument of the hon. Member who spoke in the interests of the fishermen. It is a class of worker for whom I would particularly like to do something. I would like to be assured by the hon. Gentleman as to whether any provision for drying nets, if it involves extension to a building, would, in fact, come under this Amendment, or whether it is already provided
    546
    for. We must not leave out the fishing population who have not had very much consideration so far in this Bill. The discussion to-night has mainly ranged round agricultural workers and town workers, but our fishing population should, at any rate, be among our first charges when dealing with housing. Anything which we can do to improve the housing conditions which in many cases are deplorable should be done. I would like to know how the fishermen stand in this matter? The nets are now provided by the Government, and there should be provisions for drying them.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I hope that the Noble Lord will not think that we are trying to shelve this question. The Minister will consider this matter when the Amendment arises. For the present we are dealing with rural housing. One cannot by statute define every form of extension which may or may not come under an Act. The only possible way of dealing with that is by regulation or rule, and I may repeat the two lines of this rule:
    "If it is necessary to the occupation of the house or is usually included within the containing walls of the house,"
    then it falls within the area, but anything that is not within that definition is not within the area. I do not think that one could have wider or simpler words. I do not want to express a legal opinion now, but I should be surprised if an out-building for the drying of nets would fall within the words which I have quoted. I really have not considered the matter fully, and I cannot go further at this moment.
    Viscount CURZON: Suppose that the house built for drying nets were used for storing articles of a casual nature for which room could not be found in a cottage, would it or would it not be considered part of the house?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can answer that by saying that that shows the absolute impossibility of putting into a Statute words which would cover all cases. I could give, a dozen eases of outbuildings on which lawyers would disagree as to whether they fail or did not come under that rule. If anybody can suggest words in a general section of an Act of Parliament which would prevent those

    547
    difficulties in the future I should be glad to hear them.
    Mr. STUART: With regard to the fishermen, if a fisherman is not able to look after his nets properly—
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Minister has stated that when we come to the Amendment dealing with fishermen, he will consider that case, and, that being so, we must confine ourselves to this Amendment.
    Mr. STUART: It is only in reference to what the Attorney-General has said. I think that he is under a misapprehension in saying what he did, because the fishermen in order to pursue their calling—
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment dealing with fishermen will come up later.
    Mr. F. MARTIN: I think a mistake has arisen and that the Noble Lord (Viscount Curzon) has misled the Attorney-General and perhaps "put the wind up' the Minister in charge of this Bill. The outbuildings for fishermen are not for drying nets but for storing nets.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: There is a question I would like to ask the Attorney-General in connection with outbuildings. Supposing somebody living in one of these rural districts wants to build a garage. Would the building come under the subsidy or not? It is an important question, because in these country districts there are no means of communication—at least, they are very few and far between. I trust a satisfactory answer will be given to this point.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I would remind the hon. Gentleman who spoke last that we are discussing houses, the rents of which are from 5s. to 6s. a week, and I do not think the man who takes a house at 5s. or 6s. a week is going to concern himself very much about a motor garage.
    Mr. PENNY: I can quite understand that a garage would hardly come in under the scope of this Bill, seeing that it for the poorer classes, but I want to draw attention to the people who want to keep lurchers and greyhounds and poachers, who may want some house to keep the game in, and to ask whether these out-houses would come in.
    Major COLFOX: This expansion or privilege accorded by the Minister of Health may go rather further than he at first sight anticipated, because it is common knowledge that in many places the ordinary average shop is in a small house of the type which is capable of being built under this Bill. I should very much like to hear from the Minister or from the learned Attorney-General whether or not the space occupied by the village shop, or in some cases it might be the village post-office, would be considered part of a dwelling-house or would be excluded under the terms of this Amendment? Another case occurs to one, and that is the case of, shall we say, a man who follows the occupation of a rabbit trapper, requires a certain amount of space to house and store his traps, his wires—[Interruption.] I feel that the Minister would be very guilty of discourtesy if he did not give us an answer to the various questions which have been raised. I hope that the arguments which have been brought forward by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee will impress him that the scope of this Amendment is a very wide one, and that when he is taking the matter into consideration between now and the Report stage of the Bill he will most carefully consider all the numerous points which have been brought forward and see if it is possible to meet the different eases of hardship which have been raised. [Interruption.]
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: On a point of Order. It is utterly impossible for the hon. and gallant Member to get on with his speech, owing to interruptions.
    Major COLFOX: I am sorry that owing to interruption—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
    The CHAIRMAN: I really think hon. Members should allow the hon. and gallant Member to proceed.
    Mr. FERGUSON: Call him to Order, Mr. Chairman, and let the Gentleman go on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is not this interruption a perfectly orderly interruption, and has it not always been so ruled by the Chairman of Ways and Means?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have not ruled otherwise; I have only asked hon. Members to let the hon. and gallant Member proceed.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it strictly in Order for hon. Members to detain the House on the question of housing rabbits within the terms of this Bill?
    Major COLFOX: I can only imagine that, my voice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
    Mr. P. HARRIS: Is not the hon. and gallant Member rather wide from the Amendment before the Committee?
    The CHAIRMAN: He is speaking on the Amendment.
    Major COLFOX rose. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
    Mr. WHEATLEY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put.''
    Question, "That those words be there added," put accordingly, and negatived.
    Mr. SNELL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, at the end, to add
    "(5) Where in pursuance of proposals approved by the Minister under this Act houses are provided by a metropolitan borough council the London County Council may in respect of any such house supplement any contribution made by the Minister in respect of such house to an extent not exceeding two pounds five shillings payable annually for a period not exceeding forty years."
    Under the Act of 1923, this supplement was given, and it is not proposed to continue the arrangement under this Bill. The borough councils affected approve of the proposals of the Minister of Health, but they feel that so far as London is concerned power should be given to the London County Council, as is actually given under the Housing Act, 1923, to supplement the contribution made by the Ministry of Health in respect of houses erected by the Metropolitan borough councils. The reasons which induced the House to give the London County Council power to give the additional subsidy in 1923 apply equally to present conditions, and the borough councils concerned ask that the arrangements which were agreed to last year should continue. Only two or three are concerned, and it happens that these have building land in their districts. If you do not give them this concession, it means that these particular boroughs which provide dormitories for
    550
    the population will have to pay the whole of the expense themselves. This will inflict a serious disadvantage in certain districts, especially in the borough of Woolwich.
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: On the understanding that this will apply only to houses built under special conditions, the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Viscount CURZON: May I ask the Minister to give us some idea of what the special conditions are to which he refers?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: If the Noble Lord will read the Bill, he will understand what the special conditions are. As regards the cost which may fall on the London County Council, that depends upon the London County Council itself.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: If the County Council wants the Bill, it will have to bear the whole cost. It is merely an extension already accepted by the House and I certainly think it is admissible.
    Mr. BECKER: I do not pretend to be an expert, but, with regard to this Amendment, so far as I can understand the hon. Gentleman who proposes it, it is to relieve certain boroughs, and to take some of the load off those local bodies. Where houses are going to be built in a part of the country where there is plenty of land to be built on, they are going to be subjected to a very unfair proportion of the rates. The people there will not have to pay the rates; and it is going to place on the newer cities which are going to be built up a great burden on the ratepayers. There is one thing I want to point, out and that is that none of the local authorities actually give more than they receive in the way of rates. They are really not giving anything at all, because the rates they levy on the property is always greater than the subsidy given towards the building of the houses, so that no local authority actually gives anything. Of course, the tenant has really got to pay for the whole of this thing. I should like to know from the Government what is the reason why the Minister has agreed to this.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I understand that it would be equally in order to raise this question on Clause 5, and, if the Chairman assent, I propose to do so.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Wheatley.]
    Committee report Progress; and sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes before One o'Clock, a.m.

  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  OVERSEAS TRADE ACTS (GUARANTEES).
  OVERSEAS TRADE ACTS (GUARANTEES).
  PROFITEERING (LEGISLATION).
  PROFITEERING (LEGISLATION).
  IRON AND STEEL (IMPORTS).
  IRON AND STEEL (IMPORTS).
  RUSSO-CAUCASIAN COMPANY, LIMITED.
  RUSSO-CAUCASIAN COMPANY, LIMITED.
  MEXICO (MRS. EVANS).
  MEXICO (MRS. EVANS).
HOUSING.
  AGRICULTURAL PARISHES (SUBSIDY).
  AGRICULTURAL PARISHES (SUBSIDY).
  BECONTREE ESTATE (BRICKS AND LABOUR).
  BECONTREE ESTATE (BRICKS AND LABOUR).
  BRICKLAYERS (APPRENTICESHIP SYSTEM).
  BRICKLAYERS (APPRENTICESHIP SYSTEM).
  NEWPORT, MONMOUTHSHIRE.
  NEWPORT, MONMOUTHSHIRE.
  SUBSIDY (CIRCULAR).
  SUBSIDY (CIRCULAR).
  OXFORDSHIRE.
  OXFORDSHIRE.
POOR LAW RELIEF.
  RENT.
  RENT.
  HELSTON BOARD OF GUARDIANS (CHILDREN).
  HELSTON BOARD OF GUARDIANS (CHILDREN).
  LUNATICS (MAINTENANCE GRANT).
  LUNATICS (MAINTENANCE GRANT).
  NON-RESIDENT RELIEF.
  NON-RESIDENT RELIEF.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  PATENT FOODS.
  PATENT FOODS.
  VACCINATION (DEATHS).
  VACCINATION (DEATHS).
  LONDON GOVERNMENT.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT.
  DOMINION PEDIGREE LIVESTOCK (IMPORTATION).
  DOMINION PEDIGREE LIVESTOCK (IMPORTATION).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (FRESCO PAINTING).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (FRESCO PAINTING).
BRITISH ARMY.
  ARTILLERY BARRACKS, IPSWICH.
  ARTILLERY BARRACKS, IPSWICH.
  OFFICERS' PAY (REDUCTION).
  OFFICERS' PAY (REDUCTION).
  ARMS (EXPORTATION).
  ARMS (EXPORTATION).
  BELFAST LOUGH (CONTROL).
  BELFAST LOUGH (CONTROL).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
TRANSPORT.
  ACCIDENTS, CITY ROAD.
  ACCIDENTS, CITY ROAD.
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (MUD SPLASHING).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (MUD SPLASHING).
ROYAL NAVY.
  NEW CRUISERS.
  NEW CRUISERS.
  COOKERY OFFICERS.
  COOKERY OFFICERS.
  COOKERY STAFFS (CONTROL).
  COOKERY STAFFS (CONTROL).
POST OFFICE.
  STAFF (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE).
  STAFF (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE).
  POST OFFICE SITE, CLERKENWELL.
  POST OFFICE SITE, CLERKENWELL.
  SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS AND NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS AND NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EFFICIENCY MARKS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EFFICIENCY MARKS).
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT, MIDDLESBROUGH.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT, MIDDLESBROUGH.
  PALESTINE.
  PALESTINE.
  JUSTICES' ADVISORY COMMITTEE, COUNTY OF LONDON.
  JUSTICES' ADVISORY COMMITTEE, COUNTY OF LONDON.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MORECAMBE CORPORATION BILL.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION BY THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I desire to make a short personal explanation to your Lordships as regards something that happened yesterday, and at the some time to offer an apology to my noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley, who suffered considerable wrong at my hands. Your Lordships will remember that we gave a Third Reading yesterday to a Morecambe Corporation Bill. It was, so far as I am concerned, read a third time quite inadvertently. The circumstances are as follows. Early last week, or towards the end of the week before, my noble friend gave me notice that he desired to move an Amendment to the Bill on Third Reading. It was an Amendment to Clause 117, a clause which gives power to regulate omnibus routes. It is a clause against which a Petition was deposited in your Lordships' House in the usual form (this is a Second House Bill now), and the Committee did not hear the opposition to the Bill, throwing the Petitioners out on the basis of locus standi. I only say, in passing, that I think their decision was a correct one. Be that as it may, it does not affect the matter I now desire to bring to your Lordships' notice.
  My noble friend having given me notice that he desired to move an Amendment on Third Reading, I made a suggestion. The matter is, of course, an important one. I can only trace one precedent for the form of clause which is in this Bill now, and that was in a Bill of last year. I have looked up the proceedings on that Bill and I find that no precedent was quoted when Parliament authorised the clause last year. Therefore, your Lordships will understand that it is a matter which has not been at all discussed in Parliament in view of its importance. But I have noticed, as of course your

  597
  Lordships have done, that the matter is raised in Clause 6 of the London Traffic Bill. We are bound to have a discussion upon that Bill. No Amendments have so far been put down, but I assume that a clause of such an important character, as well as the whole Bill, will be discussed. I, therefore, suggested to my noble friend that we should hold back the Third Beading, and that the discussion should take place on the greater Bill—a discussion which, I believe, would probably be of value to us in discussing the minor point of the Morecambe Corporation Bill, which is not to be mentioned in the same breath as a Bill concerning the whole of London.
  Therefore, I took all the usual steps, as I thought, to prevent the Bill being read a third time. I need not go into what the formalities are. But, in spite of that fact, the Bill appeared on the Paper yesterday, and was read a third time, and passed. Many people, including myself, read the Order Paper, and I take myself very much to task for not noticing that the Bill was on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will realise that I do not carry in my head the contents of every Bill, for some of them embrace as many as a hundred clauses, or even more, but I ought to have noticed this Bill when we read it a third time. I did not do so, however, and a great many other people did not notice it. Nobody is to blame in this matter but myself. I take all the blame for the fact that the noble Lord and your Lordships' House have been wrongly treated, for discussion would have been of advantage from the point of view of legislation not only on this Bill but on a great many other Bills.
  I at once went into the question. It is not an unknown thing for your Lordships to discharge Orders that you have made, but there is, of course, no precedent whatever for discharging this one, and there ought not to be a precedent. Once your Lordships have passed a Motion that a Bill should pass, I think that you should not turn round and say it has not passed, and resume consideration of the Bill. Therefore I am not here to-day to suggest that course to your Lordships, although, technically, when I made the discovery which was a very few minutes after moving the Third Beading of the Bill, the Bill was still in your Lordships' possession and had not been returned to
  598
  the House of Commons; but I do not think that that in any way affects the position. I feel that I owe the deepest apology to your Lordships and, in particular, to my noble friend opposite for the very wrong way in which he has been treated. I can think of no such occurrence during the twelve or thirteen years that I have had the privilege of being your Lordships' Chairman of Committees.
  There is only one bright spot in the situation and that is the extremely fine manner in which the noble Lord himself has dealt with it. I thank him very much for what he said to me last night. I hope I am expressing his views correctly, but if not I am sure he will qualify anything that I say. I understand that the noble Lord's anxiety is not so much that Amendments should have been made in the Morecambe Corporation Bill, though, of course, they would have been from his point of view desirable. He is anxious that it should be distinctly understood that this clause has gone through Parliament undiscussed in your Lordships'. House, that there was a desire to discuss it, and, therefore, that it is of no value at all if other authorities come before your Lordships to as for the same power, unless, of course, they can show a case for it on the merits not based on the previous question.
  I should like to go a little further. After all, corporations come with more or less frequency to your Lordships' House with Private Bills. The Morecambe Corporation—I should make this clear in justice to the Morecambe Corporation themselves—are in no way to blame for what has happened. I am entirely to blame, and no one else. I think it ought to be understood that if the policy of Parliament on this subject of the regulation of traffic develops in a different direction to this clause, and if the Morecambe Corporation come back to Parliament some years hence, they should, at any rate, be called upon to show good reason why on that opportunity their code should not be brought into conformity with that of the rest of the country, if that code happens to disagree with any decision come to by both Houses of Parliament. That is all I desire to say, beyond Again expressing my sincere regret to my noble friend opposite for what has happened.
  LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, it is the sad truth that I emerge

  599
  as a supposed sufferer in this case, but it-is difficult to suppose that anybody really suffers at the hands of my noble friend the Lord Chairman, and what he has said has shown the House how entirely he has seen to it that anything that he did should be followed by consequences of a kind which are in conformity with those qualities and attributes which have made him so worthy an occupant of the great position he holds in this House. It is true that certain parties wanted, and that I wished on their behalf, to raise a point of substance on this Bill on the Third Heading. The Bill, as a matter of fact, has passed containing a clause which is a local alteration of the general law, and has done so at a time when it is proposed to make a similar alteration in the general law in a Bill which, without going further into its attributes, is a Public Bill and not a Private Bill. It is not only difficult, as the noble Lord Chairman said, to find a precedent for it, but it is the actual fact that a similar alteration of the general law was refused by another Committee of your Lordships' House in the present Session. I thank the noble Lord Chairman for having said what he has said, for I consider he has said enough to ensure that no precedent will be created by the reading of the Morecambe Corporation Bill a third time yesterday, and that that Bill will not be followed in the future as one which is a fully-considered Bill.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.
TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a: and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

BRITISH FAMILIES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether, as a result of the inquiries which they undertook to make they can take any action which will facilitate the acquisition of British nationality by the children of British parents born in foreign countries during the period of the war, 1914–18, or the removal of the disabilities from which such children would suffer if they became naturalised British subjects: and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, two months ago I asked a Question of a very similar character to that which now appears on the Paper. On that occasion the House adjourned for the Royal Commission, and many noble Lords, apparently, were under the impression that the business on the Paper subsequent to the Royal Commission would be adjourned to another date. The result is that I asked the Question in an extremely thin House, but I can claim that I was successful in obtaining the sympathy of every noble Lord who was present and, in saying that, I include also the noble Lords who replied on behalf of His Majesty's Government. They were, of course, careful not to bind themselves to any particular action in the ease, but I was able to feel that I had made out a very strong case for a revision of the Acts which deal with the naturalisation of British subjects. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council, was good enough to say, at the end of the debate, that he would consider the matter and see whether anything could be done to meet my views.
This is my excuse for again bringing the matter before your Lordships. It is a question of great importance, and the

601
more it is ventilated the more likely it is to obtain support. I ask your Lord ships, therefore, to bear with me if, in order that you may understand the actual grievance of which I complain, I recapitulate some of the arguments I brought forward on the previous occasion. Most of your Lordships, in your travels abroad, have come across communities of British merchants in foreign towns, mostly in seaport towns, who carry on the best traditions of British commerce and do their best to increase the volume of British trade in different parts of the world. It is not necessary for me to go through a list of the towns, which will come readily to your mind—Bordeaux. Oporto, Buenos Aires, and Bio de Janeiro. In all these towns there are these communities of highly respected British merchants, living on friendly terms with their neighbours but keeping themselves to themselves, marrying English women, and sending their children home to be educated.
When these children grow up some of them engage in commerce, or a profession, in this country, while the elder ones probably return to the country of their parents' adoption and enter the business in which they are engaged. In due time they succeed to it, marry English women, and send their children home to this country to be educated. Thus the links which unite them with the Motherland are renewed and strengthened. This was the case up to the beginning of the war. It was impossible, however, that the children of the third generation should become British subjects and, consequently, it was the habit of the wives of these British merchants, when they found that an interesting event in the family was expected, to return to England so that their children should be born within the King's allegiance and become British subjects.
When the war broke out in 1914 there was a natural feeling of alarm as to the number of people who might claim British citizenship, and an Act was hurriedly-passed—not wrongly passed, because it was only natural in the circumstances—which limited British citizenship to the children of the first generation born abroad. This created much dissatisfaction, and it was felt that its terms must be relaxed. In 1918 another Act was passed, permitting children of the second
602
generation to be counted as British subjects if their father was engaged in the service of the Crown at the time of their birth. Again, this did not go far enough, and in 1922 a third Act was passed. This Act altered this particular clause in many respects, and enacted that all children of the second generation should be British subjects and that, in particular instances, it should be allowed even to the third generation. Therefore, any child born one year previously to the passing of that Act could be registered as a British subject. That is, all children born in 1921 and, in special cases with the consent of the Secretary of State, even those who were born two years before might be naturalised as British subjects. Thus the Act was, to a certain degree, retrospective.
I am going to quote a particular case of hardship, not because it is an isolated case—there are many like it—but because, I think one case in which I am able to mention names and give particulars will do n ore to prove my case than a great many statements as to what theoretically might have been the case. The particular instance is the case of Mr. Herbert Rawes, of Lisbon, a member of a firm which has been engaged in commerce for three generations. Many of your Lordships who have travelled by the Royal Mail Steamship line will probably know his name. This gentleman's firm carry cm business as shipping agents, agents for Lloyds, and representatives of the Royal Mail Steamship Company. They also conduct an information bureau for bankers. Both Mr. and Mrs. Rawes are British subjects, as were their parents and grandparents. In fact, there is not one drop of Portuguese blood in their veins. Although Mr. Herbert Rawes and his father were born in Portugal, after their marriage Mrs. Herbert Rawes made a point of returning to England for the birth of any of her children, thus ensuring that they should be born British subjects.
When the war broke out Mr. Rawes at once offered to enlist in the Army, although he was over military age. His offer was not accepted. If he had been accepted his child would have been a British subject because of that very fact, but the authorities refused to accept him saying that he was doing more useful

603
work where he was. His office, in fact, was taken over as an Intelligence Department by the British Government, and he remained there during the war. Three of his brothers joined the Army and one was killed. In the year 1916 Mrs. Rawes applied for a passport to return from Lisbon to Southampton as she was expecting the birth of a child. It was refused on the ground that women could not travel safely owing to the German submarines. It was a perfectly good reason for refusing a passport, but the application for it shows that both Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Rawes were anxious to do everything in their power to ensure that their child should be born a British subject.
I could mention the case of another lady, a relation of Mr. and Mrs. Rawes, who asked the advice of a member of the then British Cabinet. He advised her to go to Gibraltar for the birth of her child. She travelled by motor car, and the state of the Portuguese and Spanish roads was such that it was a narrow escape that the child was not born a subject of the King of Spain instead of the King of England. Mrs. Rawes decided to remain in Portugal and the child was born on January 17, 1017. Mr. Rawes applied to the British Consul for the child to be registered as a British subject. He refused, and that child, a boy, is now a Portuguese citizen, liable to conscription and to serve in the Portuguese Army in case of war. Let me call your Lordships' attention to this important fact, that if Mr. Rawes, instead of being a natural-born British subject, had been a naturalised British subject, then the child would have been a British subject. This is the case also of the children of a German who has become a naturalised Englishman.
It may be said that the proper remedy is for the child to be naturalised. There are a great many formalities to be gone through in regard to naturalisation. The child must reach a certain age before it can be naturalised. That could be done, but there are very grave disabilities arising in the case of a naturalised British subject, who is in a totally different position from a natural-born British subject. In the first place, if that child, having grown to manhood and being a naturalised subject, applies for a passport he is obliged to have stamped on his passport "Naturalised British subject."
604
That is not all. This is a younger member of a family and probably after he has been educated in England he will stay in this country. If he becomes a partner in any firm or a director of any company which is formed under the Companies Act, 1908—and this is a point upon which His Majesty's Government rather differed from me when I stated the case before—that firm will be obliged to insert on every sheet of paper belonging to the firm, and every communication that is sent out underneath the name of this man, the words "Originally of Portuguese nationality." I think that is a very serious disadvantage for any one of pure British birth. However much we may respect our oldest Ally, most people prefer to be English rather than is what is commonly known as a Dago.
His Majesty's Government, when I put this Question, seemed to think that my information on this point was wrong. I have since fortified myself by obtaining counsel's opinion and I will ask the noble Lord, the Lord President of the Council, to tell me when he replies whether he is still confident that I am not correct in the statement that I made? If I am correct, ought not some remedy to be found? These people, after all, are a much more numerous class than is generally supposed. They are spread all over the towns along the coast of the Atlantic, as well as in many other parts of the world, and they have nobody to represent them in this country. They are in a different position from people here who can have their Member put forward a case in the House of Commons. It is a mere chance meeting with a member of your Lordships' House which has resulted in this grievance being ventilated.
The first suggestion that I would make would be whether it would not be possible for His Majesty's Government to pass another Act making the measure of 1922 slightly more retrospective than it is. It goes back to 1920, and, if it were made sufficiently retrospective to allow people who, through no fault of their own but only owing to the war, are not British subjects, to be given the status of natural-born British subjects, the matter would be at once remedied. Another possibility which I put forward, and which I was told was impossible, was that a Private Bill should be passed naturalising these

605
children. That is an expensive process, but Mr. Rawes, although not a rich man, has told me that he is quite ready to incur that expense. I am told that this custom is falling into disuse, but I cannot see that that is any reason why it should not be revived. It is not reactionary, and I do not think that even the strongest Socialist could object to it on that ground. The remedies which I have suggested would be gladly welcomed by a large number of His Majesty's subjects who do very good work for this country in distant parts of the world. I hope that the Lord President of the Council will be able to tell me, in consequence of the inquiries which he was good enough to say that he would make, that he finds himself able to hold out some promise that this grievous wrong will be remedied.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a very important Question and, at the same time, a very technical one. I must apologise for the fact that when the Question was asked last I was not fully cognisant of all the matters which he has now mentioned. The noble Lord wrote to me afterwards and I made inquiries, and I think that we are both now agreed as to what the position really is. There are one or two words that I should like to say upon the matter, in order to show how complicated it is and what are the principles involved, before I answer the Question in a manner which I hope may be satisfactory to the noble Lord.
Section 3 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, states that a naturalised subject shall have all the rights and privileges of a natural born British subject. That is the general principle, but, as the noble Lord has pointed out, there are apparently two exceptions with which he thinks we might deal, and with which, perhaps, we ought to deal, by special legislation. Before I come to those two cases I ought to point out that the complications have arisen somewhat in this manner. By the Common Law of England nationality depends upon jus soli, that is, upon the place where a child is born. It was a Statute Law which commenced in 1730 and went on down to 1772, which gave nationality upon another footing also, known as jus sanguinis and under that Statute
606
Law, as it stood until the year 1914, children of British parents would have British nationality in the full form, and it would not be necessary to naturalise them, even to the second generation. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that an alteration was made in the year 1914 which limited nationality by birth to the children of British parents abroad, excluding grandchildren, that is the children of the second generation born abroad.
The particular point to which the noble Lord has called attention is this. He says that at the present time, if the person who holds a passport is a naturalised British subject as distinct from a natural born British subject, that fact is stated on the face of the passport. It is clear that no one would desire to have that fact specially mentioned on the face of a passport if it could be avoided. But the noble Lord also points to a greater difficulty which arises under the Act passed in 1916. Under that Act, as he has pointed out, if a naturalised subject is engaged in business, or is a director, he has to state upon the face of his business documents, or it has to be pointed out in the registry of Somerset House, that he is a naturalised, as distinct from a natural born British subject. That again is, of course, a great disadvantage.
We all know that the distinction has been raised fairly often since the war between a naturalised subject and one who is a national from birth. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that those two special difficulties do arise under the Acts as they stand now, and do affect—if I may refer to the terms of his Question—" children of British parents born in foreign countries during the period of the war, 1914–1918." It is only within those years that the difficulty arises. It is one of those difficulties of our complicated war legislation which, I think, undoubtedly ought to be put right.
I will now deal with the question of the business man who has to call himself a naturalised subject instead of an ordinary British national. I have made inquiries at the Home Office, before which questions of this kind come, and I can say that the Home Secretary is sympathetic to the views expressed by the noble Lord. If I may express my own views, I think it is a hardship that this should be allowed to go on. It is a relic of war time which might now be

607
removed. It is not a very easy matter for legislation, because we can hardly deal only with ladies who may have desired to come over here on account of interesting events but wore unable to do so during the war time. If you deal with this matter at all, I think you must apply it more generally. That is one of the difficulties which the Home Office feel. Moreover, it is not a matter upon which I can give any certain information until the Cabinet have considered it.
If special legislation is required it is, of course, quite impossible that there would be such legislation at the present moment, but I suggest to the noble Lord that it can be looked into with a desire to deal with it in the autumn, if we can. But if he, on his part, were to introduce a Bill and get it read a first time in this House, it would be of great advantage to myself and to the Government. We should see exactly what it is that he requires, and in what form he thinks it ought to be formulated. I suggest that to him, because if we could know exactly what be considers to be the remedy for the evils which he has pointed out, it would assist us in realising what the point is, and also in formulating a Bill by which the remedy might be carried out, or we might carry on the Bill which he himself has introduced. I must not, however, be thought to be going too far at this stage. As the noble Lord knows, I have been specially to the Home Secretary, and we are sympathetic. We think the matter might be put right, if it can be put right, but, of course, legislation is impossible before the Recess.
The other point to which the noble Lord refers is the question of the passport. What is said by the Foreign Office with regard to the passport is that you must put true conditions upon the face of the passport, and therefore if a man is a naturalised subject, and not a natural born British subject, you must indicate that upon the face of the passport. In certain directions, no doubt, it makes a difference to the position in which he stands in certain countries, and also to the conditions under which he is entitled to assistance in certain cases. This is not a hardship which can be put right by way of an alteration of the form of the passport. It would have to be done by legislation such as the noble Lord has suggested—legislation making the subject in question a natural born and not a
608
naturalised subject. You must go to the root of the matter in order to put it right.
There is one other suggestion which I have to make to the noble Lord, and it is a suggestion in connection with the trade point—that is to say, a man who is a director carrying on business has to show that he is naturalised as distinct from a natural born subject. Under the Companies (Particulars as to Directors) Act of 1917 there is a discretion in the Board of Trade which enables them to remit the obligations in certain cases. That would, of course, imply an application to the Board of Trade, and it might also imply, in certain circumstances, a refusal of the application when made. That is one way in which the grievance may be remedied as the law stands at the present time, and therefore I indicate it to the noble Lord as a course which might be followed by one feeling the immediate result of the disabilities to which the noble Lord has referred.
I do not suggest that it is a perfect remedy, but this is the note which I have upon it:
" Under Section 26 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908. every company has to make an annual return to the Registrar of Companies including inter alia the names and addresses of the persons who at the date of the return are the directors of the company.
" The Companies (Particulars as to Directors) Act, 1917, provides that in addition to the names and addresses of the directors ' there shall be included such particulars with respect to those persons as would require to he furnished with respect to them under the Registration of Business Names Act. 1916, if they were partners in a firm required ' "—
therefore, you have to go back to the Act of 1916 to see what the obligation is—
" ' to be registered under that Act,' and Section 18 of that Act requires the nationality of origin, if not British, to be stated."
When we go back to the Act of 1916 we find that there is power in the Board of Trade to allow remission.
I think that is all I can say in answer to the Question. Certainly, I am one of those who desire that these relics of the exceptional war legislation should not affect persons harshly, and it seems particularly hard that certain individuals should lose their nationality because, owing to the conditions of the submarine

609
warfare, their mothers were unable to come to this country at the time of their births.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend will be able to avail himself of the suggestion of the Lord President of the Council and prepare a Bill to remedy this mischief, I hope he will find it possible to do so, and I should like to say one word in support of my noble friend in the suggestion he has made to the Government. As regards the Foreign Office point, as to the necessity of stating upon the face of the passport the exact condition of the holder of the passport—whether he is natural born or naturalised—I confess I do not quite follow the argument of the Lord President of the Council. For my part, I think that the days of the passport have gone by. I do not see that it serves any useful purpose whatever, and I should be glad if the. Government would consider whether the conditions might not be further relaxed, even beyond the point to which they have been relaxed in the last few years.
As regards the main question of relieving these eases to which my noble friend has referred, and other cases, there is really no reason why the Government should not undertake legislation on the subject. The grievance covers, as the Lord President has explained, only four years, and therefore although the hardship on a number of individuals, such as the lady to whom my noble friend referred, is very great, yet the precedent which may be set is hardly likely to be of a formidable kind. H only requires a very short Act of Parliament to do what is suggested—namely, not only to relieve the particular lady and her son, but also the other persons to whom the Lord President referred. I think he might, therefore, suggest to his colleagues that a short Act should be passed. There is only one reason why these short Acts, which are obviously reasonable and just, are not passed. That is, that it is thought that there would be difficulty in another place and that would take up Government time, I cannot conceive that that would be so in this case, but I think that every Member of Parliament would desire to do justice. I believe that the noble Lord will find that so far as the Party with which I am associated is concerned no difficulty
610
will be placed in the way of the Government in passing this legislation.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I rise only to thank the Lord President of the Council for his very sympathetic reply. It gives great satisfaction to me to know that the Government think that this grievance should be relieved. I certainly will, if I can, act upon the suggestion of the Lord President and present a Bill. I rather gather from what the Lord President said that he will do all in his power to secure the passage of the Bill, if unopposed, which I agree with Lord Salisbury is almost certain to be the case. The noble and learned Lord suggested that there was another way out if the difficulty, and that was that the Board of Trade have discretion to dispense with the printing of these particulars as to the nationality of directors on the various notepaper and other documents belonging to companies and partnerships. I am afraid, however, from what I have gathered from that source, that it is extremely unlikely that this discretion would be exercised, except m the case where all the partners were natural born British subjects, and it is extremely unlikely to be exercised in the case of one who is a naturalised subject. As I have said, I hope to present a Bill for the First Reading, and I trust that the sympathy with which the noble Lord has supported me in this case will be extended to that Bill, so that it may not only be passed in this House, but that facilities may be given to it in another place.
LORD PARMOOR: I forgot to mention that in the case of a Bill of this kind the Dominion" would have to be consulted. That will be a necessary step, and, of course, it will take a little time.

DAMAGE TO PROPERTY, ETC., IN IRELAND.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE had the following Notice on the Paper:—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will state—
1. The total amount which has been paid by the Free State Government to British subjects in respect of awards for injury done to property before 11th July, 1921, and the amount still due by them in respect of such awards.
2. The total amount which has been paid by the British Government in respect of claims for injury done to property by British Forces before 11th July, 1921.
3. The number of claims made against the Free State Government for compensation payable by them for injury done to property and person respectively since 11th July, 1921, the amount awarded in respect of such injury, the amounts paid and still unpaid respectively in respect of such awards, and the number of such claims still outstanding.
4. The number of claims made against the Free State Government for loss arising out of theft, looting, and requisitions since 11th July, 1921, the amount awarded or recommended in respect of such loss, the amounts paid and still unpaid respectively in respect of such awards or recommendations, and the number of such claims still outstanding.
5. The number of cases in which claims made against the Free State Government were disallowed on the ground that, being due to theft or looting, they did not fall within the scope of the Act of 1923; and to move for Papers.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I think no apology or excuse is needed in again referring to the unhappy subject of compensation for damage and for injury to persons in Ireland. This period of the Session is now drawing to a conclusion, and a considerable time must elapse before we are able to ask for any further information on these points. I hope that the Government will recognise that my noble friends on this side of the House have exercised a very considerable measure of restraint in not unduly pressing the Government for information at an earlier date. It is true that at an earlier period of the Session, on March 5 and March 26, we had two debates on this subject, but I think it is only right that before this portion of the Session closes we should ask the Government if they have further information which they are able to give us under the various heads enumerated in the Question which I have placed on the Paper.
That series of Questions has been put down after consultation with noble
612
friends of mine, and we are anxious, as far as we possibly can, to avoid doing or saying anything which will in any way add to the difficulties, either of His Majesty's Government or of the Government of the Irish Free State. But I hope that the Government will realise that, while we are adopting that attitude, and while we have not pressed for information before now, they must not imagine for a moment that our anxieties are relieved, or that we shall allow this very important question to drop. The Questions which I have placed on the Paper follow in the main the lines with which your Lordships, I am afraid, are only too familiar. It has become a matter of convenience, in asking for information on these points, to follow a form for which, I think, I was almost responsible in the first instance—the form of a division between pre-truce and post-truce cases, and between cases of injury to person and damage to property. I have, therefore, in these Questions, substantially followed the lines which have been adopted on previous occasions.
It is not necessary for me to say much as to the pre-truce period. On the occasion of one of the earlier debates a noble Lord opposite was able to give us a considerable amount of information up to the end of February of the current year. I hope it will be possible for him still further to add to that information. I do not know if he will be able to do so, but if he can give any indication as to when the Wood-Renton Commission will conclude its work I am sure your Lordships will be glad to have it. I quite sympathise with the noble Lord when he mentioned in the course of his speech on a former occasion that post-truce cases were considerably more difficult to deal with. The Free State Government is responsible for the payment of compensation for injury both to persons and to property. For that purpose, when the Irish Free State Government was established, a Commission was set up to deal with cases of injury to persons, and an Act of the Irish Parliament was passed to create machinery for dealing with damage to property. It was only reasonable that a certain amount of time should be given, especially considering the conditions that prevailed in Ireland, to set up this machinery and to get it into working order. A considerable amount

613
of time, however, has elapsed, and I hope it will be possible for the noble Lord opposite, in his reply, to give us some information as to the cases which have been already concluded, the compensation which has been awarded, and the prospects of the pace with which the remaining cases can be dealt with.
I should also like to ask whether the noble Lord is able to give us any information as to the method and means by which this compensation is to be paid. So far as I am aware, it was the proposal of the Irish Government that bonds should be issued, and that a portion at any rate—I think the greater portion—of the compensation which becomes payable should be paid in these bonds. I am not aware that any such bonds have yet been issued, and I am anxious that the noble Lord should tell us whether it is still the intention of the Government to make this payment by means of bonds, and, if so, when an issue is likely to be made. I have no special information myself as to any of these post-truce eases which have either been investigated or taken before one of the tribunals set up for the purpose. But I am bound to say that I have heard eases of complaint, especially in relation to injury to persons. Although I am unwilling personally to bring those cases to the attention of the Government, I hope it may be possible for the Government to give us some information, and to be able to reassure us on this point. No doubt, during the course of the debate this afternoon, special cases will be raised, and even if the noble Lord opposite is unable to give us the information in reference to those cases now, I hope it may be possible for him, whether in the form of a White Paper or otherwise, to supply us with the information subsequently.
At this point I should like to revert to a matter which was discussed in a previous debate. In the first speech which the noble Lord made on this question on March 5 he associated himself in the most clear and categorical manner, on behalf of the Government of which he is a member, with the policy which Mr. Winston Churchill laid down in July. 1922. I should like again to read to your Lordships the statement which appeared in Command Paper No. 1736:
" While, however, the responsibility for meeting these claims to compensation must
614
rest upon the Irish Government, His Majesty's Government cannot divest themselves of a duty to see that such claims are met equitably, and as promptly as inevitable difficulties allow."
On more than one occasion, speaking as the representative of the late Government, I accepted that policy without any qualification. I am glad that the noble Lord opposite on the first occasion on which he spoke—I think on the suggestion of my noble friend, Lord Lansdowne—readily assented to that policy; but my excuse for reverting to this point is that in the course of a second speech which the noble Lord made, I think in reply to a Question by Lord Danesfort on March 26, he used one or two phrases of a rather ambiguous character. I hope, however, that he will give us a full reassurance this afternoon that the policy which he announced in his first speech is still the policy of His Majesty's Government and that it has been modified in no sense whatever.
In the Questions which I placed upon the Paper I have added another to the usual series which have come before your Lordships House. This additional Question refers to the vexed questions of theft and looting. I am informed that the law, as it stands, is clear, and that a distinction is drawn between loss of property by destruction and loss of property by theft. It may be advisable and desirable that such a distinction should be drawn, but I venture respectfully to hope that His Majesty's Government will take a wider and more sympathetic view than is dictated by the mere legal obligations by which they are bound. I am hopeful that this may be the case.
Your Lordships will recall that in one of the earlier debates the noble Lord opposite gave a sympathetic assurance in reference to a suggestion contained in the Second Interim Report, I think it was, of the Irish Grants Committee. I wish to recall that recommendation to your Lordships' recollection—
" It must be remembered that owing to the somewhat peculiar provisions of Irish law on this subject there are large categories of damage in respect to which the sufferer has never had any legal claim against the Government or the local authority. This state of the law has given rise to many anomalies and in a number of cases has caused hardship of a kind which we feel cannot be ignored. We, therefore, recommend that the desirability of making final grants or loans and providing annuities

615
should He taken into account in training the Estimates for the coming financial year."
During the first debate in your Lordships' House this year the noble Lord opposite was sympathetic and was willing to consider this as part of the Government policy. I am afraid the facts are only too familiar to your Lordships' House and that, whatever may be desirable in normal times, it is obviously impossible to draw that distinction between the damage which an individual may suffer when the conditions which prevail in Ireland are taken into consideration—whether that destruction is due to the burning of a man's house and property, or whether, in the general confusion which prevailed, various articles of furniture or anything else were removed from the house and although not destroyed, rendered, so fat-as the owner is concerned, completely useless and unavailable.
I have framed these Questions after consultation with certain of my noble friends, and I say again that they are not asked with the wish to add to the many difficulties with which I know both Governments have to contend. But we are under a debt of obligation to many who are placed in such a position that they cannot help themselves, and I feel sure it is the duty of your Lordships House to see that efforts are made from time to time to see that something can be done to relieve those unfortunate people of the ills and sufferings which they have undergone.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will take any steps to assist loyalists in Southern Ireland who have no claim for compensation under existing legislation, but who have suffered damage to person or property as a result of boycott, intimidation or violence since 11th July, 1921. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I have on the Paper a Question which deals with the subject of relief to Irish loyalists and, if the House will permit me, I will say a few words now on this subject instead of later on. I have ascertained that this course will be agreeable to His Majesty's Government and that it will enable them to deal with the whole subject comprehensively, as a whole, and not piecemeal.
In considering this question it seems to be very necessary to bear clearly in mind the obligations which the British
616
Government have undertaken to the Southern Irish loyalists. I am not going to refer to any verbal pledges which may have been given and which may be interpreted in various ways. There were, of course, no provisions or safeguards for the Southern Irish loyalists included in the Treaty. But such provisions and safeguards were provided for in the Agreement which was concluded on January 24, 1922, between the representatives of our Government and of the Free State Government. Clause 3 of that Agreement is as follows:—
" That the principle should be admitted that fair compensation is paid in respect of injuries which were the subject of compensation under the enactments relating to criminal injuries."
The meaning of this clause was defined in a letter dated July 26, 1922 (the same year), from the Cabinet Committee to the Free State Government. That letter contains the following passage—
" It was also agreed in January that claims in respect of malicious injuries, whether to persons or property, sustained after July 11. 1921. should be dealt with in the usual way by the county courts and discharged by the local authorities."
That Agreement was understood by the Irish loyalists, and, indeed, I think by everybody else who read it, as meaning that compensation would be assessed according to the terms of the old Malicious Injuries Acts.
Instead of that, the Free State introduced a Bill last year called the Damage to property (Compensation) Act which provided for compensation on an entirely new basis altogether. This subject has been thrashed out frequently in your Lordships' House and I am not going into details on the points of difference between the Damage to Property Act and the old Malicious Injuries Acts. Suffice it to say that the most important points of difference are these. Compensation was given merely for the actual damage to the property, instead of compensation for the loss suffered by the individual. Compensation for consequential damage was abandoned altogether. There was no compensation for the loss of the use of the damaged property. What is, perhaps, more important than any of these, the right to compensation for personal injuries was taken away altogether, and the sufferers had no further right to any such compensation.
A Committee was set up, however, which was to report on these eases to the Free State Government and that Government might, if it wished, give an ex gratia grant to those who had suffered personal injuries. Although this Act was in direct contravention of the engagements which the Free State Government had undertaken to our Government, that Act was accepted by the British Government. I fin not blaming the British Government for accepting it because, apparently, they could not help doing so. Their legal advisers said that it came within the four corners of the Treaty and, therefore, they could not object to it. None the less the obligation on our Government remains the same. It demanded that the Free State Government should give compensation on a certain basis. The Free State Government evaded that understanding. The obligation, therefore, now falls upon the British Government. It gave the loyalists in Southern Ireland to understand quite clearly that they were going to get compensation on a certain basis, and if they cannot get it from the Free State Government they ought to be able to get it from the British Government.
If there was any element of doubt about the Government's obligation under that clause, there can be no doubt about its obligation under Clause 8 of the Agreement of January, 1922. Under Clause 8 the Irish Government undertook "to protect from molestation or victimisation by all means at their disposal the persons, property and interests of all those who are thought to have sided or sympathised with the forces of the Crown." Let us inquire how these obligations have, in point of fact, been carried out. Let me give your Lordships, in the first place, a few instances of personal injuries and the way in which they have been treated.
The first case which I have here is that of a lady whose husband, an ex-officer, was kidnapped and murdered in May, 1922. On June 12, of this year, this lady was awarded £250 in compensation, and £2 a month for her child till the child has reached the age of sixteen. Two hundred and fifty pounds for a murdered husband would appear to be doing things on the cheap. I will take another case: This gentleman was an agent and steward for a landowner in County Kerry. He was kidnapped in 1922 and eventually released. Last year he was ambushed at night near the house, severely wounded,
618
and left for dead. He received sixty-seven pellets in his body, and his eyesight was seriously injured. Be was in hospital for nine months, and subsequently at sea for two months to recuperate. He returned to his employment and was warned to leave. He applied to the Free State for compensation, and was awarded £230, only on production of the bills for the expenses of his illness. This gentleman then had to leave Ireland for reasons of personal safety, and had nothing left to live on except his Army pension of £87 per annum. He had been receiving a salary of £400 a year in Ireland. He has now emigrated as an agricultural labourer to New Zealand.
I have any number of these cases that I could read to your Lordships, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House, so I will only read one or two more. There was another man, an ex-British soldier, who was shot in the streets of a town in County Tipperary in May, 1922. He left a widow and six small children His widow has been definitely refused compensation by the Free State Government for the murder of her husband on the ground that she suffered no financial loss by her husband's death. His pension of 15s. a week died with him. He was only a casual labourer. The Compensation (Ireland) Commission have recently awarded her the sum of 25s. a month for each child until it reaches the age of fifteen years. This was payable upon the first day of April, 1923. For the previous eleven months this woman had been awarded nothing for her children, and no allowance was made for costs and expenses in connection with the prosecution of her claim.
I will rend one other case. It is that of a young man who was murdered last September in the streets of Dublin while walking with his brother, who had a good view of the murderer. With another brother he identified the murderer outside the mortuary the next day where he had been to identify his brother's body. He gave the murderer into custody, but the man was released the same evening. Subsequently, the two brothers were shadowed wherever they went, and were unable to go to their own home. They received private information to the effect that their lives were in extreme danger, and subsequently they left Dublin in a great hurry and came to London. The

619
father of these youngmen is still in Dublin, and has not made a claim for compensation against the Free State Government. He has been warned not to do so as the result would probably be serious for him. The reason for this crime is supposed to be that the murdered youth had helped to identify the authors of another outrage. I should like to ask the Government whether they really consider that people who are being treated in this way are being dealt with according to the Agreement of January, 1922, and whether they are really, in the opinion of the Government, being protected from molestation or victimisation.
Now we come to the subject of those who have no claims for compensation under existing legislation and who are suffering from various forms of persecution, boycott, or actual violence. It must be remembered that no compensation is payable to these people at all unless they are ill-treated, or have their houses burnt down, and unless they suffer at the hands of the Republican Forces. But: what we are faced with at this moment in Ireland is not an organised insurrection, not damage effected by bands which are under discipline and control, but by armed hands of marauders who rove about the country and commit every sort of act of violence and outrage. This is a letter which I received to-day. It deals with the ease of a man who had his house burnt down in 1921. He tried to return to Ireland and to live there, but found the conditions quite impossible. This year, therefore, he decided to offer the demesne for sale.
The writer of the letter says:—
" … a gang of men, two hundred strong, marched into the place at night, and fired volleys over the farm to terrorise the steward, and the place was placarded with notices to say that I must pack my bag, as the land was wanted for the landless men. This took place in the early part of May, 1024. As there were many men most anxious to purchase the divisions of the land, and willing to pay a lair price for same on July 3, 1924, one of the lodges which would have been the house of one of the divisions to be sold, was burned down a plain threat to anyone to leave the land alone. This is the plan adopted everywhere. You are not allowed to farm the land yourself, nor are you allowed to sell, so that the land is left derelict. The parties who commit those outrages are well-known. They hold regular meetings and they are well armed."
That is from a landowner in County Clare.
620
Two or three days ago I received another letter from a small landowner in the same county. He writes:—
" Things are hot here. On Tuesday night three houses—two farmers' houses and that of my herd—were fired into. On Wednesday another farmer's house was fired into. On Thursday, which was a holiday, they had sports at——. A party of civic guards attended thinking. I suppose, that they could keep order. They were set upon and beaten by the crowd, and if some respectable fanners had not interfered they would have been killed. Last week three men were beaten and sever, houses raided. You might see some of these reported in the Connaught Tribune, but the Press is so intimidated that they publish nothing."
Of course, when the forces of the Free state are being treated in that way. I suppose it is a little difficult for the Free State to protect the loyalists from victimisation and molestation as they have promised to do.
We have heard a great deal in this House and elsewhere on the subject of compensation. I do not wish for one moment to minimise the importance of the question of compensation, or the very inadequate way in which those who have claims for compensation have been treated. But at any rate, they are likely to save something from the wreck. But what of the thousands of humble and defenceless people in Ireland who have no claim for compensation? They were given to understand by the British Government that they would be protected from persecution; but they have been given no protection at all. I could give you hundreds of eases of people who have been driven from their homes, who have been unable to return to their farms for several months, and who, when they have returned, have found their houses destroyed and their cattle driven away. If it had not been for the grant given by the Association over which I have the honour to preside, those people would have starved long ago.
The question arises: What have the Government done to fulfil their obligations to those who have claims for compensation and to those who have none? They have set up the Irish Grants Committee, and nobody realises better than I do the excellent work that Committee has done. It has gone as far as it possibly can, it has treated in the most generous manner those who have suffered and has stretched its terms of reference to the utmost in

621
order to do so. But, when the Government say so much about the work which this Irish Grants Committee has done, it must be remembered that, after all, it is only advancing money on claims for compensation which may not yet have been heard, which in many cases have been pending for a long time and may not be settled for years. Some of these people have been waiting for two and three years without anything at all. They have had nothing to live on. They have received nothing in rents or income, and they have had to live on these advances, which should be capital. They are really living on their capital.
One of the most important points is this—What steps are the Government taking to bring pressure to bear on the Free State Government to pay these claims. I would also point out, with regard to those who have no claims, that the Irish Grants Committee is giving a great deal of help to those who are refugees, to Irish loyalists who are driven out of Ireland and come here. But the people who really want help are the people who have remained in Ireland and who are trying to live there under almost impossible conditions. There is only one other ease that I wish to bring before your Lord-ships' attention this afternoon, and that is the case of the ex-soldier—strictly speaking I do not know how far one can describe the ex-Service man a" a loyalist. Many of them, of course, are not loyalists. But the mere fact that they have served in His Majesty's Forces is sufficient to ensure that they are unable to get any employment.
This is a letter dated June 28—quite recent, therefore—from a gentleman in County Tipperary as to what is happening to ex-Service men:—
" From almost every quarter and almost hourly report come; in of wholesale dismissals of ex-British Service men who were not in the Irish Free State Army to make room for ex-Free Staters. There is much and increasing suffering and the new organisation formed amongst the ex-Free Staters is aggressive and hostile, closely watching lest any mere Britisher should escape. Within lees than two hundred yards from where I write there is a stone quarry where thirty to thirty-five men are employed, and I see this going on. I understand three men have been dismissed on these grounds and an official of the organisation I have mentioned pays daily visit" to see no mere Britisher is employed whilst I am told his men are instructed not to work beside one. One man who certainly
622
until recently, and I believe still enjoys a British disability pension of 100 per cent. and has a wife and three children, is a:, present employed at quarry work there, he having served in Free State forces, while men without pensions are starving."
Any number of cases have been brought to the notice of our Association in which ex-Service men are actually destitute and starving and unable to clothe their children who are going about in rags. I have brought this situation to the notice of Earl Haig, who presides over the United Services Fund, and I am informed that they can do nothing as under their terms of reference they can only help men and their families if they are ill or suffering from any distress of that kind. Illness, so far as I can make out, is the only reason, for granting them relief. In any case they cannot be helped merely because they are out of employment.
That is a situation which calls most: earnestly for the attention of His Majesty's Government. The remarks I have made have been in no way intended as any criticism of His Majesty's Government. We all realise the difficult and embarrassing situation in which the Government have been placed. If one might be allowed to criticise at all it would be that they have been somewhat tardy in making up their mind what steps they are going to take to deal with this situation, but I do not wish to press such a point as that now because I have every confidence that we shall hear that His Majesty's Government are going to take such steps as will reassure your Lordships' House.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I think the House will be very grateful to the noble Duke for having called attention, not for the first time, to events which have left a black stain upon English honour. I refer to the almost intolerable sufferings from which loyal men and women and children in the South of Ireland have laboured during the last few years, and especially since the date of the so-called truce. I trust that His Majesty's Government will give immediate and urgent attention to this matter and see that the Irish Free State is encouraged, invited, and pressed to carry out the obligations it has undertaken. I do not propose to say anything more than a word or two about the pre-truce cases. The only question is this. The noble

623
Lord, the other day, gave me some figures showing that the Wood-Renton Commission had made awards for injury to property to the extent of £5,877,000, and it appears that up to the present—July 1—only £4,630,000 has been paid. Perhaps he will tell me why the Irish Free State Government who have undertaken to make these payments, subject to adjustments, are in arrears to the extent of £1,250,000. And it must be remembered that these are for injuries which occurred more than three years ago. In many cases the sufferers are poor men, and if it had not been for the benevolent activities of such societies as that over which the noble Duke presides they would have literally starved. I hope there will be no further delay.
The real gravamen of the case against the Free State Government is their action in regard to post-truce cases. Consider what they have done in regard to injuries to persons which have occurred since the truce. Under British law at the time of the truce full compensation was payable for these injuries, but compensation ".vas to be assessed by a competent person, by a Judge, with an appeal in certain cases to Assizes. Last year an Act was passed by the State by which all awards to which these our fellow subjects in Ireland were entitled under British ACTS were cancelled, and the Acts of the British Government which dealt with these matters were repealed. The new legislation of the Free State Government denied compensation as of right altogether, except in certain special cases. What happens under the legislation of last year is that claims may be put in and brought before a Committee of three men—I think a County Court Judge and two doesors—which was set up by the Free State. This Committee may, or may not, in their absolute discretion, recommend a payment, but the applicant has no legal right at all to demand anything. Even when the Committee have met and made a recommendation, the Free State is in no respect bound to pay one farthing. The effect of that is that a loyalist may be murdered or outraged, or have his property destroyed, and by the Free State legislation be or his relatives cannot demand, as of right, one farthing for the intolerable outrages or injustice from which he has suffered
I should like a statement from the noble Lord who is going to reply as to
624
whether this legislation is really in accordance with constitutional usage. In this country when a man's rights have once vested and accrued tinder British Statutes it is certainly not customary, so far as my knowledge goes, to pass ex post facto legislation in order to deprive him of those vested rights, and I venture to say that if such legislation were brought into either House of Parliament here it would be at once condemned as being contrary to our practice. If it is contrary to our practice in this country, why should we permit it in Southern Ireland? Southern Ireland exists only by virtue of legislation by this Parliament, and if the British Parliament could not pass an Act sweeping away all vested rights from people who have become entitled to them, why should the Irish Parliament do so? I hope that the noble Lord will answer that question. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack also, if he has an opportunity, may explain the matter
It is no use telling these unfortunate victims that they can go through some desperately expensive process of law—I do not know if there is any, or what it is—and then that, perhaps, they will find that some of this legislation is unconstitutional. That is of no use to persons who have been victimised and deprived of their property and their rights. But even if this legislation cannot fall under the head of being contrary to constitutional usage, it appears to me to be flagrantly unjust, and all the more so on account of the obligations into which the Free State Government entered, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, mentioned, and aft r the undertaking to see those obligations carried out which has been given by the British Government.
May I give one or, at most, two illustrations to show how compensation has been paid in respect of injury to property since the truce? The noble Duke referred to the case of a woman whose husband was murdered in Tipperary in May, 1922, for no other reason than that he had served the British Crown in South Africa and in the great war. The widow and six children were left absolutely destitute for some time. They were literally living on bread and water, and, had it not been for some small measure of Poor Law relief

625
which they received, they would undoubtedly have starved. Yet for two years they did not get one farthing from the Free State Government, with the exception of £20 which, by the way, the Free State Government has since demanded and insisted upon being repaid. At the end of two years the widow gets nothing and the children, as the noble Duke said, get £1 5s. per month. It is idle to say that the man was not in regular employment. The reason why he was not in regular employment was that he was a British soldier living in a disloyal part of Ireland. If he had migrated to Northern Ireland, or possibly to England, he would have been able to support his wife and six children. I say that the compensation granted to him was a scandal.
Let me give your Lordships one other case—that of Brigadier-General Higginson, a full report of whose case appeared in The Times of May 25, 1922. On the previous day there was an attempt to murder him just outside the town of Tipperary. He was badly wounded in three places, arrived home insensible, was weak and incapacitated for months, and had to leave Ireland and give up the business in which he had invested money. He claimed £2,000—not an exaggerated sum. What does he get? After wailing two years, which appears to be the usual time allotted, he received £400—£300 for the loss of his business and £100 for the serious injury which he sustained to his health and his person.
So much for injuries to person. May I say just a word or two about damage to property which has occurred since the truce? When this matter was before us last, the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, seemed to minimise these cases of injuries to property and, acting, I have no doubt, under instructions from the Free State, he made use of a most remarkable expression. He said:—
" In the large majority of caser; the question of post-truce damage is one purely domestic to the Free State."
I have taken some trouble to find out-some of the damage to property, at any rate, which has been inflicted upon loyalists since the truce. Some 212 large houses in the South of Ireland have been burnt to the ground, Protestant churches, school houses and rectories have been burnt, and the damage for that alone
626
has been estimated at something like £30,000,000 or £40,000,000. That seems to me hardly to come under the description of a matter purely domestic to the Free State. But when we asked, on March 26 last, for some particulars of the awards or payments made, my noble friend said that he really could not put the Free State to the trouble of getting such information, that they were too busy, or that, for some reason or other, they did not like to give it. At any rate, the noble Lord gave us no information. I hope that he will not give a similar excuse to-day.
May I give two illustrations of damage to property since he truce, and of the manner in which it has been treated? I take the case of Mr. Talbot Crosby, and I mention his name because his case was fully reported in the Cork newspapers of May last. What happened was this. His house, Ardfert Abbey, was burnt to the ground at the end of 1922, or the beginning of 1923. In May, 1924, his case came before the County Court Judge. It was, I venture to think, a most astounding case. It was admitted that if, at or shortly before the time when the house was burnt, Mr. Talbot Crosby had been in residence, he would have been entitled, I think, to a sum of something like £21,000 compensation. But the counsel or solicitor who appeared for the Free State at that hearing raised this extraordinary defence. He pointed to a section in the Act of 1923 to the effect that if the house was not at the time of the damage maintained as a residence by the applicant, the applicant should only get what they called market value. Then he went on to argue that Mr. Talbot Crosby had been driven out of his house by threats of violence some few months before; therefore, his compensation, which would otherwise be £21,000, should be reduced to £2,250.
Did ever such a travesty of justice come before the Court of any civilised country in the world? It comes to this, that if there is a ruffianly body in Ireland desirous of getting rid of a man, turning him out of his house and country and destroying his property, all it has to do is to terrorise him, shoot at him, turn him out of Ireland, and having allowed a few weeks, or whatever time this Court thinks necessary, to elapse after he has left Ireland, then to burn his house down and otherwise destroy his property. Then, when he comes to ask for compensation,

627
he only gets one-tenth of what he would otherwise receive. I hope the noble Lord will see the gravity of a ease of that sort. I have already given him particulars of it, and I trust he has applied to the Free State and is able to give me the explanation that they offer.
The next is the last ease with which I propose to trouble your Lordships. It is the case of a member of this House, Lord Dunalley, whose family have lived for generations in Ireland. In May, 1922—I should add that I think I am right in saying that, neither Lord nor Lady Dunalley has taken any active part in politics, but, on the contrary, both have lived in peace and amity with all their neighbours—Lord and Lady Dunalley were fired at and hit while walking in their own domain. A month later they were fired at on their own doorstep, and shortly after they had, for the protection of their lives, to become refugees in England. No sooner had they left Ireland than in August, 1922, a series of outrages to property commenced. Their house with its furniture was burnt to the ground. The buildings, stables, farmyard and many houses on the estate, were burnt. The woods were destroyed and the farm instruments, cattle, etc. were stolen and raided. Lord Dunalley sent in a number of claims. Some of the claims for raiding, looting, carrying off the cattle, etc., have been heard, and the Judge said: "This is not a matter in which any compensation is paid." Although it is the result of organised robbery and conspiracy, no compensation is payable, and the man does not get, a farthing for that class of claim. An award of something like £9,000 was made for furniture, but I do not think any other claims have been met. I know that with the exception of £11 16 s. 9d. the costs of an award of £52, he has not had one shilling for all this loss inflicted upon him. As to this award of the relatively small sum of £52 and costs, he got the costs but not the £52. I suppose that is the way the Free State does business.
I think your Lordships will agree that this is not the way in which British subjects should be treated. The matter appears to me to have reached an intolerable position. British subjects in Southern Ireland are, and have been, the victims of outrages which would not be tolerated if they occurred in any other part of the world. Supposing they had
628
occurred in some foreign country, and had been inflicted upon the subjects of a foreign country, do you think the country of which those persons were subjects would allow their subjects to be violated and outraged in such a manner? Again, supposing English subjects in, let us say, Mexico, or some remote part of the world, were subjected to the intolerable hardships to which loyal British subjects have been subjected in Southern Ireland, do you think there would not be diplomatic correspondence, followed, it may be, by stronger action? Do you think that in such circumstances the British Government would not insist upon reparation being made to their own subjects?
If that is so with regard to foreign Governments, is there any reason that cm be urged why, when the victims of these outrages are men living within a few miles of our shores, and are our own subjects, and the outrages are done in what is at least part of the British Empire, these matters should not be brought to the attention of the Government under which these men live, and an attempt made to rectify what is a deplorable state of things? I do not believe that the British people as a whole have the remotest idea of what has been going on in Ireland. If they had I think there would have been a clamant demand that justice should be done. I am sure that your Lordships will be playing a great part if you are able to insist that reparation shall be made without delay by the Irish Free State Government, and so remove a great stain which lies upon our honour.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, the Questions of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, afford His, Majesty's Government an opportunity of bringing up to date, or near to date, the information regarding compensation in Ireland which has at previous times been given to your Lordships. I hope that in the course of what I shall say I shall, in addition to giving all the information which I have at my disposal, he able to touch upon some of the principal points, at any rate, brought forward by the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, and by Lord Danesfort. This is the third debate on these matters which has taken place in your Lordships' House during the present Session. On the occasion of the first of

629
these debates, which took place on March 5 upon a Motion of Lord Muskerry, I reviewed at length the whole history of pre-truce compensation, and as regards the Wood-Renton Commission I paid a tribute to Sir Alexander Wood-Renton and his colleagues, for the speed and efficiency with which they were performing their heavy and responsible task. I also gave grounds for the view that the work of the Wood-Renton Commission had given general satisfaction. That statement was widely circulated and I think it may be assumed that it was well founded in view of the fact that scarcely any complaints to the contrary have since been received by His Majesty's Government.
I now come to the Questions of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, the first two of which relate to compensation in respect of injuries arising prior to the truce. Such injuries—I am, of course, referring only to injuries to property—are dealt with by the Wood-Renton Commission. The awards of that Commission are paid by the Free State Government; but at the end of each quarter the Commission reports to both Governments the total of the awards made by it during that quarter and the proportion in which, in their judgment, liabilities for those awards should be shared between the two Governments. Your Lordships will understand therefore that, inasmuch as the Commission does not specify which of its awards are against the British Government and which are against the Free State Government, but only in what proportion the total of its awards is to be divided between the two Governments, I cannot give the information asked for in exactly the form desired by the noble Duke, but I trust that the information which I am in a position to give will be sufficient for your Lordships. I must further add that the figures which I am about to give only go down to March 31 last. As I have already stated, the Commission reports quarterly the proportion in which its awards are divisable between the two Governments, and the Report for the quarter ending June 30 has not yet been received. When that Report is received—and I expect to receive it within the next few weeks, for naturally a little time must elapse before all these statistics can be prepared and forwarded—I shall be happy to supply the
630
figures to any of your Lordships who may be interested in the matter.
Up to March 31 last, then, the Com mission had issued 10,176 awards, the total amount awarded being £5,704,781 with £172,651 costs. The proportion of these awards payable by the British Government has, of course, varied from quarter to quarter and is as follows:—For the first quarter, 16/23rds; for the second quarter, 27/56ths or almost exactly one-half; for the third quarter, 14/29ths, again almost exactly one-half; for the fourth quarter, 18/31ets, rather more than one-half; and for the fifth quarter, 16/35ths, or rather less than one-half. Of the sum of £5,704,781 awarded by the Commission, the Free State Government had, down to March 31 last, paid £4,630,561, and of this sum £2,560,430 had, in accordance with the arrangement to which I have referred, been refunded to them by the British Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, asked for some explanation of the reason for the disparity between the amount of the awards and the amount which had actually been paid. Substantially there are two reasons, and I think they should be regarded as satisfactory reasons. The first one is that about £1,000,000—I think over £1,000,000—has been awarded subject to rebuilding, and is only payable as and when rebuilding is done. Secondly, it is necessary to advertise prospective payments in order to obtain information as to charges, and so on. Hence the average delay between award and payment must be a few weeks—I think approximately five weeks. As regards the sixth quarter, it will not be possible to say accurately in what proportions the unpaid balance will be divisible between the two Governments until the next quarterly account is received from the Government of the Free State, as, of course, the balance includes a certain number of awards issued in previous quarters, and subject, therefore, to a different ratio; but it may, I think, be assumed that the proportion recoverable from the British Government will closely correspond to the proportion which I have already given for the fifth quarter, namely 16/35ths.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, asked if I could say how long it would be before the Wood-Renton Commission completes its labours. The position is this. The Wood-Renton Commission has finished approximately

631
eighty per cent. of its work. The remaining twenty per cent. of the cases are to a large extent either claims in respect of damage done to Government property, or claims in respect to which various difficulties have arisen. I am afraid I could not say how soon this residue of cases will be completed, but I think it will be clear to your Lordships that much the larger portion of the work has already been finished. I venture with confidence to submit that the record of the two Governments concerned up to date in the matter of pre-truce compensation is one which should be regarded as satisfactory. Indeed, I would go further and say that, taking into consideration the number of the claims and the amounts involved, probably no similar problem has ever been dealt with with so much expedition, and, having regard to the great number of cases, with so few justifiable complaints. I should like to take this opportunity of again expressing to Sir Alexander Wood-Renton and his colleagues the thanks of His Majesty's Government for the manner in which they have performed the heavy task which was entrusted to them.
LORD CARSON: You do not give any thanks to the Irish loyalists.
LORD ARNOLD: That is a different point. I now come to the remaining three, parts of the noble Duke's Question, which relate to post-truce compensation. Your Lordships will remember that in the course of the debate which took place on March 26 last, I pointed out that the statistics relating to post-truce compensation were in the main not the concern of this country, inasmuch as the great majority of claimants were not, if I may use the term, loyalists. In view of the noble Duke's Question, however, my right hon. friend the Secretary of State thought it right to explain to the Government of the Irish Free State the great interest which is naturally taken on this side in this matter, and to ask whether they were in a position to afford material which would enable His Majesty's Government to reply as fully as possible to the Questions which the noble Duke had put down. My right hon. friend has received a courteous reply from the Governor-General to this request in which certain information which I shall give to your Lordships is contained. I desire to express to the Government of the Free
632
State the thanks of His Majesty's Government for the particulars which they have been good enough to furnish.
His Excellency explains, on behalf of the Free State Government, that the preparation of the statistics required would, as I foreshadowed in my speech on March 26 (and obviously it is so), involve a great deal of time and labour, and that as the Courts and the State Solicitors, who are the officers of the Free State Government responsible for dealing with this matter, are working under very heavy pressure, it is not possible to give all the details asked for by the noble Duke. A considerable number of cases arising under the Act of 1923 has, however, been dealt with by the Courts and the payments in respect of post-truce damage to property—it is the payments I am speaking of—made under that Act by the Government of the Irish Free State to date amount approximately to £300,000.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Can the noble Lord give us the number of the payments?
LORD ARNOLD: I am afraid I cannot; I have not that information.
LORD CARSON: Is this payments or awards?
LORD ARNOLD: It is payments, I emphasised that—while the ex gratia payments made in respect of injury to the person amount to £268,000.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Does that £300,000 include the City of Dublin?
LORD ARNOLD: I have no further details. I am making the broad statement that the payments in respect of post-truce damage to property under the Act of last year by the Government of the Irish Free State to date amount approximately to £.300,000. Those are payments. His Excellency adds, on behalf of his Ministers, that the satisfactory working of the Act of 1923 is shown by the fewness of the appeals lodged by applicants against the decrees for compensation awarded by the Courts.
LORD CARSON: The noble Lord has told us that £300,000 has been paid. Can be tell us the amount of the claims, because that is important?
LORD ARNOLD: I have not that information.
LORD CARSON: Is it not £15,000,000 or £16,000,000?
LORD ARNOLD: I have not that information, but I remember that on a previous occasion when that question was asked in regard to the pre-truce claims, various considerations were put forward which tended Co show that the figure which would be compiled, if one could be compiled, would not be altogether reliable because there was, at any rate in regard to pre-truce compensation—I am speaking from memory—a certain number of claims which were duplicates. Whether that is so in regard to post-truce cases I cannot say, but at any rate I have not the definite details.
I now come to the cases of post-truce injury to property quoted by Lord Danesfort. It is, of course, difficult for me to discuss individual cases arising in a Dominion and I am sure your Lordships will appreciate (his point. As regards the case of Mr. Crosby, I am informed that he has not appealed. That is my information. I can only say that it he is dissatisfied with the award given by the county court it is, of course, open to him to appeal, unless the time for doing so has already expired; and I do not understand on what grounds he asked through the noble Lord for the intervention of His Majesty's Government before he has exercised, or without having exercised, the legal rights open to him.
LORD DANESFORT: Is there an appeal in a case of this sort? If so, does it go to the House of Lords, or where? Does the noble Lord suggest that a man whose property is burned can always afford to appeal?
LORD ARNOLD: I will tell the noble Lord exactly what the position is. I understand that this is a case under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act of 1923, the main Act which we are discussing. There is an appeal from that to the Circuit Court.
LORD CARSON: What is the section of the Act?
LORD ARNOLD: I have not the section, but there is an appeal to the Circuit Court. I am informed that this right of
634
appeal has not been exercised. Now, as regards the case of Lord Dunalley, the noble Lord was courteous enough to send me some particulars of the case in advance. I understood that the complaint was that some of the noble Lord's claims had not been heard and that in other cases the awards which had been granted had not yet been paid. That is what I understood from the particulars sent to mc. But in the particulars with which he was good enough to supply me privately, the noble Lord did not state the date of the decrees, so that I was unable to judge whether the delay in payment appeared to be excessive or not. But I have no reason to suppose that there has been any unreasonable delay in the payments by the Free State Government in respect of the decrees hitherto awarded by the Court under the Act of 1923. As regards the claims which have not yet been heard, I can only remind your Lordships that the cases arising under the Act are exceedingly numerous and that a certain delay must necessarily intervene before they can all be heard. I have no doubt that these claims will be heard as soon as the Courts concerned have disposed of the claims prior to them on their lists.
In addition to the cases of post-truce injury to property referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, he referred also to certain cases of post-truce injury be person. It is true that the noble Duke's Question relates only to injury to property, but I have already given to your Lordships the figures relating to injury to the person supplied to His Majesty's Government by the Free State Government, from which it will be remembered that the Government of the Free State have already expended more than a quarter of a million pounds in payment, of ex gratia awards made by the Personal Injuries Commission established by them. This amount is, of course, in addition to the compensation paid by them on the award of two members of the Wood-Renton Commission in cases in which members of the Crown Forces were killed or injured in breach of the truce.
Prior to the Treaty Ireland stood, I believe, alone in that statutory compensation was provided by the community for personal injuries of this kind. I am not aware that such compensation is provided in any other country. After the establishment of the Free State, the Free State Government decided to bring themselves.

635
into line with other countries in this matter. They repealed the Statutes providing compensation for personal injuries. This was done not in the lifetime of the present Government. It was done during last year when the late Government was in power. That is when it was done. In view, however, of the circumstances then existing in parts of Ireland the Free State Government set up a Commission for the purpose of awarding ex gratia compensation in cases of personal injuries, but in the terms of reference to that Commission it was provided that the compensation to be awarded was to be such a sum as ought, in reason and fairness, to be paid, regard being had to the actual earning capacity of the injured person prior to the injury and to the impairment of earning capacity attributable to the injury.
This principle of assessment has without doubt meant that less compensation is paid in respect of post-truce personal injury than probably would have been awarded by the Courts under the old Acts: but here again His Majesty's Government can see no ground on which they would be entitled to protest against the adoption of a principle which, in itself, cannot be said to be unreasonable. I was not aware of the precise nature of General Higginson's injuries. The noble Lord spoke of his case, but I have no reason to doubt that the principle to which I have referred has been fairly applied in his case, and that the result of the Committee's award is to place him in the same financial position after the injury that he was in before. I have dealt as fully as I can with the Questions of the noble Duke.
LORD CARSON: Will the noble Lord answer the fifth Question?
LORD ARNOLD: I have answered that as fully as I can with the information that I have. As regards looting, about which questions have been asked, the position is broadly this. Under the old Acts there were a number of cases decided by the Courts to the effect that loss by theft or looting did not afford ground for compensation. During the period when local authorities declined to defend claims a certain number of undefended awards included compensation for loss by loot, but after the truce two such cases were taken to the Court of Appeal, and the Court reversed the decisions and
636
restored the former practice. That, broadly, is the position in regard to looting—what used to be the case, and how-it now stands after the decisions to which I have referred. The Act of 1923 does contain the provision to which reference has been made, but that has been explained already.
I wish, before I sit down, to speak upon the Question of the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, but before I come to that there are a few general considerations arising out of the question of post-truce compensation which I should wish to lay before your Lordships. First, I would once more remind your Lordships—I repeat this in view of certain observations of the noble Duke—that this Government has in no way departed from the policy laid down by its predecessors, but on the contrary have developed that policy as circumstances demanded. Secondly, the Treaty is now just two and a-half years old; and during a considerable portion of that period the Free State has been distracted and torn by civil strife. I do not believe that any of your Lordships will seriously maintain that during that time the Free State Government has in any respect been faithless to any of its obligations under the Treaty. But it is obvious that these civil disturbances have inevitably greatly hampered and delayed the settlement of the problems left over by the conflict which preceded the Treaty, and have in their turn created new problems. Of what I may call the pre-Treaty problems, that of compensation for pre-truce injuries was not the least; and, as I have already indicated to your Lordships, the two Governments who are jointly responsible for the settlement of that problem have gone far towards the completion. But the Free State Government, which is alone responsible for the settlement of post-truce compensation, is now in the very midst of dealing with that problem, and is in addition by no means free from the many difficulties and even dangers which a new State, born in conflict, has to meet.
I would like to add one or two further considerations before I come to the speech of the noble Duke who spoke second. I would, for instance, with great respect submit that your Lordships' House is not the most appropriate place for a detailed

637
discussion of individual cases. Again and again it has been found in the past that seemingly hard oases have, on examination, been explained. Indeed, the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, when he was in office, was able, I think, on more than one occasion to satisfy your Lordships that cases which had been sent to him proved, on investigation, to have no strong ground for compliant. In any case, I would submit that you cannot indict a whole system because of a certain number of cases where claimants are dissatisfied. It must be recognised that under any system there are, and always will be, a certain number of exceptional cases. I, however, feel strongly that these matters should be viewed as a whole.
As general evidence bearing on the position as a whole, I have already, on the authority of the Governor-General, called attention to the fewness of the appeals under the Act of 1023. Further, I think we can learn much from the analogy of what has happened in regard to pre-truce compensation which can now he regarded as a whole, or nearly as a whole. Bui your Lordships will remember that, while we were still in the midst of that question, the answers which His Majesty's Government was able to give in this House to questions addressed to them by your Lordships were by no means so complete or so satisfactory as they are now. I hope and believe that the same will be found to be true of post-truce compensation; and that when the Free State Courts and the Free State Government have wholly or nearly completed their task, including the appeals, so that the problem can be viewed as a whole, and not only in part, it will be found that a reasonable measure of justice has been done.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, before he came to the Question in his name upon the Paper, submitted particulars of certain cases. One of them was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort. I will broadly give the facts. The unfortunate man referred to, before his death, was in receipt of a pension of 15 s. a week—that is £39 a year. I am informed that he had for a considerable period been unemployed prior to his death, and I think that at the best it is true to say that he was only more or less casually employed. There was a certain delay, to which reference has been
638
made. I have not got the precise details about that, though I confess that from my knowledge of the case I could not quite follow all that; was said. However, I will not for a moment speak of that. But when the decision came the widow of this unfortunate man was awarded £1 5s. per month for each child until the children reached the age of sixteen. There are, I believe, six children at the present time below the age of sixteen, and £7 10 s per month would bring the income of the widow up to £90 per year, or thereabouts. It is clear that, financially, she is probably in a better position than she was for some time prior to the death of her husband.
If you ask me whether I am entirely satisfied with this I say, no, I am not entirely satisfied with it, but at the same time I do submit, having regard to the facts which I have put before your Lordships, that at any rate until the children grow up and presumably will be able to help, this unfortunate widow might have been treated with greater harshness. I scarcely feel in all the circumstances that it is a case in which His Majesty's Government should make special representation. I have gone into the matter and tried to find out the actual position and how this particular amount was arrived at by those who were assessing the future income of the widow.
In regard to the speech of the noble Duke I do not intend to minimise the troubles experienced by the persons on whose behalf he has spoken, those who, in the words of the Question, "have suffered damage to person or property as the result of boycott, intimidation or violence," since the truce and who have no claim for compensation under the existing legislation. The information which has already reached me, both through the Association of which the noble Duke is President and otherwise, indicates that particularly in the South and West of the Irish Free State, and generally in isolated districts, cases of boycotting and intimidation, attended sometimes by actual injury to person or property still occur, and I feel sure that this fact is deplored by the Free State Government as much as it is by His Majesty's Government I can assure your Lordships that when individual cases are brought to the notice of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State,

639
or myself, and where it seems that any useful purpose can be served by making representations to Free State Ministers, such representations are made without delay, and are dealt with, I feel sure, as sympathetically as may be possible. I have already reminded your Lordships that only two years ago the Free State was in the throes of civil strife which left it crippled and weak in its infancy. It has on the whole shown marvellous power of recuperation, but the process of recovery is necessarily slow and is not yet complete. We all look forward to the time when the troubles to which the noble Duke has drawn attention will die down, but, as I have said, I certainly have no desire in the meantime to minimise their immediate effect upon the individual sufferers.
But what is it the noble Duke asks His Majesty's Government to do? Of the hardships and persecutions recounted by him, a considerable portion are of a kind for which no provision has been made, or can be made, by the law, and are moreover evils which during the period when His Majesty's Government was responsible for law and order in Ireland flourished unchecked, because they could not be checked, to a greater extent even than my information leads me to suppose that they flourish at present. No Government can ensure that, in the matter of employment, for example, discrimination shall not be exercised against certain classes of the population. The only remedy, in fact, for evils of this kind lies in the abatement of unrest and the strengthening of public security, objects which, I may safely say, are never absent from minds ambitious for the future of the country and responsible for its Government.
But there are other forms of persecution to which the noble Duke has referred which can be remedied by a strict enforcement of the law—apart from eases of personal injury with which I have dealt, as fully as I can in replying to the Duke of Devonshire. I refer to cases where men are dispossessed of their property and the whole class of what were formerly known as "agrarian" cases. It is, I think, within the knowledge of some of your Lordships that for some time past the Free State Government has detailed troops to deal with cases of this kind and
640
that in a very large number of cases in which, during the civil strife, farms had been seized and stocked, the cattle have been driven off and sold and the property restored to its owners. In such cases, if it should appear that the facts have not been brought fully to the notice of the Free State Government, His Majesty's Government will gladly undertake to see that this is done.
I am, I should perhaps explain, only dealing with people who, in spite of hardship suffered in one or other of the forms mentioned in the terms of the Question, have been able to remain in their houses. Your Lordships are well aware that many who have been forced to leave the Free State have been assisted by a Committee set up for that purpose with the full agreement of the Free State Government. The money expended by this Committee, the Irish Grants Committee, up to last week in grants alone, by way of relief and by way of resettlement, and irrespective of the advances made on statutory claims, amounted to nearly £50,000, a considerable proportion of which is recoverable from the Free State Government under the Agreement made with them when the Committee was setup. Such people we can help, but where the individual concerned has not become a refugee, I am afraid it must be realised that His Majesty's Government cannot directly intervene.
In addition to what I have said about the relief granted by the Irish Grants Committee, I should like to make it clear that when an aggrieved person, whether a refugee or not, has any statutory claim against the Free State Government, His Majesty's Government are still willing to make advances on the security of that claim. They have up to the present time made advances amounting in all to over £300,000 and have thus, I know, relieved much temporary hardship and distress.
LORD CARSON: Amongst how many people?
LORD ARNOLD: I could not say without reference.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I freely acknowledge that the noble Lord always tries to meet applications for information to the best of his ability, and I should also like to acknowledge the truth of what he said, that the difficulties under which we labour are not the creation of

641
the present Government but are a legacy left by the last two Governments. But having acknowledged so much, it does not relieve the situation in the slightest degree. It is no use pretending that pledges and promises have been carried out when it can be demonstrably shown that they have been absolutely broken and neglected. I will deal with that in a few moments, but lest I forget, let me entirely dispute the statement which the noble Lord has made, and made more than once, of the complete satisfaction that has been felt with the Wood-Renton Commission.
That statement was put forward and sent by the Secretary of State for the Colonies two or three days ago to the Committee which receives these claims from Ireland, and here is the answer returned to him yesterday, of which I have a copy. It does not express that great admiration and I will tell the noble Lord why in a moment—that he would lead the House to believe they feel for this particular Commission. The Committee say that:—
" They would like to point out in reply to paragraph 2 "—
that is the paragraph of a laudatory character regarding the Wood-Renton
Commission—
" that the appreciatory remarks made about the Wood-Renton Commission did not extend to those inspectors, whom presumably the Commissioners are unable to control, and who are using the pressure of threatened building conditions to compel loyalist" who cannot rebuild in Ireland to accept perhaps one-third of the sum which the investigators themselves admit it would cost to rebuild."
Let me explain to your Lordships what that means, and what is the method of the Wood-Kenton Commission.
The Wood-Renton Commission was appointed to investigate all the pre-truce claims in respect of property. They even had authority to overrule awards that had been made by British Courts. The noble Lords says that they got through a good deal of work, and that they are now practically winding up. How did they do it? I will tell your Lordships. They sent to every unfortunate claimant, whether he held a decree or not, these inspectors, who used the most tyrannical methods towards these people to make them come to a suggested agreement. I may remind your Lordships that, out of the thousands of cases that were put forward, this great Wood-Renton Commission heard only
642
about 500 altogether. The House will easily see that was the effect of the methods they adopted in sending inspectors down to intimidate these people.
What is the meaning of the passage regarding building conditions? I will tell your Lordships. This is one of the greatest travesties of justice that has ever been brought before this House. It means—and I have cases here to prove what I say—that the inspectors went to these men whose houses had been burned down and whose property had been destroyed, and said—I give this as an actual case—" If you will take £4,000 to settle you can have it. Admittedly your property is worth £20,000, but if you insist on going on and getting the value of your property, we will put a condition upon you that you must rebuild." That has been done in hundreds of cases. What does it mean? Let us look at it as men of the world, and not in this humbugging spirit of pretending you are doing justice, which makes it worse, because it is only an absolute sham. Their suggestion really means this: "You have been driven out of Ireland, your house has been burnt, your furniture has been destroyed, you have probably been shot at and your wife and family have been in danger. You must come back and rebuild your house and live amongst the people who threw you out." Am I right in describing that as a farce? That is the way in which these pro-truce cases have been dealt with, and that is the way in which this large number of claims has been disposed of.
Yet, with all this, the amount paid, as I understand the figures—they were the only figures given by the noble Lord—amounted to about £5,704,000, and out of that the British Government paid nearly one half. What does that mean? For damage done in what they call the war by the British Forces the British Government have paid one half of all that has been paid for that long series of outrages which the Wood-Renton Commission has dealt with. When I give your Lordships the facts of one case that was put forward and has been postponed for hearing, you will see, what the British Government is paying for. This was the ease of a man who kept a bomb factory in premises at the rear of a certain house in one of the squares in Dublin for the purpose of making bombs to attack the

643
Crown Forces. His premises were raided by the Crown Forces and considerably knocked about. He has lodged a claim for £800. Whatever is allowed on that claim will be paid by the British taxpayer.
I would press upon the noble Lord that he might put a little persuasion upon the Free State Government in this matter. Is it any wonder that the Free State Government have not sent to the British Government any details of the claims for which they were called upon to pay? As I understand the noble Lord's statement, the British Government have accepted the Bill for the damage done by their own Forces, and have paid it just as it was presented to them, without any inquiry whatsoever. I do not wonder, if they were paying for bomb factories which were brought into existence for the purpose of blowing up British soldiers. All that has been paid in hard cash for all the damage that has been done by these people during those years before the truce, after you have reversed judgments of your own Courts over there, is somewhere about half the sum which has been paid by the British taxpayer, who has not even been allowed to know what he paid it for. Whether it ever reached the claimants I do not know. There is no evidence to that effect.
I turn to one other matter to which the noble Lord referred. He spoke of the case of Mr. Talbot Crosby, of Ardfert, whose beautiful and historic place, an old abbey, was burnt down. The agreed figure in relation to it was £21,000; this was agreed by the Crown and the claimant as its value. But they said: "You were not in residence, and therefore you can only get £2,000." The noble Lord asked why he did not appeal. May I ask the noble Lord what would be the good of appealing in a case of that kind, if the Statute said that, as he was not in residence, they can put the compensation at what they call the "market value"? What may be the market value of anything of that kind in Ireland, it would, of course, be impossible to decide, for there could not be any market value. What are you to appeal about? He was not in residence, and therefore he came under the section. Why was he not in residence? Because he was driven out of Ireland by force, and because the British Government left him no protection, but
644
handed him over to the Free State, who refused to protect him. And then, in consequence of this sequence of facts, he is told that the value of his place is £21,000, but that he ought to be very thankful to get £2,000. So much for the matters to which reference has been made.
The noble Lord, I am sorry to say, and I am not blaming him for it, has answered very few of the Questions put upon the Paper. Indeed, I think he has only-answered the first one; but let me, before I come to that, say this. He very properly asks: "What do you suggest: what is the purport of your suggestion!" It was the British Government which gave a free hand to the Free State to do what they liked. I am not speaking of verbal promises. It was the British Government which withdrew all protection from their loyal supporters in Ireland. It was the British Government which gave the Free State the authority to revoke judgments given in His Majesty's Courts in Ireland, which was, I venture to think, a matter unprecedented in the history of this or any other civilised country. It was the British Government which gave them the power to abolish the claims for consequential damage, and claims for personal injuries, which they did by the Act of 1923. When the British Government did that, they said: "We must recognise our obligations to these people, and, recognising our obligations, we must first try to get the Free State to pay, and if they do not pay we must undertake the responsibility ourselves." I say that that is the duty of any Government in the circumstances disclosed here, and that can be disclosed.
The noble Lord asks: How can you deal with individual cases? If he will stay here I can go on giving him individual cases till midnight, but, of course, you cannot deal with individual cases here. Let the Government, however, set up a Commission, of their own appointment, to discover who has suffered from the action of the British Government in abandoning these people and giving this liberty to the Free State. Then we will bring cases, and they can be sifted. Let the British Government then take care that the money shall be forthcoming for the payment of compensation to these men, whose only crime was that they were loyal to the end—men whom we used in our campaign for two years before the truce, and whom, for

645
political reasons, we finally abandoned. Is not that a fair suggestion? Quotations have already been made from Mr. Winston Churchill. The late Government made exactly the same promises, and the noble Lord said that the present Government did not wish to go back upon anything that they had said. Then I ask this question: When does the obligation of the British Government to see justice done commence: I pray you commence now.
When I heard the noble Lord justifying the acts of the Free State—because, after all. he is merely a gramophone for the Free State—the one thing which he never thought of war, the burning anxiety and miseries caused by the delays in these cases. The noble Lord talked of the pre-truce cases being practically satisfied at the present moment. I have here—and, of course, they are only a few of those sent to the association—ease after ease of decrees, now two years old, under which not a penny has been paid. Do not let: us get away with that idea that we are only dealing with big cases. It is the small cases which cause the greatest hardship. Here is one—it is no use mentioning names—Lost eon, in the militia, burning so and so, August 27, 1920, lodged a claim for £500, decree for £200, but only received £75. Here is another one:—May 12, had barracks burnt in certain place, received a decree for £800, nut paid. On June 6, 1921, three trees cut down, house, unoccupied, looted, broken open and destroyed, not paid a penny either under the decree or in respect of the other matters. I have heard of many cases of a similar character where decrees were given.
There is one to which I would like to draw attention. It is that of a man who had certain licensed premises burnt down on March 17, 1921, by the British Crown Forces—it is a case in which he should get something from Great Britain—and the stables, livestock and other property were destroyed. The family of five young children had to flee from the house early in the morning. The case was before the County Court Judge in January, 1922, and £3,072 and costs were awarded. The case was reviewed by the Wood-Benton Commission, who awarded £3,600—they had to cut down something. The man is in desperate circumstances owing to the loss of his business, but he
646
has not been paid. I am talking of the small man—the poor devil, if I may so call him. Then there is a case which I brought before the Irish Grants Committee, and let me say, with regard to that, I believe Lord Eustace Percy and Colonel Jamieson are doing their best, within their limited reference and their limited resources. I may say, in passing, that the amount of business they do could be extended to bring great relief to many of these people.
Here is a letter from a man who wrote to me during the month from Birmingham. He says he is one of the unfortunate ex-R.1.C. men compelled to flee from Ireland owing to having served in the Constabulary for twenty-eight years, although he had retired on a pension fourteen years before his house was raided. He says it is not a case of politics but simply of revenge and of coveting his position and land, which were worth to him over £7 per week. He lodged a claim for £3,500—namely, £3,000 for office and land, and £500 for the destruction of his furniture. That was over two years ago. After two years the case came on and he was awarded £250. He writes saying he has a boy who is dying, with no hope of recovery. This boy was cruelly ill-treated by the raiders, the I.R.A. men, taken out of his warm bed three nights in succession after the raid on his father's house, without any clothes or boots, and marched up and down the town for three or four hours. Now and again he was put standing against a wall, and orders were given to the firing party to execute him if he would not divulge the whereabouts of his father and brother, whom they were determined to assassinate.
"Luckily for myself," writes my correspondent, "I made good my escape, unnoticed, in the morning of May 6, 1922, and came on direct to Birmingham," where he has never been able since, though trying hard to do so, to get any work—because everybody knows the state of employment in this country. He brought to the notice of the Commission that he had not a shilling at the time, and that he had a son on his deathbed, yet, after two years, he only got £250 awarded for the loss of everything he had in the world. The Commission advanced him £100 on his decree, the letter he got from them saying that their means did not allow them to offer him anything

647
more. He has written over and over again to be paid the balance of his £250, and he has not even got an answer from the authorities in Dublin. I suggest that, the least the Government might do, when decrees are made, is to pay the amount of the decree, and then get the money themselves from the Free State. After all, you are the people who trust the Free State; you have just said so. You say they are managing splendidly, and that there is no unnecessary delay. Very well, pay the money to these martyrs to their loyalty to you, and then get it back from the Free State. But is not that an intolerable case after two years? I hope that man will go about in Birmingham, now that he is over here, and tell the people he meets what the British Government really is when it wants to make a surrender in politics.
There is another matter. It is said that there are inquiries going on over there. Many cases have been given to you. I have been looking through a number of cases; I get so many of them that I am hardly able to acknowledge all. I send on a few, because, if I sent them all, the Colonial Office would have nothing else to do but answer. Most extraordinary judgments are sometimes come to, and every sort of expedient, is adopted for escaping liability, even under the Act of Parliament. If gangs of these ruffians come up and destroy your house, and take away all your things, and you claim compensation, you may get compensation for your house on the principle that I have told you of—namely, that you go back there and build a house—but, as regards the goods that are taken away, you get no compensation, because they say that is common loot.
Let me give you instances. The mansion house belonging to a certain family was bodily carried off. This is the description that I have received of this incident:
" It was unoccupied at the time. The natives descended on it, pullea the structure to pieces, and carried off everything, including the roof, which they put up for auction, and the walls. There is nothing now left to show that there ever was a house. The claim for compensation was disallowed as loot."
A gentleman in the County of Cork had an enormous quantity of electrical instruments, scientific instruments, taken by the I.R.A. He obtained decrees under the
648
British Courts for sums considerably exceeding £1,00(). His awards were subsequently disallowed by the Wood-Renton Commission as loot.
I have a case here of a rev. gentleman who was a Chaplain to the Forces. I always notice that we never have any Bishops present when the cases of these, loyalists are brought up in this House; if they had been here they might have had some sympathy with this rev. gentleman. His things were taken away in a raid—even his chaplain's outfit, and all his cattle. He was a poor man. I have here the three decrees that he got in the County Courts, amounting to £300 or £400. This is what he says:
" During 1920 and 1921 I was raided eleven times, and many persona) articles were taken, while much damage was done to Church property."
The Bishops might note that. In January, 1920, he was awarded £37 and £23 costs, making in all £60 in respect of cattle driven from his land. On January 21, 1921, he was awarded £130 and £14 11 s. 3d. costs in respect of other goods taken away in a raid. His wife, on June 21, was awarded £17 and costs, and he states that certain of the Irregulars admitted having taken the goods, while certain Free State officers admitted having used them. His decrees were reopened by the Wood-Renton Commission and the claims were disallowed as loot. He gets no redress, and now what is the result of his having won his cases in British Courts? He gets paid nothing, and this poor clergyman has had to pay his solicitor £41 8s. 3d. for costs, and he owes another solicitor £20 2s. for costs in connection with certain other claims. And that is justice!
I have already called attention to the way in which they get rid of the claims by putting in this building condition. I have another case here, where there was a claim for £39,000, a claim by Captain Somerset Maxwell, cousin of a member of this House, and he proved the damage. But his counsel made this very remarkable statement, which I take from a newspaper:
" Mr. Dockrell said, having regard to what had happened, neither Captain Maxwell nor his mother intended to resume residence in the country, so that the question of restoration did not arise."
I should add that his mother was an old lady who had a charge of £500 a year

649
upon this property. I suppose they were rather influenced by his stating in the course of the evidence that he was the owner of 2,000 or 3,000 acres of land and two houses, but he was reduced to leaving Ireland. As he was getting no rents from has estates he organised an orchestra in London to maintain himself and his relatives. I suppose that means that he is playing in a band somewhere or other. As he was an officer in the Army I am sure that some of your Lordships at all events may think it a hard fate for a man who had all this property, that because he refuses to go back to the place where his property was burned, he is awarded 124 as compensation for damage proved to amount to something like £35,000.
There are other cases of a different character. I am sorry to detain the House so long, but your Lordships know that what the British Government would like is that these matters should lie in abeyance. There is nothing that England likes better than forgetting. It is easy to forget, particularly if it costs nothing. In connection with the next case that I desire to bring before your Lordships I want to say something complimentary about the present Government. This case is an illustration of the way in which compensation is awarded. This is the case of a man who would not risk his life,—for reasons I will give you in a moment—by going before a Cabinet Committee to prosecute his claim for compensation amounting to £37,237. His furniture was destroyed at a railway station on the night of April 20, 1922. He lost several good appointments which he held and by which he was making £2,000 or £3,000 a year. He was compelled to quit Ireland and he claimed for consequential losses.
What had happened was this. Twenty of the Free State troops raided his house. I have here a quotation from a letter from General O'Duffy, who says that: "The raid on the house was carried out by mutinous troops who were disloyal to headquarters." They went up to the house while this gentleman and his son were alone in it. They demanded admission, no doubt to burn the house. He and his son refused to allow them to enter and stayed in the hall. When the raiders came in they shot them one after another until they had shot six. That
650
man, of course, will never again be able to show his face in Ireland for daring to protect himself when no Government would protect him. Your Lordships will be amazed to hear the amount of compensation that he got for the loss of about £2,000 a year and for being driven out of the country. The Judge gave him a decree for £80 in respect of damage done to the furniture at the railway station. His Honour said that he could not give him anything for his having to leave the country nor for the consequential losses sustained by reason of his not being protected. I will say this, however, and it is right and fair that I should say it because I happen to know this gentleman myself. It is entirely to the credit of the present Government that, while no other Government would do anything for this man, they have tried to obtain and I believe have obtained employment for him. If they recognise the case from my description (I mention no names) I can assure them they have got a man of first-rate business capacity who is revered and respected throughout the whole of the North of Ireland.
I do not know that it is necessary to pursue this matter further. We have got much further in the matter of information. The noble Lord has told us that £300,000 has been paid in respect of post-truce claims. It was officially stated that the damage done since the truce was estimated at between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000. You might as well say that sixpence has been paid as that £300,000 has been paid. What is to happen while this delay continues? What are these people to do? If they are able to be paid let them be paid now and give them the hope of a chance of some sort, of new life. I have found nobody but myself who has been paid at all in any of these cases that have happened since the truce. There may be such cases, but I have not been able to find them. There are several members of your Lordships' House who have been awarded large sums but have not been paid. I would point out to the noble Lord that to say that £300,000 has been paid out of £40,000,000 or £50,000,000—that may be an estimate, and I dare say by various means they will get it down to £14,000,000 or £15,000,000 or something of the sort—after three years, is really making the whole thing absolutely hopeless and helpless for the people who are hoping to get a new start.

651
There is one other matter to which I would like to direct your Lordships' attention. In regard to many of these claims which have been proved after a great deal of trouble and in which awards have been made, it is said:—" We cannot pay the award because we must estimate what Income Tax you ought to have paid during the last three years." Just fancy estimating Income Tax in such cases ! What do you pay Income Tax for? I always thought it was for benefits received from the Government. You do not pay Income Tax to have your house burned down, your property looted, your children driven up and down the street, and all the rest of the things I have described. But they say: "You owe. Income Tax." I know of a case of a resident of this country who has discharged his Income Tax and Super-Tax and has paid every penny over here. He was awarded a sum of money in compensation and he has been told: "You must furnish us with an account of your property, whether it is in Ireland or England, and whether you have paid taxes upon it or whether you have not. We cannot pay the award until Income Tax has been assessed." I have accounts of several cases in which people have been awarded small amounts and, after waiting for a long time, have been told: "Well, so much was awarded to you, but the authorities advise us that you ought to have been paying Income Tax and, therefore, we will take the sum awarded and apply it to that purpose."
Here is a case as to which the man himself makes a statement in a letter. This man was agent of a noble Lord who is a member of this House. He had a free house, salary and commission and he was agent for one of the shipping lines as well. On the night of November 4, 1922, his house was attacked by armed men and he was shot and badly wounded. The attack was made purely because of his loyalty to the Crown, he being an ex-officer and his employer a Unionist Peer. He lodged a claim for £2,000 compensation for personal injuries due to his being shot and badly wounded. The case was heard on October 10, 1923, and the Judge awarded him £40. Oh, generous justice ! In March, 1924, the Minister of Finance in Dublin informed him that his claim had now been considered and they gave him an ex gratia grant of £40, but as he owed
652
this amount to the Revenue Commissioners they had sent a cheque for £40 to the Revenue Commissioners in discharge of that liability. There is the case of a man who, having been driven out of Ireland and having given up every one of his appointments, goes before what is called a Court and is awarded £40. He is living over here, and is deprived of every source of income because he did not get the ordinary protection that the Income Tax payer ought to have.
This Government sometimes are movable in these things, and I willingly acknowledge that since they came into power I have had more kind things done for some of these poor people whose cases I have brought before them than I ever got before from either of the two preceding Governments. I urge the Government to set up some sort of tribunal. Let them choose it themselves, and suggest such limitations as they like, but let it be a tribunal before which men can bring these, injustices. Do not let this great stain remain on England's honour and on England's fairness.

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

PUBLIC HEALTH (SMOKE ABATEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I will not venture to take up very much of your time to-night on this Bill, because in all its essentials it is the Bill that your Lordships have already given a Second Reading to twice before. I hope that those who are interested in this subject will believe me when I say that that is the reason for my brevity and not any disrespect for the great cause for which they have fought, or because I do not really appreciate the importance of the subject. To-night, I think it would be sufficient if I reminded your Lordships very briefly of the salient points of the Bill. Firstly, the colour distinction is removed. Secondly, the Minister is empowered to add to the list of noxious gases. Thirdly, the Minister does not

653
alter the body which is to operate this Act. The power is left in the hands of the sanitary authorities. The Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, suggested that the power should be transferred to county councils. The Ministry, however, consider that the sanitary authorities, being on the spot, are the best bodies to deal with the matter, at any rate at first, and that they are more likely to have nuisances brought under their notice. But the Ministry have met this point by giving the county councils power to act in default, and, further, they are giving the Minister power to act in default.
When this Bill was read a second time some little time ago the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, raised one objection. He said that this was an example, and a bad example, of legislation by reference. I am, however, in a position to satisfy that criticism. The Ministry quite agree with his point, and they have authorised me to say that at the present moment the officials of the Ministry are engaged in consolidating the whole of the Public Health Acts, and that when that is done, if this Bill goes through, it will duly be incorporated in its right form. I may also add that the Minister would be very pleased to consider any Amendments that are likely to improve the Bill. He is also willing to consider Amendments which, I understand, are likely to be put down by certain shipping interests. He will, however, have to keep in mind that this Bill is only likely to get through in the near future if we are able to maintain that very general measure of agreement that hitherto has been attained. On a subject of this importance the Government, of course, expect a number of Amendments, and, as I said, the Minister will be very pleased to consider them.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I do not want in any way to oppose the Bill, but there are two points to which my attention has been called by industry, and I desire at once to bring them to the notice of the Government. One is a purely administrative point. The other is a point of some substance. Under Clause 3 the whole of the metal industry is practically immune, I understand, from prosecution under the Smoke Abatement Acts for a
654
definite period of five years, and afterwards until they are excluded from protection by a Provisional Order. There are, however, in industry new processes which it might be desirable to include in the protective clause.
There is also, I understand, in the pottery district a glazing process in connection with the finishing of pottery which requires, at the present time, a very heavy smoke charged atmosphere, and if this process of glazing is not completed this particular industry would leave this country, because of the impossibility of securing the same finish to the goods without it as could be put upon them by competitors in other countries who would not be subjected to this limitation. The point I want the Government to consider before the Committee stage is whether they would include in the power of the Minister not only the power of exclusion, but also the power to include processes which require protection. There may be new processes, or there may be processes already in operation, which really require protection under the clauses of this Bill. I will put down an Amendment dealing with that point, and I hope it may receive the favourable consideration of the Government. It is merely an empowering Amendment, and gives to the Minister, if he is satisfied that inclusion is required, the same power as he will have to exclude under the provisions of the Smoke Abatement Acts.
My other point is one which I think will be acceptable to the Government without much consideration. In an industry smoke frequently occurs through careless firing of boilers, and complaint naturally is made. In many cases notice is at once given of the complaint to the perpetrator and action is taken by the industry to abate the nuisance which is being caused. But there is no obligation in law for any such notice to be given, and I am seeking to make it obligatory on the part of the inspector, who alleges the offence, to give notice at once to the individual so that there may be no delay in dealing with it. If it is left to the ordinary course of procedure then the inspector reports to the sub-committee, and the sub-committee has to wait until the council meeting is called. Then a resolution has to be passed by the council and the town clerk, or the clerk of the authority, has

655
to communicate with the firm. Sometimes weeks pass without notice being given of the complaint, and my object is, by a simple administrative process, to give notice at once to the alleged defaulter. Industries at the moment are doing all they can by research work to reduce the smoke nuisance, and many processes have already been discovered by which it is possible to take advantage of the waste products which smoke contains. I hope these two points will receive the favourable consideration of the Government.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I should like to offer a word of congratulation to my noble friend opposite on bringing in a Bill which is exactly the same as that which I had the honour to submit to your Lordsips' House. This is the third Smoke Abatement Bill laid before Parliament during the last three years.
LORD NEWTON: The fourth.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is the third with which I have had any connection. The first was introduced by the Coalition Government, the second by the Conservative Government, and now we have this Bill introduced by the present Government. I may fairly claim, therefore, that this is an absolutely non-Party matter; that all Parties are united in endeavouring to do something to abate the smoke nuisance. I trust that the efforts of three Governments may result, before long, in something tangible being done. Last year when I introduced a Smoke Abatement Bill, I suggested that there, should be some interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, but really that interval has been rather more prolonged than I anticipated, and as the present Bill is practically the same as the Bill introduced last year, and to which your Lordships gave a Second Beading, I hope my noble friend will proceed with the Committee stage as soon as he can. One thing which he said gave me considerable pleasure. The objection which was raised last year to my Bill by the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, was that it was the worst example of legislation by reference he had ever seen, and my noble friend said that this was to be met by including this Bill in a Public Health Consolidation Bill. I am glad to sec that my noble friend has again followed the excellent example of the late Government.
656
One word on the Bill itself. There are a few changes from the previous measure. For instance: I hope the noble Lord will give me some indication as to what the subsection in Clause 2, relating to the London County Council, actually means. Then there was an omission in the Bill of last year in regard to the confirmation of by-laws by the Ministry of Health. It may have again been inadvertently omitted. The other alteration is only slight; the provisions with regard to black smoke have been made a trifle stronger. We have heard from Lord Gainford that he proposes to move Amendments in Committee, and I trust that other noble Lords who are interested in the question will also move Amendments so that the whole question may be thoroughly thrashed out and that we may arrive at some conclusion on the subject.
VISCOUNT INCHCAPE: My Lords, I hope when this Bill comes before us in Committee that some Amendment will be accepted by the Government. No device has yet been invented which will enable steamers to consume their own smoke. I only wish we could get some such device, it would save us many thousands of pounds a year. But if this Bill goes through as it is, and shipping is included, I am afraid there will be great danger of ships being held up in the ports of London, Liverpool, Bristol, and elsewhere, which will cause serious inconvenience. I feel sure that His Majesty's Government will take care to consider this point very carefully in Committee.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is not the third Bill which has been introduced on this subject; it is the fourth. I introduced one myself, and three Bills have been introduced by successive Governments. I observe that some slight progress has been made on each occasion, and this Bill is described as a Public Health Bill, which shows that the Government recognise some of the objections to smoke. It is a novel experience for me to find anybody in this House besides myself who has anything to say on a Bill of this kind. I welcome the contributions of noble Lords, but up to now they do not appear to be quite so friendly to the principle of the Bill as I should like.
I congratulate the Government on one thing, and that is that in framing this Bill they consulted not only the various associations

657
with whom I act but also the representatives of the Federation of British Industries, and I observe that this very important and influential body has got something very substantial out of the Government. In Clause 2, in addition to the advantages they have hitherto enjoyed in the way of exemption, they are going to get still further exemptions. In this I trace the hand of Sheffield. There is no noble Lord present just now who is interested in Sheffield, but probably, if one were present, he would be very indignant with me when I say that Sheffield is one of the smokiest towns in the country. I am informed, on the authority of the Air Ministry, that airmen, when they rise from London on a clear day, can at once distinguish the smoke of Sheffield in the far distance, and can direct their course to it without the need of compasses or anything else, just as the Israelites were able to proceed by means of the pillar of cloud thousands of years ago.
While congratulating the Government upon some slight improvements in the Bill, there are certain matters regarding which I, as well as the noble Lords who have spoken, propose to offer Amendments. I observe that many of the recommendations which we made have been conspicuously ignored. I notice, for instance, that in the clause which deals with what are termed standards the penalties apply only to black smoke. I should have thought that everybody would realise, by this time that smoke is equally objectionable in whatever form it may appear. Green, yellow or brown smoke is every bit as objectionable as black smoke. Then again I observe, much to my surprise—because I look upon it as an act of extraordinary coolness, not to say impudence, on the part of the Government—that they propose to exempt their own establishments. They propose to fine private manufacturers if they emit smoke, but they are going carefully to exempt their own manufactures from anything of the kind.
As regards administration, I regret that the Government have been unable to accept our recommendations. We wanted to make the county councils and the boroughs responsible for the administration of this Act. That would have reduced the number of authorities who would have had to administer the Act from 1800 to something like 140, which,
658
in itself, would have been a very considerable gain. But my chief objection to the Bill—and I hope that, for once in a way, it is a groundless objection—is that it is brought in at such a late period of the Session that there is not much hope of its passing into law. I have frequently deplored the apathy of successive Governments with regard to this important question. I regard it as one of the most pressing social questions that exist, and I will go so far as to say that it has a very important political aspect as well. It is not by a mere coincidence that the most revolutionary and disturbing influences in politics proceed from the districts which are most afflicted with smoke. There is a very good reason for it. A short time ago we were talking a great deal about "homes for heroes," though we do not hear so much of that kind of talk now. The hero's home is not ideal if, as happens in many parts of the country, he is unable to open his windows on account of the state of the atmosphere.
The great difficulty with this Government—and I am rather surprised at it, though it has also been the great difficulty with other Governments—is that you cannot get them to believe that there are any votes to be got out of this Bill. I know perfectly well, and everybody else knows, that no Government will take up any Bill unless it thinks that there are votes to be got out of it, and we find it very difficult to persuade even this Government that there are votes to be got by legislation of this character. I believe that to be a profound illusion. I believe that there are far more people, and intelligent people too, who feel deeply upon this subject than is commonly realised, and that if any satisfactory legislation is ever passed the Minister responsible for it will have conferred inestimable benefit upon his fellow-citizens.
There is, at all events, one hopeful feature about this most important question, and that is that it has been taken out of the hands of private individuals, people like myself and societies who have been perpetually urging legislation of this character. I am only too glad to think that, now that successive Governments have accepted the responsibility of

659
dealing with this most important question, it will, I take it, be impossible for almost any Government to evade it in future, and, if we exercise sufficient patience, I suppose we shall some day get, if not everything we want, at least a large measure of it.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for his congratulations, and I only hope that the Labour Government will continue bringing to fruition those works which other Governments are apparently unable to achieve. I will certainly bring the Amendments suggested by noble Lords to the notice of the Minister.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.

HOUSING BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, there is an Amendment on the Paper in my name which is merely a verbal correction. I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 108, page 75, line 41, after the first (" the ") insert (" streets or ").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RE-ORGANISATION OF OFFICES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 9:
Secretary for Scotland may make orders relating to Register of Deeds., etc.
(2) It shall be lawful for the Secretary for Scotland, after consultation as aforesaid, by order to direct that the office of Director of Chancery shall be discontinued, and to provide for the performance of any powers and duties of the said Director by the Keeper of the Records, the Keeper of the General Register of Sasines, the Keeper of the Register of Deeds, the Principal Extractor of the Court of Session, the Sheriff Clerk of Chancery, or the sheriff clerks of counties in such manner as may seem expedient.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I have an Amendment upon the Paper which is consequential upon that which was done on the last stage. I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 9, page 3, line 41, leave out (" as aforesaid ") and insert (" with the Lord President of the Court of Session").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE LATE SIR HUGH LANE'S PICTURES.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, before the House adjourns I desire to take the opportunity of making a similar announcement to one made to-day in another place with reference to the composition of the Committee which, as I stated on Monday, will be set up to inquire into the intentions of the late Sir Hugh Lane as to the disposition of his French pictures. The right hon. J. W. Wilson has consented to act as Chairman of the Committee, and the other members will be the right hon. George Barnes and Mr. J. W. Hills.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.