Sitting of 21 February 1935

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Reading Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next, at half-past Seven of the clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    JUVENILES.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of juveniles who have left school since December last who to-day rank as insured workers?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The total number of juveniles under 16 years of age, who entered insurance during January, 1935, was 68,431, but I cannot say how many of these left school in the previous December.
    Sir F. SANDERSON: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether the school-leaving age might be increased as a temporary measure, say, during the next three or four years, which would assist materially to relieve unemployment?
    Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Order Paper.

    JUVENILE INSTRUCTION CENTRES.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour how many education authorities have submitted schemes for the provision of centres of instruction for unemployed juveniles; and how many of these proposals have been submitted by cities and county boroughs and counties, respectively?
    Mr. STANLEY: Up to the 19th February formal proposals had been received from 77 education authorities for
    502
    the provision of junior instruction centres or classes for unemployed juveniles. The authorities include the London County Council, 48 county boroughs, 25 county councils, and 3 counties of cities. Up to the same date formal proposals had also been received from 9 county boroughs and 31 counties for the admission of unemployed juveniles to existing educational institutions.

    STATISTICS.
    Sir F. SANDERSONasked the Minister of Labour the year and approximate date, during the past 15 years, when the number of employed workers was at its highest?
    Mr. STANLEY: In the period from November, 1920, the date on which the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, came into operation, the number of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, estimated to be in employment in Great Britain, was highest at 23rd September, 1929, when it was 10,316,000.
    Sir F. SANDERSONasked the Minister of Labour the total number of insured workers employed in industry to-day, and the figure at this time last year and in 1931?
    Mr. STANLEY: The estimated numbers of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, in employment in Great Britain were 10,053,000 at 28th January, 1935, 9,878,000 at 22nd January, 1934, and 9,227,000 at 26th January, 1931.

    UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.
    Colonel CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Labour why no women were appointed to the administrative staff of the Unemployment Assistance Board; and, in view of the recent breakdown and of the suitability of women for this work, whether he will take steps to have an adequate number of women immediately appointed?
    Mr. STANLEY: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the board have borne in mind the desirability of appointing an appropriae proportion of women staff. As regards the small number of posts in the administrative grades at headquarters, I am informed that before filling them the board carefully considered the qualifications of a number of women candidates; although no women have up to the present been

    503
    appointed to this grade I may point out that other grades at headquarters and the provincial staff, who have direct dealings with applicants, include a number of women officers, both in higher and lower ranks.
    Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: May we assume that women will be appointed to these posts in the near future?
    Mr. STANLEY: Yes, Sir. The board will have no hesitation in appointing women if they find one really suitable for the post.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that if they had a woman in the Government they would have less difficulty in finding appropriate women for appropriate places?
    Mr. STANLEY: If they had some women in the Government there would be no chance for anybody.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that if they had a woman in the Government they would probably make more drastic decisions and stick to their guns more than than do?
    Mr. STANLEY: I read that in the "Observer."
    Viscountess ASTOR: Take it to heart.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Is it not the case that there are a number of very qualified women transferred from other Departments of the State to the service of this board?
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information as to the number of claimants for transitional payments or unemployment allowances in whose assessments savings have been taken into account?
    Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir; I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour whether he intends to issue a White Paper showing the amount of benefit arrears that have been repaid to the various local authorities, and the number of persons affected?
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the amount of money which has
    504
    been repaid to the unemployed by the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    Mr. STANLEY: I propose to publish a statement with regard to each of these matters in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as particulars can be compiled.
    Major HILLSasked the Minister of Labour how many men and how many women, respectively, have been appointed to each of the following grades in the Unemployment Assistance Board, giving the figures separately for men and for women in each grade: assistant secretaries, administrative principals, assistant principals, senior executive, junior executive, higher clerical, regional officers, district officers, assistant district officers, and area officers?
    Mr. STANLEY: As the reply involves a statistical statement, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate is in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman look down the list and tell us how many of those 12 classes have the figure "nought" against them?
    Mr. STANLEY: The hon. and gallant Member will have the list, and he will see it set out.
    Following is the reply:

    Grade

    Numbers on the 20th February, 1935

    Men

    Women

    Assistant Secretary

    3

    —

    Administrative Principal

    7

    —

    Assistant Principal

    4

    —

    Senior Executive

    3

    —

    Junior Executive

    4

    1

    Higher Clerical

    16

    1

    Regional Officer

    6

    —

    District Officer

    25

    4

    Assistant District Officer

    72

    6

    Area Officer

    302

    23

    Totals

    442

    35

    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Minister of Labour the amount of assistance paid to persons coming under the Unemployment Assistance Board for each week of January?
    Mr. STANLEY: From the first appointed day there was a gradual

    505
    transfer of transitional payment cases to the assistance determinations and no distinction was drawn in the accounts according to whether cases had or had not been so transferred. I regret, therefore, that it is not possible to give separate figures for payments made under unemployment assistance determinations.
    Mr. HALL: May we have them?
    Mr. STANLEY: Yes, if the hon. Member asks for them. I have not them with me now.
    Mr. SUMMERSBYasked the Minister of Health the average allowances now being given by public assistance committees to special eases under the Unemployment Act of 1934?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I presume that my hon. Friend has in mind the payments which were made by some public assistance authorities during the interval which elapsed between the Government's announcement that applicants to the Unemployment Assistance Board were to be assessed at the current transitional payment determination, where that was higher than the assessment under the board's regulations, and completion of the necessary arrangements to give effect to that announcement by the board. The amounts paid would differ in each case according to the amount of the individual transitional payment determination and in such circumstances an average would be misleading. It will be appreciated that these payments have now ceased.
    Mr. MARTINasked the Minister of Labour what the position will be, under the standstill unemployemnt insurance regulations, for those who are employed in occupations such as that of casual dock labourers, whose employment is part-time and often, from the nature of the work, includes overtime?
    Mr. STANLEY: Where earnings in respect of part-time or casual work are received by persons in receipt of nemployment allowances, they will be treated according to the rules applicable to transitional payments in ascertaining the amount of the weekly payment, which would be due to the applicant on a transitional payments basis as secured under the standstill arrangements. They will also be examined in the light of the rules contained in the Unemployment Assistance Regulations for the purpose of
    506
    ascertaining what would be due under a determination given in accordance with those regulations. The applicant will then receive payment on the basis of his transitional payments assessment or his assessment under the regulations according to which is the more favourable to him.
    Mr. MARTIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say briefly whether consideration will be given to men who, from the nature of such work as unloading a ship, have to work overtime so that several hours on a job may encroach on the following day or week?
    Mr. STANLEY: I do not think that my answer has very much to do with that.
    Mr. MARTIN: My question, I think, had directly to do with that point, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can answer it.
    Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Gentleman asked me on what basis they would be assessed, and what I told him, in effect, was that they would be assessed on whatever would be the more favourable basis—either the transitional payment basis or the basis of assistance under the regulations.

    GOOLE.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as unemployed at Goole on the latest date available, the number in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit, the number receiving allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board, and the number registered as unemployed in February, 1932?
    Mr. STANLEY: At 28th January, 1935, there were 2,067 unemployed persons on the registers of the Goole Employment Exchange, of whom 1,120 had claims admitted for unemployment benefit and 496 for unemployment allowances. The number of unemployed persons on the registers at 22nd February, 1932, was 1,515.

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMITTEES.
    Mr. LESLIE BOYCEasked the Minister of Health whether the Government will consider giving some suitable form of recognition of the voluntary and arduous public services that were rendered by members of local public assistance committees?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The Government are glad to place on record in this House an expression of the highest appreciation of the work of those public assistance authorities who have, at the request of the Government, given over a period of more than three years voluntary assistance in the arduous task of properly administering the scheme of transitional payments.

    MEDICAL TREATMENT.
    Mr. SUMMERSBYasked the Minister of Health the numbers of formerly insured persons who, as a result of the legislation of 1931, have now lapsed from health insurance; and the extent to which these are relying upon medical attention from the public assistance authorities?
    Sir H. YOUNG: If, as I presume, my hon. Friend has in mind the provisions of the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Act, 1932, the number asked for in the first part of the question is approximately 170,000. I have no figures showing how many of these persons have in fact found it necessary to apply to the public assistance authorities for medical attention, but such information as is available suggests that the number is not large.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it not correct to say that were it not for that amendment Act most of these people would have been retained under health insurance?
    Sir H. YOUNG: That is indeed a hypothetical question.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Am I right in assuming that the question relates to the legislation of 1932 and not to 1931?
    Sir H. YOUNG: That is corrected in my reply to the question.

    UNEMPLOYMENT ACT, 1934 (APPOINTED DAY).
    Mr. CLEARYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make a statement, as a result of his meeting with representatives of local authorities, relative to the further postponement of the appointed day under the Unemployment Act, 1934; and what financial terms, if any, have been offered?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am
    508
    glad to say that agreement was reached with representatives of associations of local authorities in Scotland. Negotiations with the representatives of English Associations are still proceeding. The basis of the Scottish agreement, in broad outline, is that grants will be paid to local authorities from the 1st March, 1935, up to the second appointed day, calculated on the estimated expenditure incurred in the three months ending the 28th February, 1935, which would not have been incurred had the Unemployment Assistance Act been in full operation over that period, less the contributions which, on the same assumption, local authorities would have paid to the board. This arrangement is to be reviewed if the second appointed day should prove to be later than 1st October next.
    Mr. CLEARY: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to discuss with the English local authorities their financial commitments on this point from 1st October to 1st March, and, secondly, is he prepared to give a guarantee that no local authority will suffer any extra financial loss from 1st March because of the alteration in the appointed day?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to both questions is in the negative.
    Brigadier-General NATION: When does my right hon. Friend anticipate that the agreement with the English local authorities will be reached?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am seeing their representatives again next Thursday, when I hope that it will be possible to reach an agreement.
    Mr. THORNE: When he holds the meeting on Tuesday will it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give a report as to what he intends doing after?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I expect to have my dinner after that.

    WORKING HOURS, ITALY.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information with regard to the extent and effect of the introduction of the 40-hour week in factories in Italy; and what increase in employment there has been as a result?
    Mr. STANLEY: As the reply is necessarily long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The information in the possession of my Department with regard to the collective agreements, between employers' and workers' organisations in Italy, providing for the reduction of the normal working week in a large number of industries to a maximum of 40 hours, subject to certain exceptions, was summarised in the issues of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for November, 1934 (page 396), and January, 1935 (page 13). These agreements were generally to operate as from various dates in November or December, 1934. In the issue of "Industrial and Labour Information" for 21st January, 1935, published by the International Labour Office, it was stated that similar agreements had been arrived at in some other industries, and that the agreements so far concluded were believed to cover 99 per cent. of all industrial undertakings and workers. It was provided in a general agreement that, in all cases where working hours were reduced under these arrangements, the remuneration of the employed persons was to be reduced proportionately, and that a "National Family Allowances Compenastion Fund" to supplement the reduced earnings of workers with large families was to be established. It has been reported in the Italian Press that information supplied to the Italian Ministry of Corporations by the Provincial Councils of Corporative Economy indicates that the number of workpeople absorbed into employment, by 2nd February, as a result of the operation of these agreements, was 206,284, of whom 161,991 were employed in industrial undertakings, 19,338 in agriculture, and 24,955 in commerce, banking, insurance, etc.; but it is not clear whether these figures include vacancies created by the compulsory replacement of certain classes of female by male employés, or of juvenile by adult employés, which was usually one of the provisions of the agreements.

  JUVENILE INSTRUCTION CENTRES.
  Captain SPENCERasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the representations sent to him from local authorities to the effect that the work of juvenile instruction centres is impaired by the lack of provision of meals; and what, if any, powers local authorities possess to make such provision?
  Mr. STANLEY: I know of only one authority—the St. Helens County Borough—that has recently suggested the provision of meals at junior instruction centres. I have given the matter full consideration, but I am advised that local education authorities have no power to provide meals for unemployed boys and girls attending the centres.
  Mr. PALING: Was not this matter raised in one of the reports of the commissioners in the distressed areas? In view of that, cannot something be done?
  Mr. STANLEY: I would remind the hon. Member that in juvenile instruction centres in England and Wales milk can be supplied free as medical treatment.
  Mr. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that if the local education authorities had power to supply milk to juveniles it would be very much better for the children and the local authorities?

  HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE (CELEBRATIONS).
  Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour whether steps will be taken to ensure that the observance of a national holiday in May in connection with the Jubilee shall not prejudice the position of casual workers and others under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts or the regulations made there-under?
  Mr. STANLEY: So far as I am aware there is no reason to think that the observance of the holiday will affect the payment of unemployment benefit to persons who would otherwise be entitled to receive it in respect of that day. If, however, there is any point in regard to which the hon. Member anticipates difficulty, I shall be glad if he will let me know, in order that I may have it examined.
  Mr. LAWSON: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask him if he is aware that this holiday clause is going to be one' of the great difficulties? I have been wondering whether it would be possible to take counsel with the umpire on this question and to make a definite announcement?
  Mr. WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be decided that these two days will be a customary holiday?
  Mr. STANLEY: I have no reason to think that this particular holiday will be treated as a recognised or customary holiday.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he can lay down the law? Is it not done by the authorities through the customary and proper channels?
  Mr. STANLEY: I am careful not to lay down the law. I have no control over the umpire. All I can say is that I have no reason to think that it will be regarded as an ordinary holiday.
  Colonel ROPNERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is ware that the active participation of the Territorial Army in the various official ceremonies in connection with the Jubilee would stimulate recruiting; and whether all units of the Territorial Army will be ordered to supply contingents and, if so, upon what occasions?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): As regards the Jubilee celebrations. I cannot at this stage do more than refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Keighley (Major Watt) and Partick (Lieut.-Colonel C. MacAndrew) on Tuesday last. The importance of stimulating recruiting is fully recognised.

  TRANSPORT.

    TAXIMETER CABS (FARE DIALS).
    Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inform the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that the present type of taximeter-cab meter is not satisfactory, even if the meter is properly illuminated; and will he request the commissioner to require the gradual disuse of black dials with illegible figures working in apertures too small to allow the amount of the fare to be seen even under a strong light, and to require in future that the dials of fare meters be white and not black, and the figures and apertures half as large again as are at present permitted?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is of the opinion, in which I concur, that as regards legibility, there is nothing to choose between meters with black figures on a white ground and meters with white figures on a black ground, and it would therefore be unreasonable to insist on one type to the exclusion of the other. As regards the size of the figures, I am advised that enlargement of the apertures of existing meters would involve complete reconstruction of the meters and I cannot see my way to impose such a burden on the trade. New types of meters, however, will be required to have apertures and figures half as large again as those of existing types.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Commissioner of Police has received any complaint supporting the allegation made in the question?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. MABANE: Has it not been sufficiently demonstrated that black figures on a yellow ground are much more easily readable than any others?

    ROAD SAFETY (ADVERTISEMENTS).
    Mr. MABANEasked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider including in his Estimates an appropriation of, say, £50,000 to be expended on an advertising programme in the London and provincial Press to educate all road users, both vehicular and pedestrians, in their duties; and whether he is aware of the opinion, widely held in responsible quarters, that no single act would be so calculated to reduce the toll of road accidents as the expenditure of this sum of money in the manner indicated?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I gratefully acknowledge the assistance which has been given to me from motives of public service, and I am confident that I can rely on its continuance on a voluntary basis. Road safety is, of course, a matter of national concern and I feel sure that all in a position of authority will unremittingly and disinterestedly use their great influence to promote it.
    Mr. MABANE: Would it not be better and much more likely to assist in the reduction of road accidents if there were advertisements in the Press, similar to those inserted by the Postmaster-General, instructing road users on how to use the roads?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have gratefully acknowledged the co-operation which all in a position of authority, including the Press, have given to me very generously and on a big scale, and I think perhaps the effect might be spoiled if certain newspapers were selected for the privilege of the insertion of advertisements.
    Captain PETER MACDONALD: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the use of films for this purpose?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is not the hon. Gentleman himself the best advertisement, for his schemes?

    LAKE DISTRICT (ROADS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Transport what is the present position with regard to road construction between Seatoller and Buttermere and at the Wrynose and Sty Head passes; and what steps he is taking to preserve the existing character of these Lake District passes?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Cumberland county council have found it necessary to resurface the road from Seatoller to Buttermere.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the special character of these passes will be entirely spoiled by the building of motor roads?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is no such proposal before me.

  IRISH HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES.
  Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOODasked the Home Secretary whether he has any figures showing how much money has been subscribed to the Irish Free State hospital sweepstakes; how much of the money has been allocated to hospitals; and how much of the money allocated has, in fact, been paid over to the hospitals?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: On the basis adopted by the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting in Appendix IV of their final report, it is estimated that, including sellers' commission, approximately £44,900,000 has been subscribed to the 13 sweepstakes promoted by the Irish Hospitals Trust Limited up to and including that on the Cambridgeshire, 1934, and that, of this sum, £7,603,000 approximately has been allocated to hospitals. I have no information as regards the last part of the question.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACTS.
  Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Home Secretary whether, with a view to increasing the representative character of British parliamentary elections by increasing the average percentage of the electorate polling, he has considered the proposal to which his attention has lately been drawn for the amendment of the Representation of the People Acts to give the elector the option of voting by post or in person; and whether he has reached a conclusion on the matter?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have considered the proposal to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention and I am not prepared to introduce legislation on the lines suggested.
  Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: In the event of my being able to give the right hon. Gentleman some evidence of the benefits of this form of voting, will he be so kind as to reconsider the matter?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am always ready to consider anything which any hon. Member chooses to bring before me.
  Mr. THORNE: Is not the easiest way of getting people to vote at elections to persuade local authorities to have more polling stations?
  Mr. SUMMERSBY: Is it not a case that it is not always easy for some people to enter polling stations.

  EDUCATION (MILK SUPPLY SCHEME).
  Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will con

  515
  sider the withdrawal of the recommendation to schools to use when possible pasteurised milk (paragraph 7 of Circular 1,437 of the 5th September, 1934), since the County Councils' Association at Westminster, on the 23rd January, declared that they were not convinced that pasteurised milk is superior to raw clean milk of Grade A quality as a food for children?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The ground for the recommendation made by the Board in Circular 1,437 is the superior safety of pasteurised milk, whereas the statement of the County Councils' Association appears to refer to the relative nutritive values of pasteurised and raw milk. On the latter point the Cattle Diseases Committee of the Economic Advisory Council expressed the opinion that, on the evidence available, any recognisable changes of quality induced in milk by pasteurisation rightly conducted are as a whole too small to outweigh the great advantage inherent in the protection from infection which the treatment secures. In view of this opinion and those expressed by the Royal College of Physicians and other bodies, my noble Friend cannot see his way to withdraw the recommendation in question.
  Sir A. KNOX: Will not the hon. Member allow that there is a great difference of opinion in the medical profession as to the value of pasteurisation as a protection against infection? Secondly, may I ask who is to find out whether the system is carried out properly and whether my hon. Friend will not agree that this is a severe handicap on the small producer of milk who cannot spend thousands of pounds to instal plant with the result that the trade is put into the hands of big combines?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The great bulk of medical opinion advocates the pasteurisation of milk, and, in view of that opinion, it is very difficult for the Board to run counter to it.

  HOUSING.

    TENEMENTS (BALCONIES).
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the
    516
    necessity of fresh air to the health of infants and the difficulty of securing this in the ordinary working-class flat tenement, he will impress upon local authorities the importance of providing suitable balcony accommodation in all upperstorey tenements constructed by them?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir.

    SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Health whether he can give the number of shopkeepers who have hitherto been dispossessed in this country under clearance schemes; and whether any local authorities operating such schemes have offered compensation to such shopkeepers either by way of cash payment or by the provision of suitable alternative shop accommodation at appropriate rents?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. Local authorities have offered compensation to shopkeepers displaced from clearance areas in both the ways mentioned.

    WINTERTON (EJECTMENT ORDERS).
    Mr. PALINGasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the circumstances under which the Winterton Urban District Council are seeking to obtain an ejectment order against W. Marshall, 4, Roxby Road, Winterton; that when cases of a similar character have previously been brought before the bench of magistrates the magistrates have expressed disapproval of the action of the council; and whether he will make inquiries into the administration of the housing regulations under this council?
    Sir H. YOUNG: This matter has not previously been brought to my notice, but the inquiries which I have made show that the council have not as yet applied for an ejectment order against the man named, who has on several occasions been in arrear with his rent. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative, though I understand that on one occasion the chairman of the bench expressed a wish that the council should exercise all the leniency they could. The reply to the third part of the question is also in the negative; the administration of the housing estates of a local

    517
    authority is not a matter which I have power to control by regulation but is vested in the local authority by Section 67 of the Housing Act, 1925.
    Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not a question of arrears, but a question of the accumulation of arrears. The people were not in at the time the collector called, but the arrears were paid on the next occasion when the collector called. They complain that this has happened on previous occasions and consider that something should be done?
    Sir H. YOUNG: At the same time it is not a matter in which I have authority to intervene.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. MABANEasked the Minister of Health the total number of houses completed, and ready for occupation, which have been built under the provisions of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, on the latest date for which figures are available?
    Sir H. YOUNG: At the 31st December, 1934, guarantees had been given by local authorities under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, in respect of 3,513 completed houses.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that these figures come up to his anticipations when he introduced the Bill?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have already answered that question.

    CENSUS.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Health whether he is now able to make a statement with regard to the taking of a census in 1936?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 13th instant in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson).

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    NUTRITION INQUIRY.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Health whether he can state the result of the inquiry which he and the President
    518
    of the Board of Education instituted in the county of Durham regarding allegations of under-nourishment?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The report of the officers instructed by my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Education and myself to conduct this inquiry, has only just been received and is under consideration.
    Mr. BATEY: Is it the intention of the Minister to publish the report?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The report is now under consideration.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw a distinction between malnutrition and under-nourishment? They are so different.
    Sir H. YOUNG: That is true, and I have no doubt that the point has been considered by the investigating officer.

    MORTUARIES.
    Mr. BOSSOMasked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to see that in all housing developments that have not an appropriate public mortuary available in the immediate vicinity, such provision must be placed on the development itself for the use of tenants, to prevent the continuance of the present distressing conditions which sometimes are encountered?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I fully appreciate the importance of the point raised by my hon. Friend. Local authorities have adequate powers under the Public Health Acts to provide mortuaries, and in any case in which the circumstances required it, there is statutory power vested in the Ministry of Health, or in the case of London in the London County Council, to call upon the appropriate authority to provide a mortuary.
    Dr. ADDISONasked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to make any further statement upon the terms of reference and mmbership of the committee appointed jointly by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland into the state of nutrition of certain sections of the population and into other matters arising out of the memorandum submitted to the Economic Advisory Council some months ago by a group of eminent scientists?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. The arrangements for and personnel of this committee are under consideration between my right hon. Friend and myself, and the right hon. Gentleman is aware that such matters require time for their proper settlement.
    Dr. ADDISON: In view of the fact that the memorandum referred to raised certain matters for the consideration of this committee will the right hon. Gentleman say why he has taken so many months to arrange for it?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The time taken is commensurate with the importance of the matters under consideration.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    ANGLO-GERMAN PAYMENTS AGREEMENT.
    Mr. POTTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the state of the discussions now proceeding between the German Government and the financial interests concerned relating to the inability of British subjects to obtain from the German authorities documents to which they are entitled under Article 7 (ii) of the Anglo-German Payments Agreement of November last?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Peebles and Southern Division (Captain A. Ramsay) on the 12th February, to which I cannot at present add anything.

    RUSSIAN TIMBER.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received any official protest from the Canadian Government regarding the treaty entered into by Timber Distributors, Limited, with the Soviet Government; and what was the nature of his reply?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): In view of the suggestion made in some quarters that the Board of Trade have already had three protests from the Canadian Government, it is necessary that I should inform the House that the first intimation of representations under Article 21 of the Ottawa Agreement reached the Board of Trade late on the 18th February. I was en
    520
    gaged at the British Industries Fair on the morning of the 19th February and I was not aware at Question Time that this communication had then reached my Department. I received yesterday a letter from the Canadian High Commissioner in London enclosing a memorandum of the views of His Majesty's Government in Canada in regard to the Russian timber situation. The whole question is under consideration.
    Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a decision on this matter in view of its urgency?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We shall arrive at an early decision, but I should not like to name a date yet.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Are we entitled to understand that the Canadian authorities are making strong protests against the proposed agreement?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I have said, I received yesterday a letter from the Canadian High Commissioner in London enclosing a memorandum embodying the views of His Majesty's Government in Canada.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question which is whether those views are protesting against or approving of the proposed agreement?

    POLAND (TRADE AGREEMENT).
    Miss WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement with regard to the proposed trade agreement with Poland?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am glad to be able to inform the House that the trade agreement with Poland was initialed last evening. Arrangements are being made for the signature of the agreement at an early date. The terms of the agreement will be published as soon as possible after signature.
    Miss WARD: In view of the very satisfactory "British week" which was held in Finland after the trade agreement with Finland was signed, will the right lion. Gentleman consider holding a "British week" in Warsaw to celebrate the signing of the trade agreement with Poland?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am quite ready to discuss that matter with the representatives of Poland who are still in London.

    NEW UNDERTAKINGS (FOREIGN FIRMS).
    Mr. SUTCLIFFEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the desirability of setting up a special section of his Department to encourage the establishment of foreign industries in this country; and whether such duties could be carried out without material outlay?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. Propaganda for the purpose of bringing the advantages of this country to the notice of foreign industrialists is organised by the Travel and Industrial Development Association of Great Britain and Ireland, and I see no reason to interfere with this arrangement.
    Mr. SUTCLIFFE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking more active steps to attract new industries to this country; and does he not consider that such action would be fully justified?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The work of some of the development associations has certainly been admirable, and I should like to see those which are less active rise to the higher standard.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman, instead of encouraging foreign firms to come here, do something to encourage native businesses, especially in Lancashire?
    Mr. SUTCLIFFEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he possesses any statistics to show the number of new industries which have been attracted to this country in the last year, and the new factories which have been established?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A survey of industrial development is being prepared in respect of the year 1934, and I hope to be able to publish the results in the course of the next few months.
    Mr. PALING: Will the survey include statistics showing the number of industries which have declined and the number of factories which have ceased production?

    COTTON EXPORTS (BRITISH COLONIES).
    Mr. SUTCLIFFEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his
    522
    attention has been called to the heavy decrease in the exports of cotton piece-goods to British Colonies; and whether, as a result of recent local legislation, there has been any improvement in the volume of such exports?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister): I am, of course, aware of the decline in the exports of United Kingdom cotton piece-goods to the Colonial Empire during the last few years, but I believe that the quota systems introduced last year in a number of territories have been effective in reversing the process. Reports on the operation of the quotas which are now being received indicate a definite improvement in imports from the United Kingdom in the latter part of last year.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. POTTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount still outstanding in respect of Excess Profits Duty; the number of cases in which legal proceedings have been commenced with a view to recovery of duty; and the amount lost, or estimated to be lost, to the Treasury arising out of liquidation or bankruptcy proceedings?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The amount of Excess Profits Duty outstanding at 31st December last was £7,825,000. With regard to the remaining parts of the question, I am afraid that the information asked for is not at present available and its collection would involve considerable labour and expense.

    TEA DUTY.
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to assist the producers in India and Ceylon, he will in his coming Budget consider the increase of the duty on teas from areas outside the restrictive scheme?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: All relevant considerations will be taken into account when existing duties are reviewed in connection with the Budget, but I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that a discriminatory duty of the kind he suggests would appear to be incompatible with existing treaty engagements.
    Sir A. KNOX: Are there any other means of dealing with the large increase of output from China and Japan?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think there is any way of dealing with it other than by tariffs.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the total cost of paying at the age of 65 years a pension of £1 a week to all persons now receiving contributory pensions; and what would be the weekly contribution necessary to be paid by the worker on the basis of one-third of the cost being borne by the State, one-third by the employer, and one-third by the worker?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As non-contributory pensions to persons over 70 could not be separated from contributory, I cannot give the hon. Member exactly what he asks. The cost of doubling all old age pensions, on the latest figures available, would be an additional £62,500,000 a year. This cost would steadily increase with time. There would be a further additional cost of £5,000,000 a year if it were necessary to increase the pensions of widows over 65. The contributions necessary to cover this extra cost could only be worked out at the expense of considerable time and labour, and in view of the fact that I have in reply to questions already given estimates of the cost of six different schemes based on somewhat similar hypotheses, I trust the hon. Member will not press this part of his inquiry.
    Mr. MALLALIEU: Does not the answer show that there is an immense need for an inquiry so that all the relevant facts can be known to the public, and does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is the duty of the Government to make further provision for the security of workers in their old age?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Labour party are now saying that they are going to raise the pensions of all old people, and that therefore it is very important to know before the next General Election how much it would cost the Government?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already given figures for most of the permutations and combinations which are possible, and they are not very encouraging.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer admit that it is possible for this country to carry all the pensions suggested in the question?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
    Mr. GUYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an approximate estimate of the additional annual cost of providing, within the ambit of the national health insurance scheme, a contributory old age pension for unmarried insured women at the age of 55 instead of 65 as at present?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I estimate that the cost of granting contributory old age pensions at 55, instead of at the present age of 65, to unmarried insured women would be an additional £4,500,000 a year. I could not without prolonged calculations indicate what increase of contributions would be necessary to cover this extension of pension rights, and I hope that in the circumstances my hon. Friend will not press this part of his inquiry.
    Mr. GUY: Has my right hon. Friend based his estimate upon an aggregate calculation of the number of insured unmarried women over 55 years of age?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I take the best information that I am given.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it would be another humane act to pension unmarried women at 55 years of age, and, apart from that, does he not think that it would also help in the unemployment problem by allowing women of 55 and over to be taken out of employment?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know that it would have that effect.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Would my right hon. Friend bring to the notice of the Cabinet the fact that it would be wiser now to help these maiden ladies instead of the sugar-beet growers?

  SCOTLAND.

    ANGLO-SCOTTISH BEET-SUGAR CORPORATION, LIMITED.
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in its balance-sheet at 31st March, 1934, the Anglo-Scottish Beet-Sugar Corporation, Limited, was permitted to establish a convertible notes premium reserve to the extent of £9,000, when it is, directly or indirectly, indebted to the Treasury to the extent of several hundred thousand pounds in respect of payments made by the Treasury to cover the corporation's inability to meet repayment obligations of loans guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that certain convertible notes issued by the company are redeemable at a premium; and that the reserve in question is being created, as a matter of accounting procedure, for the purpose of showing upon the face of the balance-sheet, the accrued liability of the company in respect of this premium. The rights of the Treasury are not in any way prejudiced since the obligations of the company to the Treasury, in respect of Trade Facilities loans, rank for repayment in priority to the convertible notes.
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make with regard to the position of the beet-sugar factory at Cupar?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot at present add anything to the reply which he gave to my hon. Friend on Monday last but, as he indicated then, he will communicate with him when he is in a position to make a statement on the subject.

    EDUCATION (WOMEN INSPECTORS).
    Mrs. SHAWasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any further appointments of women to the education inspectorate in Scotland have yet been made as a result of the decision that women shall be eligible, equally with men, for these posts?
    Mr. SKELTON: The decision to which my hon. Friend refers took effect in April last. A vacancy in the grade of
    526
    His Majesty's inspectors of schools has recently been filled by the appointment of a woman, and another post in that grade has been filled by promotion from the existing staff of inspectresses for domestic subjects. There are now four women in the grade of His Majesty's inspector, in addition to two inspectresses for domestic subjects.

    BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORA TION (CHAIRMAN).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to fill the position of chairman of governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation before the expiration of its charter?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Yes, Sir.
    Captain MACDONALD: Will the Prime Minister consider the urgency of making this and other important appointments at an early date, and will he see that the people appointed place some restriction on the amount of morbid pessimism and anti-British propaganda that is broadcast?

    ARMAMENTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Mr. SUMMERSBYasked the Prime Minister whether the commission set up to inquire into the manufacture and supply of arms by private enterprise will be by its terms of reference enabled to deal with the position, in international law, of small nations who have no arms, factories of any sort and who must buy military material, if they need it, from someone else?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have, after careful consideration, just given the Royal Commission their terms of reference. I doubt whether it is a good procedure for the Government now, in answer to questions in Parliament, to give interpretations in detail of the scope of those terms.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the total declared values of casualty-producing weapons for which export permits have been granted by his Department for the past three calendar years?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The information my hon. and gallant Friend desires is not readily available and its compilation would, I fear, involve a great deal of trouble and expense.

    WOMEN MAGISTRATES.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Attorney-General whether he will give the number of women justices of the peace-at the latest available date?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): 3,066 women have been appointed justices of the peace up to and including 1st January, 1935, but no information is available as to the number of women justices who have died.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Lord Chancellor consider appointing a good many more women, seeing how small is the number in comparison with the men?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I would remind my Noble Friend of the figure given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in answer to a question on 12th February last. My right hon. Friend stated that 400 women justices had been added to the commission of the peace during the last year.

    COMPANIES ACT (AMENDMENT).
    Mr. POTTERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, after the disclosures in the collapse of James and Shakespeare, he will, when amending the Companies Act of 1929, consider adding a new clause to provide that, when shares in a company are transferred to nominees as holders, the transfers, in addition to stating the names of the nominees, shall also state the names of the beneficial owners, and that the names of the nominees and of the beneficial owners also shall be recorded on the share register of the company concerned?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The suggestion of my hon. Friend has been noted for investigation when the amendment of the Companies Act is under consideration.

    MESSRS. JAMES AND SHAKESPEARE, LTD. (INQUIRY).
    Major NATHANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any inquiry by way of examination of the
    528
    directors and/or other officers of James and Shakespeare, Limited, will be in private or open to the public; and whether the report of the official receiver or other liquidator of that company will be a private document or will be available to the general public?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The inquiries of the official receiver in pursuance of his duties under Section 182 of the Companies Act will be conducted in private. Copies of any reports made by him under this section will be placed upon the court file, and any shareholder or any creditor whose claim has been admitted will be entitled to inspect the file and to take copies.
    Major NATHAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that sort of inquiry, which is limited both as to publicity and scope, is satisfactory to the public, in view of the public anxiety on the matters into which inquiry is to be made?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hesitate to express any view on that subject until this inquiry has been concluded.
    Major NATHAN: As the public will have no oportunity of taking part in the inquiry or of seeing the report of the inquiry, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is expedient that a public inquiry should be held without delay, more especially in view of the fact that it is unlikely that the official receiver's report will be made for many months to come?
    Mr. JOHN WILMOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a question asking for a public inquiry, referred to the inquiry by the official receiver into the affairs of this company in liquidaton; and, having regard to the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he take some steps to make this report available to the wider public in view of the public scandal involved?
    Sir P. HARRIS: May we have an answer to these questions?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer is a very brief one. It is; No, Sir.

    EAST AFRICA.
    Mr. DONNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, after

    529
    such experience as has been obtained, he is now in a position to reconsider the future of the present annual governors' conference with a view to increasing executive authority?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The functions of the East African Governors' Conference were clearly defined in the 1932 White Paper on the Joint Select Committee's Report (Cmd. 4141). The conference serves a very useful purpose and meets as and when required, but experience hitherto confirms my belief that it would be neither advisable nor practicable to give it executive authority.
    Mr. DONNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the budgetary position of Tanganyika and Kenya, he will consider whether steps can be taken to pool resources and revenue generally, especially railway and customs revenue, in so far as this is possible under the League Covenant and the mandate for Tanganyika?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Any practicable proposal for the administration of the three East African Territories to better economic advantage, is certain of sympathetic consideration both by the governors (individually or in conference) and by myself. I see no prospect, however, of deriving any such advantage from the pooling of financial resources on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, even if such a step could be shown to be practicable.
    Mr. DONNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the now more favourable attitude of British and Indians alike throughout East Africa generally towards closer cooperation between the territories, he is in a position to consider whether any further steps can be taken at a reasonably early date towards closer economic, political, and constitutional co-ordination?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The problem as it presents itself to me is how to secure the maximum of cooperation while preserving the political integrity of the three territories as recommended by the Joint Select Committee. This problem is constantly under review; and the recent amalgamation of the postal services and the creation of a transport advisory board afford instances
    530
    of what can be and is being done in this direction.
    Captain P. MACDONALD: Is there not a considerable amount of co-operation at present between the East African Colonies?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, I am glad to say that the closest possible co-operation exists, and I think it is true to say that no departure in economic or transport policy in which more-than one territory was concerned would be initiated without consultation between the territories affected.
    Major MILNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received a report of the East African Governors' Conference at Entebbe; and what decisions were arrived at on the recommendations of the Bushe Report on the administration of justice in East Africa?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. The decisions arrived at on the Bushe Report are set out in my despatch of the 12th November, which the hon. Member will find in the Library, and which has been published in the several territories.

    TIN DEVELOPMENT SCHEME.
    Major NATHANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware that it has been disclosed that at least one director of several tin companies in London operating the restriction scheme is implicated in the shellac and pepper speculation; and whether, in view of the anxiety both in this country and in Malaya, he is prepared to reconsider the Government's support of the tin restriction scheme and to initiate an inquiry into the operation of the tin restriction scheme and the methods and activities of the persons and concerns responsible in London for its direction?
    (2) whether he will state the names of the persons and companies in this country responsible for directing and operating the tin restriction scheme and, in the case of companies, the names of directors thereof?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I apologise for the length of the answer, but I think the House would like to have the fullest information possible.

    531
    The tin regulation scheme which came into operation in March, 1931, was an agreement between the Governments of Malaya, Nigeria, Bolivia and the Netherlands East Indies, the two British territories acting with the approval of His Majesty's Government. The operation of the scheme was vested in an international committee consisting of representatives of the Governments concerned. The control and operation of the scheme are vested entirely in these Government representatives, who alone have authority to take decisions.
    When the scheme was instituted in 1931 it was decided that the various Government delegates should have the opportunity of having the advice of producing and trading interests, and provision was made accordingly that such persons should be associated as advisers, but that all decisions should be taken by the Government representatives alone. The system introduced in 1931 has been followed ever since.
    The constitution and operation of the scheme were exhaustively reviewed by the World Economic Conference and received its full approval. The considered opinion of the conference is summarised in the report of the Sub-Committee on Tin, which was adopted by the conference. This report has been reproduced in Annex II to the report of the main Economic Commission of the conference, that is, the World Economic Conference. In the course of that report the Committee stated:
    "The sub-committee consider that the existing scheme of control is framed upon sound lines; that it is in accord with the principles which have been accepted by this conference as those which should govern the framing of plans for the co-ordination of production and consumption; that it has worked smoothly in actual practice for a period of over two years; and that it has been largely successful in achieving its main objectives."
    The report also states:
    "that the break-down of the control scheme would, in existing conditions, involve the very gravest difficulties, and might easily mean disaster for the industry, the potential producing capacity of which is at present roughly double the recent rate of consumption. All tin-producing countries are vitally interested in the continuance of the scheme of control until such time as consumption approximates closely to the potential production now in sight."
    The conference recommended that the countries which are not members of the
    532
    International Tin Commission should enter into negotiations with that commission.
    In October, 1933, the international tin agreement was renewed for a further period of three years from 1st January, 1934.
    I will place in the Library a print of this agreement and also of the agreement dated 10th July, 1934—I think that ought to be 10th January, 1934—made by the signatory Governments for the constitution and operation of the buffer stock scheme.
    In addition to the Governments of Bolivia, Malay States, Netherlands East Indies, Nigeria and Siam, who were parties to the original agreement the French Government, on behalf of Indo-China and the Belgian Government on behalf of the Congo, have become parties to the agreement, and arrangements also exist with the Portuguese Government and with three important producers in Cornwall.
    I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the list of Government delegations constituting the International Tin Commission, and the list of advisers.
    Major NATHAN: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his very full answer, may I ask him whether he will consider the advisability of publishing in some convenient form, perhaps as a White Paper, the tin regulation scheme itself and the other documents to which he referred in his answer, and also the relevant report of the sub-committee of the World Economic Conference? The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to answer the actual question on the Paper, and I would ask him, in particular, whether the Government are prepared to initiate an inquiry into the operation of the scheme and the methods and activities of the persons and concerns responsible?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With regard to the last question, I thought I had answered it very completely by saying that what I think was the best tribunal that could investigate it, and that is the World Economic Conference, consisting of 66 countries, both producers and consumers, and investigated the scheme and it operation and thought it absolutely sound, and vital that it should continue. As regards the other suggestion, I think it is, if I may say so, a very practical

    533
    one, and I shall be very glad to arrange to publish as a White Paper both the documents which confirm the full scheme and also the relevant report of the World Economic Conference on the subject. I think that would probably be much more convenient to hon. Members than merely having to look at copies in the Library.
    Mr. WILMOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which refers to the connection between those now operating the tin restriction scheme and those recently involved in pepper and shellac gambling operations?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I can give the House the most complete assurance that the tin scheme from start to finish has never been concerned in any commodity except tin. I appreciate the difficulty of following this very long answer, but I have explained in it that the whole of the effective decisions of the tin commission are vested entirely in the Government representatives. There are a number of technical advisers, but the operation of the scheme, from its initiation in 1931 by the Labour Government, was, and ever since has been, vested in the representatives of the Government.
    Following is the list:
    Members of Government delegations constituting the International Tin Commission:
    Belgium:

    M. Camus.

    M. Gutt.

    Bolivia.

    Senor A. Patino, R.

    Senor R. Martinez Vargas.

    Senor A. R. Ovando.

    France:

    M. J. Picard.

    Malay States:

    Sir John Campbell.

    Mr. V. A. Lowinger.

    Mr. H. W. Thomson.

    Netherlands East Indies:

    Mr. A. Groothoff.

    Mr. F. J. Houwert.

    Mr. van den Broek.

    Nigeria:

    Sir F. Baddeley.

    Sir John Campbell.

    Mr. J. A. Calder.

    Siam:

    Phra Bovara Sneha.

    M. F. Laydeker.

    Persons who attend the meetings in an advisory capacity:
    Consumers' Panel:
    Mr. John Hughes, nominated by the United Steel Corporation, the American Iron and Steel Institute and the National Lead Company to represent United States tin consuming industries.
    The Welsh Plate and Sheet Manufacturers Association has been requested to nominate a British representative of tin consuming industries.

    Mr. E. V. Pearce and Mr. A. W. Rogers, Advisers to the Bolivian delegation.

    Mr. A. G. Glenister, Adviser to the Malayan delegation.

    Brigadier-General Sir Samuel Wilson, Mr. John Howeson and Mr. C. V. Stephens, Representatives of the Tin Producers' Association.

    KENYA (NATIVE COMMUNITIES).
    Major MILNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can assure the House that no action has been or will be taken, unles and until authorised by Order-in-Council, to evict or molest native African village communities in Kenya at present enjoying rights of occupation and cultivation in the European highlands under the sanction of statutory law contained in the Crown Lands Ordinances of 1902 and 1915?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Member will see from the Carter Commission's Report that they consider that the interests of the natives themselves who have rights under these Ordinances (between 200 and 300, including women and children) would best be served by the payment of cash compensation for disturbance, through the local native councils, and their establishment on land within the reserve to which substantial additions are to be made. No native who has a statutory right could be compelled to move without statutory authority, but it will, of course, be open to the Kenya Government to proceed by way of agreed arrangement, and in view of the fact that the commission consider that a just and permanent settlement of

    535
    these questions of private rights is of paramount importance to the future peace and prosperity of the tribe, I am sure it would not be suggested that the Government of Kenya should be precluded from making such arrangements.
    Major MILNER: Is the House to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not give the assurance asked for in the question?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think I have given a very fair statement of the case. I have said that a legal right obviously cannot be interfered with except by a legal enactment, but if a mutually satisfactory agreement is arranged, it can, and I think obviously should, be carried into effect.
    Mr. PALING: Do I understand that unless the natives concerned can come to an agreement and agree to be shifted, they cannot be shifted?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: They certainly cannot be shifted unless there is a statutory enactment for that purpose, but, if the hon. Member will read the whole of the report of the commission—and I do not think anyone can appreciate it without reading the whole of it—he will see how very strongly the commission think that it is in the interests of these natives themselves that they should be compensated and settled among their own people.

    INDIA (YELLOW FEVER PREVENTION).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the warning recently given by the director of the malaria, survey of India against the danger of yellow fever being introduced into India, by infected mosquitoes in aeroplanes; and whether he will give instructions for the carrying out of the experiments with marked mosquitoes advocated by this official?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I have seen a Press report on the subject, which is one that comes within the control of the authorities in India. The Government of India are keenly alive to the danger and have been giving the problem their
    536
    earnest consideration for some years. I am quite sure that any suggestions made by the director of the Malaria Survey will receive their close and urgent attention.

    ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a report has been received by the Government from the British commissioner, Lieutenant-Colonel E. H. M. Clifford, R.E., of the British Somaliland-Abyssinian Boundary Commission, as to the armed conflict which occurred early in December between Italian and Abyssinian forces; and whether he will publish this report and communicate it to the League of Nations?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): Neither Colonel Clifford nor any other member of the Joint Anglo-Ethiopian Boundary Commission was present on the occasion of the encounter between Italian and Abyssinian forces on the 5th December. It is therefore not possible for His Majesty's Government to publish a report of what happened on this occasion.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Lieutenant-Colonel E. H. M. Clifford, R.E., British commissioner of the British Somaliland-Abyssinian Boundary Commission, in annex 14 of the memorandum submitted by the Abyssinian Government to the League in January last, that on 18th March, 1932, the British district officer at Erigevo, in British Somaliland, was requested by an Italian officer to inform the Italian Government if the Anglo-Abyssinian Delimitation Commission should wish to draw water from the wells at Walwal and Warder, and that the British Government regarded it as impossible even to reply to such a communication; whether a report on this matter was received at the time; and what was the reason for the action referred to?
    Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. No reply was sent to the Italian suggestion in 1932 because, although the wells were known to be in Italian occupation, His Majesty's Government could not, pend

    537
    ing the delimitation of the frontier between Italian Somaliland and Ethiopia, take any action equivalent to an expression of opinion regarding the ownership of the area in question.

    AVIATION (INTERNATIONAL SANITARY CONVENTION).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the International Sanitary Convention for Aerial Navigation has yet been ratified by this country?
    Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. The instrument of ratification by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom was deposited with the Netherlands Government on the 15th September last.

    TRAFFIC IN WOMEN (CONVEN TION).
    Mr. TURTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date His Majesty's Government propose to ratify the International Convention for the Suppression of Traffic in Women adopted on 11th October, 1933?
    Mr. EDEN: The question of the ratification of this convention is receiving the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

  POLICE.

    CHIEF CONSTABLE, BIRMINGHAM.
    Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. McGOVERN)asked the Home Secretary the name and age of the chief constable for Birmingham; and at what age and date he is due to retire?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Sir Charles Rafter is the chief constable of Birmingham. He was appointed in 1899, and therefore, as provided in Section 29 (1) (b) (ii) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, the provisions of that Act as to age of compulsory retirement do not apply to him. I am not in a position to state his age.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does that mean he can go on for ever?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: It is purely a matter for the local police authority.

    DISTURBANCES, SHEFFTELD AND CUMBERLAND.
    Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. McGOVERN)asked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to inquire into the allegations of brutality by the police in the recent alleged rioting that occurred at Sheffield and Cumberland; and whether he is prepared to release the men who were arrested at these unemployed demonstrations?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have obtained full reports from the chief constables concerned, and as regards the first part of the question I have satisfied myself that there are no grounds for any action on my part. None of the defendants who were prosecuted in respect of these disturbances has been sentenced to imprisonment, and the second part of the question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand that the only reports which the Home Secretary has are from the chief constables, against whom the allegations are made?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Most of these cases have been disposed of in open court, and the decisions were given on evidence taken on oath. It is on those grounds that I have" given my decision.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is not the word of a chief constable better than that of a Communist?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to make an announcement with regard to the suggestion that a full half-hour should be allowed for Members desiring to raise matters on the Eleven o'clock adjournment?
The PRIME MINISTER: During the present Session, the House has sat on 34 days, other than Fridays. On 13 occasions the adjournment took place at or after 11.20 p.m. on account of the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, or of exempted business or of Divisions; and on 21 occasions Government business was concluded at various times between 7.35 p.m. and 11.13 p.m. Debates could have been initiated by Members, if they so desired, on each of those 21 occasions, but in fact only six Debates took place—one starting at 11.13 p.m. The Government, therefore,

539
consider that the existing facilities for Debates on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House are adequate, and, in their opinion, a case has not been established for any alteration in the Standing Order. I may add, however, that the Government will keep the hon. Member's suggestion under review.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the business for next week, and how far he intends to go tonight?
The PRIME MINISTER: May I take this opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his birthday, and to wish him many happy returns of the day.
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday: Committee stage of the following Supplementary Estimates: Civil Service Remuneration, etc., Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Cattle Fund, Herring Industry, Prison Department for Scotland, Approved Schools, etc., Scotland, Colonial and Middle Eastern Services, Ministry of Transport, and other Votes. Further progress will be made with the Unemployment Insurance Bill [Lords], which we hope to read a Second time to-morrow. This is purely a consolidation Bill.
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday: Government of India Bill, Committee stage.
The business for Friday will be announced later.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
We are asking for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock rule to-day as a precaution in order to obtain the Second Reading of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and the Committee stage of the necessary money resolution. To-morrow, in addition to the Report and Third Reading of the Herring Industry Bill and the Second Reading of the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill, we shall consider the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which has come from another place and which consolidates the law with regard to unemployment insurance.
Mr. MAXTON: In view of the very heavy business for Monday, are the Government assuming that the Unemployment Insurance Bill will be of a non-controversial nature?
The PRIME MINISTER: It is a consolidation Bill, and I hope it will be treated as a consolidation Bill always is.
Mr. LANSBURY: I asked a question about to-night especially because of that. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that we are to take the Second Reading to-morrow. I cannot give him any assurance that we shall consider, this Bill as non-controversial.
Mr. MAXTON: Having regard to the fact, will the Prime Minister consider not putting it down for a late hour on Monday evening after about a dozen Supplementary Estimates?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Bill really is a consolidation Bill and has been before the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills. Perhaps the House will allow me to quote the relevant sentence in their report to the House:
"The committee are of opinion that the Bill as amended is pure consolidation and represents the existing law."
Mr. LANSBURY: This is an exceptional Bill, and I hope the Patronage Secretary and the Prime Minister will leave their minds open as to what may happen on Monday. I understand that to-morrow the business is such that we shall probably get a fair amount of time for the Second Reading, but we may also want to carry on the discussion when we come to the Third Reading. I am not sure that there is any Committee stage of the Bill. I want to safeguard the fact that we do not agree it is non-controversial, and I think that we shall be able to show that to-morrow.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 40.

Division No. 56.]

AYES

[3.50 p.m

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Gledhill, Gilbert

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Albery, Irving James

Glossop, C. W. H

Orr Ewing, I. L

Alexander, Sir William

Glucksteln, Louis Halle

Palmer, Francis Noel

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C

Pearson, William G

Assheton, Ralph

Goff, Sir Park

Peat, Charles U.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Goodman, Colonel Albert W

Percy, Lord Eustace

Atholl, Duchess of

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Petherick, M.

Balniel, Lord

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M

Grimston, R. V

Potter, John

Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar

Gunston, Captain D. W

Pybus, Sir John

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Raikes, Henry V. A. M

Belt, Sir Alfred L

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Bernays, Robert

Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Harris, Sir Percy

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Blindell, James

Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

Rea, Walter Russell

Bossom, A. C.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Read, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham

Boyce, H. Leslie

Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Hornby, Frank

Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S

Rickards, George William

Broadbent, Colonel John

Horsbrugh, Florence

Ropner, Colonel L

Brocklebank, C. E. R

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)

Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Burnett, John George

Jamieson, Douglas

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)

Butler, Richard Austen

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Salmon, Sir Isldore

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Ker, J. Campbell

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Caine, G. R. Hall

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Kimball, Lawrence

Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds' wth, Putney)

Carver, Major William H.

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Knight, Holford

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

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

Knox, Sir Alfred

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Cazalat, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

Law, Sir Alfred

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

Leech, Dr. J. W

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Leighton, Major B. E. P

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Clydesdale, Marquees of

Lennox-Boyd, A. T

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Levy, Thomas

Smithers, Sir Waldron

Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Somervell, Sir Donald

Colfox, Major William Philip

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H

Colman, N. C. D,

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Spens, William Patrick

Conant, R. J. E

Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

Cooper, A. Duff

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Stevenson, James

Copeland, Ida

Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L

Loder, Captain J. de Vers

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F

Cranborne, Viscount

Mabane, William

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)

MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)

Summersby, Charles H

Cross, R. H

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Sutcilffe, Harold

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

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

Tate, Mavis Constance

Dalkeith. Earl of

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Templeton, William P.

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

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Davison, Sir William Henry

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Dawson, Sir Philip

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Touche, Gordon Cosme

Doran, Edward

Macpherson, Rt. Hon-. Sir Ian

Train, John

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Tree, Ronald

Duggan, Hubert John

Maitland, Adam

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Turton, Robert Hugh

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Dunglass, Lord

Mander, Geoffrey le M

Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermilne)

Ealet, John Frederick

Margesson, Capt-Rt. Hon. H. D. R

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Martin, Thomas B

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

Watt, Captain George Steven H

Eillston, Captain George Sampson

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Wells, Sydney Richard

Emmott, Charles E. G. C

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

White, Henry Graham

Emrys-Evans, P. V

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Whiteside, Borras Noel H

Evane, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Milne, Charles

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Evane, R. T, (Carmarthen)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Willoughby da Eresby, Lord

Everard, W. Lindsay

Womersley, Sir Walter

Fermoy, Lord

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Wood. Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Worthington, Dr. John V

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C-R. (Ayr)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tles)

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

Moss, Captain H. J

Fuller, Captain A. G

Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J

Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf' Id)

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

George Penny

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Nunn, William

542

543

NOES

Addison, Ht. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Maxton, James

Banfield, John William

Hicks, Ernest George

Milner, Major James

Batey, Joseph

Jenkins, Sir William

Nathan, Major H. L

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Paling, Wilfred

Buchanan, George

Kirkwood, David

Parkinson, John Allen

Cape, Thomas

Lansbury, Rt, Hon. George

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Cleary, J. J

Lawson, John James

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

Daggar, George

Leonard, William

Thorne, William James

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Logan, David Gilbert

Tinker, John Joseph

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lunn, William

West, F. R

Davies, Stephen Owen

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Edwards, Charles

McGovern, John

Wilmot, John

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Mainwaring, William Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. John and Mr. Groves

BILLS REPORTED.

  SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GUISBOROUGH JOINT SMALL-POX HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (COUNTY OF HOLLAND JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HUNTINGDONSHIRE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH CHILTERNS JOINT SMALL-POX HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  CLACTON-ON-SEA PIER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
  MEDWAY LOWER NAVIGATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  British Shipping (Assistance) Bill, without Amendment.

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1935.
  Estimates presented for the financial year 1935 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.59 p.m.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Before considering the Bill to abolish, in time, overcrowding in Scotland the House will, I hope, allow me to make one or two observations upon the conditions of life in Scotland. My experience is, no doubt, similar to that of my colleagues from Scotland. When visiting hundreds of homes of the industrial classes in different parts of Scotland, taking the houses quite at random, one feature of our national life stands out predominantly. Parliament has during the last one or two generations made provision—I will not stop to inquire whether it has been adequate or not—against the uncertainties of employment, the tragedy of ill-health, the gradual loss of earning power through age, and the misfortune of widowhood; and for at least three generations Parliament has provided a democratic system of education which has been freely available and of which advantage has been readily taken. In addition, in the last generation or two Parliament has enacted varied provisions to improve the health and happiness of our people. This vast effort by the State, driven forward in turn by every party, is not yet yielding the full reward of the sustained effort and great expenditure incurred, because of the tragic housing conditions of our people. They are, in many cases, a disgrace to our country. These conditions, then, must be remedied if Parliament's effort and expenditure to secure social betterment are to be completely successful.
  Before asking the House to consider this problem, let me here pay a sincere tribute to the great effort made by local authorities throughout Scotland since the War in providing houses. Upwards of 183,000 houses with State assistance have been built at a present cost to the Exchequer of £1,800,000 a year. This has given new housing accommodation to approximately 850,000 persons, or nearly
  552
  one-fifth of our total population. That is a great and valuable contribution, made by successive Governments, towards the solution of one of the most pressing social problems—I suggest, the most pressing problem of our time. Yet our people in Scotland are still far from being satisfactorily housed. There is still an urgent need for large numbers of houses throughout the country. The great mass of the poorer classes continue without decent homes to-day. Why is this? Up to 1930, housing efforts were directed mainly towards meeting the shortage after the War. Much has been done to meet that shortage, but, unfortunately, not nearly enough has been done to meet the need of those whose need is greatest. Slums and crowded tenements still exist at the heart of nearly every town and village of Scotland. Houses have been provided for numbers of the better-off working class, but not so much has been done to provide houses for the low wage-earner. That is the problem that this Bill, linked with the Slum Clearance Act, is intended to solve. The point has now been reached when we must concentrate on the building of decent low-rented houses for the less well-off in sufficient numbers to abolish overcrowding and, in addition, destroy the slums, leaving the provision of accommodation for the better-off section of the community to be carried out by ordinary commercial building unhampered by the competition of subsidised State housing.
  A year ago the Government started a campaign in Scotland to destroy the slums in five years. In twelve months contracts have been placed to destroy 40 out of every 100 slum houses, and to erect in their place suitable homes for those who resided in those houses. In 24 months we hope to destroy 60 out of every 100 of those slum houses. We intend to destroy 60,000 slum houses and re-house the occupants in healthy homes. Well within the five years all the slum property in Scotland should be a thing of the past, and the families so displaced moved to better homes. This remarkable progress has been attained because the conscience of Scotland was deeply stirred, and local authorities—all credit to them—entered with energy and determination into the task of doing away with these intolerable conditions. These black spots every hon. Member will agree are not only destructive of the possibility

  553
  of decent home life, but strike at the very core of national health and prosperity. In order that there may be no weakening, but rather increased and intensive effort, the Government have decided that the present generous slum clearance subsidy will remain undiminished for all houses completed by 31st March, 1938, although the rates of interest and building costs have been much reduced since 1930 when the subsidy was established. I submit that this is a striking indication of the determination of His Majesty's Government to destroy the slums well within the five-year period.
  Let me turn to the Bill, and before I sit down I will endeavour to remove some of the misapprehension which exists in the minds of hon. Members in all parts of the House on different Clauses of the Bill. The Bill lays down a standard of overcrowding. That standard is set out in Clause 2 and the first schedule. The House, I am sure, will agree that without some standard of accommodation we cannot hope to make this Bill effective, and that the standard must deal not only with floor space and the number of persons who may occupy a house, but also be such as to secure separation of the sexes. We are not dealing with dormitories only, but with homes where families, in addition to sleeping, have to eat, play, work and receive their friends. Can anyone say that two rooms of 12 feet square are more than enough to do all these things for a family of three adults, let alone two adults, two children and, may be, a baby in addition? The object of the standard is not to create an offence by its breach, but to give direction to the local authorities in the moving of overcrowded families to houses suitable to their needs. The provision of the necessary additional accommodation must come first. Commonsense must determine when the standard can be fully enforced. When, however, it is practicable and wise to enforce it, all sections of the House, I think, will agree, or I hope they will, that some measure of compulsion is necessary if the Bill is to be effective, but that will only be when there is no longer any reasonable excuse left for a family either in town or country to live in overcrowded conditions.
  The imposition by law of a general housing standard is new. I think it is practically accurate to say that there is
  554
  no housing standard in Europe to-day except in one or two towns. The imposition of this standard is new. Its details, obviously, must be very carefully considered in Committee. The machinery in the Bill may not be the only or the best form of control, and any suggestions upstairs will be readily welcomed by the Government. I wish to add that the Government recognise that special difficulties in applying the standard will be met in certain parts of Scotland. Especially is this so with the housing accommodation of farm servants. Hon. Members will find in Clause 4 the method by which we shall have a real breathing-space after the appointed day to consider the best methods of dealing with these special difficulties. Farm workers, their wives and families, who live in such houses will desire in time the same standard as their fellows, but in bringing that standard into operation we must very carefully ensure that we are not creating an impossible housing situation in rural Scotland, or one which will create any difficulties for an agricultural worker with a large family to secure employment. That is the general line of the Government's policy towards that problem.
  What are the conditions which the Bill proposes to remedy? The standards of housing in the past have created an enormous number of small dwellings in which are herded together great masses of the population. The pressure on available accommodation is more extreme than any hon. Member, I believe realises. Empty working-class houses, suitable for occupation, in many towns are very difficult to find. In Glasgow, for example, at Whitsunday, 1934, out of a total of over 210,000 houses of three apartments and less, only 1.085 were empty. That situation is in marked contrast to the position in each of the five years before the War; for example, in 1910, when the number was 17,185 and in 1914 when it was 12,096. The percentage of unlet houses of three apartments and less in Glasgow has fallen from 11 per cent in 1910 to half of one per cent, in 1934. Nearly half of all the houses of Scotland contain only one or two apartments. It is in these small houses where the mass of over-crowding exists. Over one-third of the total population, or over 1,638,000 persons, are living more than two to a room, and

  555
  nearly 750,000 are living more than three to a room.
  In view of these circumstances, we cannot, as is proposed in England, rehouse any great proportion of our overcrowded families in tenements in the centre of the towns, as overcrowding largely exists in tenements in these very spots. We must, therefore, rehouse large numbers of our people on the outskirts. It may be asked, and I am sure everyone will ask, would they not prefer to remain in the central areas As to that, inquiries were made by responsible officials in different towns in Scotland with regard to 500 families, who have been removed from central areas and are now living on the outskirts, as to whether they preferred living in tenements near the centre or on the outskirts. Having had experience of both, 86 per cent. definitely preferred living on the outskirts and only 14 per cent., mostly old people, favoured living near the centre.
  The problem in Scotland differs profoundly from that in England, and the financial basis on which the Bill has been built reflects the profound difference in the conditions in the two countries. Scotland is faced with a big job, and to enable local authorities to tackle it Parliament must give them sufficient financial help. In Clause 27 of the Bill we propose to give an Exchequer subsidy of £6 15s. per year for 40 years. This will enable the local authorities to build modern houses at rents within the reach of the low-wage earner. In deciding the respective contributions of the State and the local authorities, we came down on £615s. from the Exchequer and £3 5s. from the rates; that is, the State should pay nearly 70 per cent. of the total cost—68 per cent., to be quite accurate. Hon. Members in all quarters of the House who are from Scotland will be glad that in this all-important matter of the financial burden and the proportion of the financial burden, we carry the local authorities with us. We recognised a year ago when we started to explore this problem that without the ready assent and the hearty co-operation of the local authorities any Act dealing with housing would not operate successfully in Scotland, and I make this statement advisedly after having had an opportunity of conferring with responsible people from the local areas.
  Sir IAN MACPHERSON: Is that the general rate which is applied to Scotland, including the islands and Highlands?
  Sir G. COLLINS: I will come to that point in a moment. I think the House and in particular Scottish hon. Members will agree that the national exchequer has shouldered its full share of the financial burden and that my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has very sympathetically recognised the special needs of Scotland in this matter. The sum of £6 15s. is not the whole of the assistance that will be given; this is sufficient where there are no special difficulties and it will be paid uniformly throughout the country, but the Government will give additional assistance to enable local authorities in the big towns to clear out bad houses on the central sites and erect thereon new houses and buildings well arranged and properly planned. Extensive schemes of this kind will mean extra costs for demolition, compensation and construction, which the subsidy of £6 15s. will not meet. The Government propose therefore to increase the subsidy of £6 15s. where this work is carried out extensively, if the costs justify the need, by an amount up to £4 extra per house. Clauses 12 to 17 show how this is to be done.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does that mean £10 as against £6 15s.?
  Sir G. COLLINS: It means £10 15s. as the outside figure; £6 15s. is the figure for Scotland, but in the centre of large towns where there will be extra costs for demolition, compensation and construction, the extra subsidy will be available.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not possible to give the extra subsidy to comparatively small towns?
  Sir G. COLLINS: This extra sum of £4 is distinctly restricted to the big towns where the cost of demolition and other costs are especially heavy. The Government propose to increase the subsidy, but the local authorities will, of course, have to increase their contributions proportionately. I might mention that when this extra sum was proposed to the large burghs they welcomed the proposal, because they recognised that one of their problems was the clearing out of existing sites in the centre of the

  557
  town and the rehousing of their people. This extra subsidy will enable the work to be carried on, and it will enable the local authorities to grapple effectively with the misery of thousands of citizens who are living to-day in mean congested streets, cursed by sunlessness and squalor.
  It is not only in the large towns where, the Government recognise, needs have to be met. Here I come to the point which was raised just now by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson). In far distant parts of Scotland, mainly in the Highlands and Islands, local authorities have to face high building costs, while transport charges are heavy and building labour has to be imported, and, in addition, the rents that can be charged for the houses are exceptionally low. Every case will be considered on its merits, and, when the need is proved, the subsidy of £6 15s. will be increased to an amount necessary to enable the poor people in these areas to get as good houses as our town dwellers. This extra burden will be borne entirely by the State.
  Included in the financial provisions of the Bill are proposals in Clauses 23 to 26 to increase the efforts of voluntary agencies in providing houses for the working-classes. Local authorities will have power to arrange with housing associations for the erection of working-class accommodation which will abate overcrowding and replace slums. These associations must not trade for profit or earn more than a limited dividend, which is restricted to 5 per cent. The local authorities in these cases will be able to pay over to the housing associations the Exchequer grant for this work and may add what contribution from the rates they think desirable.
  The second provision to which I must call the attention of the House is the proposal in Clause 31 to extend the assistance for the improvement of accommodation for agricultural workers under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. Already assistance has been given for the reconstruction of 17,000 houses under this Act with most beneficial results to rural Scotland. The Government have arranged to extend this assistance to applications received up to 24th June, 1938. This work must be pushed on, and, if these extensive measures are taken advantage of, as I hope and believe they
  558
  will be, throughout rural Scotland, the difficulties of providing good accommodation for agricultural workers should be more fully met.
  Before leaving this important question of finance, let me touch on one other important matter. A programme of the dimensions which I have sketched out to the House this afternoon must carry with it some risk of rising markets and prices in building materials. The Government have not included in the Bill any direct provision for meeting this risk, but that does not mean that the Government will be inactive. I refuse to believe that, apart from any general rise in wholesale prices, any section of the vast building trade in. Scotland will raise prices above the general level.
  Mr. McGOVERN: You do not know them.
  Sir G. COLLINS: I am glad of that interruption, because I am able to tell the hon. Member that I have had direct experience of this matter. One afternoon in the summer, about 18 months ago, I asked 40 manufacturers to meet me. I pointed out to them that the demand for their commodities had risen because of Government enterprise and I appealed to them to lower their prices back to their former level. I am glad to say that the appeal met with an instantaneous and successful response.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Was it permanent?
  Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), as a Scotsman, will see the force of that. If one section of the community raises its charges because of Government action and the expenditure of public money, and the case is put to them, by an individual to individuals, to ask them to play the game in the public interest, I refuse to believe that they will not respond to it.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: You are in for a rude awakening.
  Sir G. COLLINS: By bulk purchase, and a regular output prices might indeed be reduced. I hope at a very early stage to get local authorities and manufacturers together in a voluntary spirit, so that they may consider making suitable arrangements for spreading their requirements in material evenly over long periods, for buying materials in bulk and

  559
  for generally organising their supplies of all the many commodities that go to the erection and building of a modern house. If these means fail—and I believe they will not fail—and prices rise without adequate reason, the Government will, of course, have to consider what further steps are necessary in the public interest.
  Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: What does that mean?
  Sir G. COLLINS: We shall deal with the situation as we dealt with it some 18 months ago.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hope you are strong enough, but I have my doubts.
  Sir G. COLLINS: I turn now to the rents of local authority houses. Here the Government propose far reaching changes, which hon. Members will find in Clauses 34 to 46 of the Bill. The underlying idea in those clauses is to get rid of the varying letting conditions hitherto necessitated by our many Housing Acts, and to replace them by a single group of conditions which will allow rents and subsidies as a whole to be pooled. This will give local authorities much greater freedom in managing their houses, and will remove many anomalies in the existing arrangements. It often happens that the rents of houses actually facing each other in the same street, similar in size and type, are different. Local authorities have often asked that this anomaly should be rectified. Where subsidised houses are occupied by persons able to pay an economic rent to the exclusion of poorer persons who cannot pay such a rent, there is manifestly a diversion of subsidies from their proper use. We have tried by administration to remedy this. We have succeeded in some measure, but not sufficiently. Indeed, no complete solution is possible under the existing statutes. The single rent pool and unified conditions of letting which the Bill proposes will provide a remedy. In letting local authority houses a preference must always be given to persons occupying unfit or overcrowded houses, or who have large families. Not only so, but all the houses built under this Bill, and slum clearance houses, will be reserved for low wage earners at rents which cannot exceed a maximum to be determined by the Department.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: So you are subsidising wages.
  Sir G. COLLINS: A similar provision will apply to houses provided by local authorities under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. I cannot state a precise figure for this maximum, since it will vary according to local conditions, but it will be fixed in all localities at such a sum as to secure that only low wage earners will occupy these houses, and the rent will be within their capacity to pay. Apart from these special classes of house, local authorities will be required to fix rents at the ordinary level of the rents of working-class houses in their areas. To meet the need of those who cannot pay the rents so fixed, and cannot even pay the lower maximum rents for low wage earners, local authorities will be permitted to make rebates under conditions laid down by the Department. That is the essence of the provisions which will govern the letting of local authority houses in the future.
  At this point let me refer to the provisions in Clause 22 of the Bill, relating to local housing management commissions. Local authorities have, since the War, become the owners of very large numbers of working-class houses. The factoring of their houses has, therefore, grown to be a task of considerable magnitude, involving a heavy addition to their manifold duties. When one considers how rarely complaints are received, I conclude that local authorities manage their property well. The Clause is, therefore, not to be taken as implying any critical attitude on the part of the Government. One can visualise circumstances, however, in which a local authority may—and I emphasise the word "may"—desire to transfer the management of their houses to an independent body, and in such circumstances the power to set up a management commission will be useful. It is, however, purely an optional power, and the House will observe that machinery is provided for the dissolution of a commission on an application being made by the local authority for that purpose.
  I now turn to the question of the style and size of the houses that are to be built. It is known that half the total number of houses in Scotland are of one or two apartments. You can only remedy overcrowding by moving the larger families from these houses into larger houses. The number of one-and two-apartment houses which will become

  561
  available as a result of this process will be sufficient to meet the needs of those who require them, and there is no sound case for increasing the number. I desire to make it clear, therefore, that generally no Exchequer subsidy will be paid for houses of less than three apartments. Even larger houses, of course, will have to be provided, and, where this is so, the subsidy which is being made available is sufficient to provide them.
  Another very important point is the planning of houses. There is a general desire to improve the architectural outlook in new building schemes, and to avoid drabness. To secure this result, I recently appointed a strong committee, composed mainly of well-known Scottish architects, to consider what could be done. Their report is expected shortly. It seemed opportune, when Parliament is passing a Bill the effect of which will be to rebuild large areas of our cities, to seize the opportunity to set a higher standard of architecture. Drab and mean surroundings do not encourage a bright and healthy outlook. If we make the homes of our people more attractive, shall we not help to encourage an Appreciation of beauty; and so, in our efforts to improve their physical conditions, may we not also enable them to benefit more fully from the wider and higher education which the, now enjoy? We will take every possible step, consistent with reasonable economy—and I put stress on these words—to enhance the quality of our housing, And Clause 69 of the Bill has been inserted for that purpose.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that no subsidy is to be granted to anything less than a three-apartment house? Do I understand that the building of one or two-apartment houses will not now be permitted in Scotland?
  Sir G. COLLINS: I think I made that point very clear. My exact words were, and they were carefully chosen:
  "I desire to make it clear, therefore, that generally no Exchequer subsidy will be paid for houses of less than three apartments."
  I think that that is quite clear.
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Under this Act, of course, the right hon. Gentleman means? He is not referring to the provisions for hostels and so forth under the Act of 1930?
  Sir G. COLLINS: I am only dealing with this Bill. Parliament having given certain subsidies for certain purposes, Parliament will implement that promise and undertaking. I am confining myself solely to the subsidy of £6 15s. under this Bill.
  I notice on the Order Paper two Amendments put down by hon. Members opposite, and I have also received representations from many quarters about the Bill. I am anxious to remove the misapprehensions and doubts which have existed in the minds of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I have sketched briefly, but I hope sufficiently, the main purpose of the Bill; now let me turn for a moment to some of the fears of hon. Members opposite. They fear that the Government are going to provide compensation out of public funds to owners of houses which have to be removed, and the Amendment of the official Opposition states that the Bill
  "proposes to pay public money in the form of compensation to property owners whose properties are to be removed because of their menace to public health."
  On that matter, the Bill does not introduce any new principle of compensation. It would be unjust to expect owners to surrender their property without being compensated for its fair value. This was recognised by the Labour Government in their Act of 1930, and the compensation provisions of that Act are the basis on which compensation will be paid to owners for property compulsorily acquired under this Bill. I notice that the Amendment of hon. Members below the Gangway speaks of
  "the provision of low-grade houses."
  I hope that the assurance I have given, that generally speaking nothing less than three-apartment houses will be eligible for subsidy, will remove that fear.
  Anxiety has been caused by Clause 64, due, I believe, largely to a misunderstanding of the Clause, which I am anxious to dispel. Let me say at once that it is not intended to use Clause 64 for establishing a new standard for existing houses. The Department must confirm all by-laws before they become operative, and we do not propose that any powers to make by-laws conferred by the Clause, which re-enacts in a wider form certain present powers, or that any

  563
  new powers to make by-laws under the Clause, should apply to existing houses unless where reasonably practicable, and we intend to make this clear in Committee. I wish to clear up another misapprehension. It is not intended that a house should be dealt with as unfit for human habitation merely because it does not comply with by-laws or building regulations. Unfitness is a matter which must be judged in the particular case, each house on its merits. No alteration of the law as laid down in the Act of 1930 in regard to the ascertainment of an unfit house is made by this Bill, and, if that is not already clear, it can be made clear at the Committee stage; and I should like to emphasise that, subject to the very minor provision in Clause 68, no alteration in the right of the subject to appeal to the sheriff against a closing order, or a demolition order, or a requisition to execute works, is effected by the Bill. Another matter giving anxiety has been the question of the procedure to be adopted for declaring houses unfit for human habitation in the case of redevelopment areas. The procedure is to be the same as in the 1930 Act. Here again no change is made or intended to be made.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Does that mean that anyone against whom such action is likely to be taken or has been taken will have the right to appeal to the sheriff or to the Department before final action is taken in his case?
  Sir G. COLLINS: The words of the 1930 Act apply and nothing in this Bill is intended to make any change in that Act. I think it makes no change, but words can be inserted to make it clear. At any rate, that is our intention.
  Mr. TRAIN: The appeal will be to the sheriff.
  Sir G. COLLINS: The appeal will remain exactly as at present. Whether there should be an independent commissioner to decide on this question instead of an officer of the Department is a matter which I shall consider in Committee with the greatest care. I hope and believe that, when these points to which I have referred are fully considered and weighed, it will relieve the anxiety which has already been felt outside.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Clause 64 has given anxiety in Glasgow both on the side of the tenant and on the side of the property owners. It says:
  "The provision of a separate water closet, bath, scullery, larder, adequate press accommodation and accommodation for the storage of coal for each house and facilities for washing and drying clothes and for the cooking of food."
  Are you going to see in reference to reconstructions that this carried out? You have on the stairhead two-room and kitchen houses and a single apartment. Is the single apartment in every case to be done away with and turned into a lavatory and bathroom?
  Sir G. COLLINS: That applies to new houses. I said that we do not propose that any powers to make by-laws under the clause should apply to existing houses except where reasonably practicable. In the Scottish Standing Committee, no matter what the Bill may be, the Under-Secretary and I have at all times shown ourselves willing and ready to listen to views from any part of the House. There is complete agreement in Scotland that we should endeavour to banish overcrowding, and within the four corners of the Bill I am sure my hon. Friend and myself will readily listen to any reasonable objection or criticism from any quarter. We want to mould and fashion the Bill in keeping with the forward looking mind of Scotland, and I still hope, although there are differences of opinion here on one side or the other, that when it is completed in all its stages it will go forward a unanimous Bill to deal with this matter, and anything that either my hon. Friend or I can do to secure that object we will do most readily.
  These are not only the main provisions of the Bill, but the underlying motive and spirit which will guide us in the Committee stage. We believe that within measurable time, if we secure the assent of the Scottish people, which will find expression through their representatives, we shall end that sad paradox which exists to-day of cities with some of the most hideous features in a land whose natural beauties are unsurpassed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised to the full the special claims of Scotland in the matter. We recognise that it will be costly, but against that we have to set an immense gain in the

  565
  happiness and health of our people. We may hope to reduce the numbers of those who fill the hospitals of our land and who lose employment through sickness and ill-health. By destroying the slums and abolishing overcrowding we are performing an act of social justice which will ensure health and happiness to many who are alive to-day and to generations yet unborn. Great Britain, having grappled successfully with the financial difficulties that faced her a few years ago, is now going forward with big schemes of social reform, the only country in the world which has these big schemes, because we have first of all faced and mastered successfully our financial difficulties. It is because I believe that in this Bill we have a formidable and effective weapon with which to achieve its object that I present it to-day. I commend it to the favourable consideration of this Mother of Parliaments to remove from our native land the greatest social evil of our day.
  4.52 p.m.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, recognising that overcrowding is mainly due to lack of houses available for letting at rents within the means of the working-classes of Scotland, cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which provides for the transference to unrepresentative organisations of the responsibility now vested in local authorities to abate the evil, fails to provide adequate financial assistance to enable local authorities to deal effectively with the question from the standpoint of public health, and proposes to pay public money in the form of compensation to property owners whose properties are to be removed because of their menace to public health."
  I think the whole House will agree with the Secretary of State in his concluding sentences, that it is the desire of the House to remove from our economic history a blot which has been the subject of many articles as well as many investigations and which has held the housing conditions of Scotland up to the opprobrium of the world. I hope the right hon. Gentleman's optimism is likely to be realised. I am certain that no one in the House would do anything to hinder the progress of housing. Unfortunately, however, the very framing of the Bill shows that we shall not have the very rosy conditions painted in the right hon. Gentleman's peroration. We hope for
  566
  these things, but so long as he is going to provide, as he himself says and as the Bill says, a type of house for low-wage earners you will not have the high standard of housing which everyone of us desires for the people of our land. Low wages mean inability to pay economic rents, and economic rent pre-supposes an economic wage. If a tenant has not an economic wage he has to drift down into lower rented houses which cannot give him that high standard of accommodation which we all desire.
  This is ostensibly a Bill to deal with overcrowding. It is really a rightabout face on the part of the National Government. They abolished the subsidies for England and reduced them for Scotland and held up the building of houses in Scotland, as is shown by the report of the Department of Health. The right hon. Gentleman will recall the insistence with which the Glasgow representatives pleaded with him to carry forward the closing date upon which a, certain subsidy was to be no longer operative for houses which had not been completed within the time laid down by the Department of Health. The only way in which they could qualify for that subsidy, not the subsidy under which they were commenced but another class of subsidy, was that they should apply to have these houses placed under a particular classification which was not the original classification. There was a, subsidy of £9 per house when the Government came into office and £12 10s. for rural houses and the unit grant subsidy under the 1930 Act. Later in the 1933 Act they gave a subsidy of £3 a house, which has been useless as practically only about 2,000 houses have been commenced under it. We have slowed down house building because of the manner in which they have been led by the nose by the English Treasury and the necessity of saving money. The closeness that is evidently more characteristic of the Treasury than it is reputed to be of the average Aberdonian has affected Scottish housing in. such a, way that the Government themselves have now to come forward with these new terms which one can say are fairly generous, terms which may assist providing that other conditions are applied which will enable the accommodation that, they desire to be given to the people, provided that the contracts are carried out in a proper manner.

  567
  The Secretary of State has given way to quite a number of the statements which have been circulated to hon. Members as well as to himself. One of these, to which we take exception, is with regard to the by-laws that a local authority may, and if required by the Department shall, make and the powers that they take to themselves or have given to them by the Department in order to do certain things. The Secretary of State said that this only applies to new houses.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton) indicated dissent.
  Mr. MACLEAN: That is the impression that he gave the House, that this was not to apply to houses already in existence, but only to new houses.
  Mr. SKELTON: When the speech of my right hon. Friend is read, it will be clear that his phrase was:
  "To existing houses unless where reasonably practicable."
  I think that the hon. Member will find that that is so.
  Mr. MACLEAN: That phrase is certainly not the one used by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not want to make a debating point, because I am certain that no one in the House would more readily accept an explanation from the Secretary of State if he said that he misunderstood. I had read the clause before, but I thought that it was so surprising that he should make such a statement, that I re-read the beginning of it.
  "A local authority may, and if required by the Department shall, make with respect to houses used or intended to be used for human habitation".
  If they are being used for human habitation they must be existing houses. You cannot use a house in process of construction, but you use a house' which is finished. It is one upon which an inhabitant or tenant can enter and take up his abode. Therefore, if we have not taken the proper meaning from the statement of the Secretary of State, the matter ought to be made plain. If it is intended to alter the wording of the clause on the Commitee stage and make it applicable only to new houses, we ought to have the reasons made definite so that we may know whether the
  568
  pressure which has been urged upon him has been successful because of its force.
  Sir G. COLLINS: I said on Clause 64, that it was not intended to establish a new standard for existing houses. That was not our intention. I went on to say:
  "We do not propose that any powers to make by-laws conferred by the Clause, which re-enacts in a wider form certain present powers, or that any new powers to make bylaws under the Clause should apply to existing houses unless where reasonably practicable, and we intend to make this clear."
  I was only trying to show to the House what was our original intention in drafting the Clause, and make clear our intention.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I am prepared to accept that when the hon. Gentleman has the matter in typescript, but I want to remind him that it was not to what he read to the House in the general delivery of his speech that I am taking exception. It was his reply to a definite question put to him by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), and it was in reply to that that he made the statement to which I am taking exception.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I gave a concrete case.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I am asking for a definite explanation. The matter was brought up by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs in order to get some definite and distinct assurance on the point, and the right hon. Gentleman rose and made a statement in reply, and it is that statement to which I am taking exception. It definitely led the House to believe that it was only in respect of houses that were to be built under this Bill that these by-laws could apply, and not to houses already in existence. The Clause as it reads refers to houses that are in existence, and the statement which has been read by the right hon. Gentleman clears the matter up by making it perfectly open that it does apply to that particular class of house. It was the two statements I wanted cleared up so that the House could understand what were the by-laws applicable in those circumstances.
  With regard to some other points in the statement of the Secretary of State and in the Bill, I observe that there is to be a subsidy of £6 15s. 0d. from the Govern

  569
  ment, and £3 5s. 0d. from the local authority. In the large towns £6 15s. 0d. will not be enough in certain circumstances and may be increased by £4 additional, provided that the local authority is prepared to pay a proportionate increase of the amount to be provided by them. I take exception, not to the terms of the subsidy as set out by the Secretary of State, but to its method of application. Large industrial areas are to have a grant on the same conditions as small areas. For example, a large industrial town like Glasgow will have its subsidy given to it on the same terms as a small country town like Crieff. The amount which Glasgow will have to provide compared with a small town like Crieff, will be at a considerably greater rate of expense to the inhabitants. I am not speaking of Crieff because it is anyone's constituency but because it is a small town and less rated than Glasgow. I know that certain hon. Members know a great, deal about Crieff, and perhaps more particularly about what used to be the Crieff Junction where they got off to play golf at Gleneagles.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is only the Americans and Jews who use it.
  Mr. MACLEAN: It is evident that the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) knows the class of person who goes there.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have never been there.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Then the hon. and learned Gentleman is not a good judge.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I prefer that they should come to Machrihanish.
  Mr. MACLEAN: They have to pass the whiskey town to get there. I think it is wrong to apply a uniform subsidy. The Government ought to have gone back on the unit principle. They ought to have taken the unit principle established by the last Government, as it was a much fairer and more equitable distribution of the amount the Government had at their disposal in the way of subsidy than the method of giving a general uniform grant or subsidy for the building of a house, whether it he in a highly rated, large, crowded industrial centre, or in a small countrified town where there are practically no houses to be erected.
  570
  There is another matter to which we take undoubted exception, and that is the fact that the Government are really talking about giving powers to place housing in the hands of some kind of housing association. We object not merely to Government money being handed over to local representatives, but to its being taken from the people and used for the building of houses under the control of anybody which is not a democratic body answerable to the citizens, but which may be only answerable to the Government through the Secretary of State for Scotland. We believe that the local authorities, in spite of all that has been said of the extension of properties by local authorities, should be responsible for the construction of houses. I was glad to note that the Secretary of State for Scotland paid a compliment to the manner in which they had managed these properties. I do not think that the slightest objection can be taken by any Member of this House to the manner in which local authorities in Scotland have managed the properties they have erected under the various Housing Acts and in respect of which they have obtained subsidies. Since there has not been any' objection, and cannot be any objection raised to their manner of managing these properties, I fail to see any reason for the incorporation in a Bill of this kind of a new method of management, and for taking the control out of the hands of the very local authority that has to find the money in order to obtain the subsidy which the Government are to grant in connection with the erection of houses.
  Mr. McGOVERN: Take them out of politics.
  Sir I. MACPHERSON: It is permissive.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I do not want it to be permissive, but taken out of the Bill altogether. It is feasible that in a certain town we may get some reactionary local council, but, according to the general theory that is now being propounded by people on the other side of the House, they want to take these matters out of politics in the same manner as they have dealt with unemployment assistance. They want to take this policy out of politics and place it under some commission or association. I notice the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) shakes his head. He is not on the Front

  571
  Bench opposite and, therefore, does not know the purpose behind the Government. He cannot answer for the Government. He may not always enjoy the confidence which he should enjoy from the Government, who are his friends.
  Mr. McGOVERN: A cup of tea does a lot.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I wish to enter our protest and to say that we shall do our best to convince the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of the necessity of removing all this sort of thing from the Bill. It cannot be shown, in the whole history of the housing of Scotland since 1919, that anything has been done by any local authority that would lead the Government to justify the attempt to take the matter out of the control of the local authorities. The Secretary of State also stated that rents are to be fixed at such a sum as the tenants will be able to pay. That point has already been made. I have done my best to make it clear to the Secretary of State that unless you have an economic wage, the house rent which they will have to pay, if the house is to be satisfactory and suitable, may necessitate a much larger subsidy than the Government are prepared to grant. If that be the case, the Government may as well make up their mind that further applications will be made for increased subsidies by the local authorities.
  The Government have done everything possible in the past to alter the subsidy arrangements. Subsidies have ceased as far as the Act of the Labour Government of 1930 is concerned. The largest number of houses under slum clearance schemes have been built under that Act and under the Act of 1924, also a Labour Act. Larger numbers of houses have been built under those two Acts than under any other Act that has been passed by any other Government, including the Coalition Government which was responsible for the Addison scheme. I hope that we shall get this Bill so altered in the Scottish Standing Committee that we shall be able to bring back into the Bill some of the benefits and good points of those two Acts which have more or less been allowed to drop by the present Government since they came into office. We had a Scottish Bill before the Scottish Standing Committee only last year.
  572
  We made considerable alterations in the framework' of that Bill and in what it could do for the people of Scotland. The changes which were made made it almost entirely a different Bill from what it was when it first appeared in this House. We altered it to such an extent that the Minister of Health had to bring in a Bill for England two or three months later to make the poor law of England uniform with the changed conditions of the Poor Law in Scotland.
  There has been a great deal of opposition to the English Housing Bill, which has passed its Second Reading and gone to Standing Committee. There will be a great deal of opposition to that Bill there. I am hoping that hon. Members for Scotland will take the same interest in the Scottish Housing Bill that they took in the Scottish Poor Law Bill, and that when we bring the Bill to the House on Report it will be so altered and made so beneficial to the people to whom it is to be applied that the Minister of Health for England will consider it necessary to have a new Housing Bill prepared for England, to make the housing of the people of England more in consonance with that of Scotland.
  5.16 p.m.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am sure that the whole House feels that we are indebted to the Secretary of State for the speech with which he opened the Debate. It was a masterly exposition of the principles of the Bill and swept away a great many misapprehensions which have been aroused among the public in Scotland. Indeed, he carried his sweeping process so far, in relation to Clause 64 in particular, that I share some of the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) about the precise nature of what he said in regard to that Clause. It is, however, clear that these points are proper subjects for discussion in Committee and that we shall get the thing straightened out there.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Govan that there is one angle of approach from which it is almost certain that the Bill will be welcomed in every quarter of the House, and that is that it represents a complete reversal of the policy of the Act of 1933. There have been many Housing Acts placed upon the Statute Book since the War, but the Act of 1933, which we on

  573
  these benches fought clause by clause and almost line by line, has obtained unique prominence as being the most ridiculous fiasco of them all. The total number of houses built, or under construction, or approved but not begun under the provisions of that Act is less than 2,000. A greater number than that were built in a single month in 1932; a clear illustration of the derisory results of that Act. I do not want to dwell upon that Act, but it is necessary to consider the new Bill in relation to the great body of Scottish housing legislation which has preceded it, and particularly its immediate predecessor. The policy of that Act, as was stated by the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, was to concentrate the efforts of the State on two objectives—slum clearance and houses for the lower paid wage-earners.
  Mr. SKELTON: Living in overcrowded conditions.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Yes, the lower paid wage-earners living in overcrowded conditions, and to leave the rest of the housing of the working classes to be dealt with by private enterprise. The Under-Secretary, speaking in Committee upstairs, said:
  "My hon. Friends desire to see ordinary housebuilding for the working classes, as opposed to slum clearance and low wage earners' houses done by private enterprise, if that be possible. That is what we are seeking to do in the Bill, and I have no reason to doubt that the experiment will fail. [Laughter.] I am obliged for that laughter because it enables me to correct myself. I have no reason to doubt that the experiment will succeed, although some of my hon. Friends have many reasons for hoping that it will fail."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills) 7th March, 1933, col. 46.]
  Unfortunately he was right in what he said the first time. We on these benches declared that policy to be unsound, for two reasons, first because it is impossible to make any real progress in slum clearance unless at the same time you deal with the shortage which exists of houses available at low rents for people living in overcrowded conditions and earning low wages. When there is a big shortage of houses the pressure is bound to be felt at the bottom, and the difficulties and the cost of slum clearance were bound to be increased by the failure to supply the shortage of low rented dwellings. It is useless to produce in this House mere figures of slum clearance
  574
  schemes and to talk of bad houses being demolished if at the same time in other areas, through overcrowding, large blocks of houses are relapsing into the conditions of slums. Secondly, we said that private enterprise could not perform the task which was allotted to it, and that contention has proved by experience to be correct.
  We also argued that, apart from the unsoundness of the policy, the means suggested for obtaining even the limited objectives of the 1933 Act were insufficient. In the opinion of the Government the £3 subsidy was sufficient to encourage the building of houses for low paid wage-earners living in overcrowded conditions. The Under-Secretary of State stated on the 9th February, 1933:
  "Our proposals will apply to the overcrowded population in such of those 40,000 houses as are not uninhabitable houses which can be dealt with by the Slum Clearance Act. It is in regard to those cases that the subsidy of £3 is given."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1933; col. 390, Vol. 274.]
  On the 10th April, speaking on an amendment which I moved, he said:
  "I do venture to say to him that is is possible to be unduly pessimistic in this matter. I am satisfied that even now the fall in housing costs is by no means at an end, and that the great majority of local authorities will be able to make use of the £3 subsidy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT: 10th April, 1933; col. 2299, Vol. 276.]
  Actually, only 1,700 houses have been built with the £3 subsidy from that day to this. We, who exposed the absurdity of the proposals at that time, welcome the Government's belated conversion to the need of a higher subsidy.
  In addition to the need for higher subsidies throughout Scotland as a whole, we pointed out the need for much higher subsidies in certain parts of the country, a need which we thought could only be met, with due regard to public economy, by means of the variable subsidy somewhat on the lines of the Rural Workers (Housing) Act, 1931, commonly called the Tudor Walters Act. Under that Act we ensured that the subsidies were high enough to enable houses to be built in difficult areas but never so high as to be greater than was necessary, and therefore to be wasteful of public money. The Government scoffed at our contention, and the Under-Secretary on 11th April, 1933, said, in

  575
  reply to an amendment that I had moved, that he opposed the amendment
  "because it will put upon the Department of Health a duty which would involve endless and difficult discussions and in my judgment useless and otiose discussions, with every local authority asking for a subsidy. It is not the first time that the question has been raised, and Governments of all shades of opinion and the House have rejected the view that the amount of the subsidy should be localised in each case. So much for the administrative side of the proposal of my right hon. Friend."—(OFFICIAL REPORT: 10th April, 1933; cols. 2295–6, Vol. 276.]
  By "my right hon. Friend" he meant me. I am glad that there is so much more to be said for the proposal and that the Government have now come forward with a proposal based upon the one which I made at the time of the passing of the Act of 1933. This point of the variable subsidy will be one of very great importance in the rural areas of Scotland, and I would ask the Under-Secretary of State to give us some further enlightenment on Clause 27. That clause says:
  "where the Department are satisfied that the total annual expenditure likely to be incurred by a local authority other than the town council of a large burgh in providing throughout their district such accommodation as is referred to in the foregoing subsection is substantially greater than the equivalent aforesaid, in consequence of the remoteness of the sites of any houses in which such accommodation is provided from centres of supply of building labour and material, and the impracticability of obtaining for such houses higher rents than are ordinarily payable by persons employed in agriculture or fishing or by persons of a like economic condition,"…
  Then the Department may pay a higher subsidy. What does
  "the remoteness of the sites of any houses"
  mean? Does it mean houses that are remote from the main railhead of the district? What is meant by
  "centres of supply of building labour and material"?
  Are they those centres from which building labour and material are distributed in the district, or does the phrase mean the main centres of supply in the south of Scotland where these materials are manufactured? Will the term apply, broadly speaking, to the whole of the Highlands of Scotland and the rural districts and small burghs in those parts? In addition to the question as to the remoteness of the sites of the houses from the centres
  576
  from which building labour and material are obtained, and the impracticability of obtaining higher rents, will such an important point as low rateable valuation be taken into account?
  If I may assume that the answers to these questions are going to be satisfactory, I should like to pay a cordial tribute to the Government for the introduction of this principle, for which I have so long contended. I have quoted before, and I should like to do so again, the case of the burgh I know best, my home town, where the average rent of houses in the old town is less than £4, or is. 6d. a week, where the rates are high, and have been increased in recent years, where the valuation is so low that one penny on the rates only yields £50, and where the building costs are still high. For example, in the most recent housing schemes it has cost to build a two-storied four apartment house, £495, and a three apartment single storey house £390, while under another scheme the cost of a three apartment single storey house was £380, and a four apartment flat house £440. I hope that these high costs of building will be taken into account and that we may have an assurance on that point.
  The only Act under which this principle has so far been accepted was the Tudor Walters Act, 1931, and we who have benefited owe a debt to Mr. Tom Johnston who got it hrough the Labour Cabinet. But the scope of that Act was limited. It did not apply to housing in small towns but only to rural areas. Apart from that, successive Tory and Socialist Governments have found themselves incapable of dealing with the problem. If, therefore, the Government are really in earnest in this matter and mean to give local authorities and councils of small boroughs under Clause 27 a subsidy which will enable them for the first time to grapple with their housing problems, they will deserve thanks, which I for one shall not be backward in paying.
  There are two special pleas I want to enter, again assuming that the answers to these questions will be satisfactory. The first is on behalf of local authorities, like the Sutherland County Council, who are already committed to schemes under the 1933 Act. Take the case which I know best, Sutherland. It has an extremely low valuation. Its revenues are declining, through the depression in

  577
  agriculture and the collapse of the fishing industry and because sporting rentals have also been declining. Its housing needs are clamant; its rates are rising and its resources are dwindling. But the Government, quite rightly in view of its housing needs, have been pressing the council to build. The Department of Health said they must, and they advised them to build under the 1933 Act. They consented. I beg the Government not to hold them to this bargain. The burden on the ratepayers in Sutherlandshire is crushing, the need for new houses is great and, therefore, I would ask them to allow the scheme to be transferred from the 1933 Act to the present Bill, so that with the same contribution from the rates they will be able to build more of these greatly needed houses.
  Secondly, I would ask that local authorities whose special needs are now recognised under Clause 27 as justifying the provision of this flexible subsidy, should receive this special measure of help not only in regard to houses which are to be built to relieve overcrowding but also for slum clearance. The financial difficulties are the same whether the houses are to be built for slum clearance or to deal with the problem of overcrowding—high costs, high rates, low valuation and low earning power. Indeed, owing to the agricultural depression and the collapse of the fishing industry, the earning power of the people in the Highlands of Scotland is lower and their rate-paying capacity is also lower—
  Mr. SKELTON: On the first point, does the right hon. and gallant Member happen to have with him the rate contribution of Sutherlandshire under the 1933 Act?
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: No, but I know that the Sutherlandshire County Council believe that they would be better off if they can come under this Bill. Providing they can go on with the same rate contribution of their own, they will be able to build more houses if they can come under the provisions of this Bill. It is at their request that I am putting this point to the Government. In regard to the second point, slum clearance, and the necessity for this special provision in certain areas for dealing with slum clearance, I would urge the Government first, that they should take power in the
  578
  Bill to grant this special assistance under Clause 27 to certain local authorities not only in relation to houses built for relieving overcrowding, but also in relation to houses built for dealing with slum clearance; secondly, that they should restrict the rate contribution under the 1930 Act to £3 5s.; and, thirdly, that they should sanction, under the 1930 Act as well as under this Bill, such lower rents as can reasonably be expected from the new tenants.
  We had no greater cause for anxiety at the time of the passing of the 1933 Act than the neglect of rural housing, and we moved several Amendments to that Bill in order to repair that neglect. There are only three really effective measures for dealing with rural housing at the present time. The first, and probably the best, was the Tudor Walters Act, or Rural Housing Act of 1931, which is no longer in operation. Next, and excellent within its limits, is the scheme of the Department of Agriculture, under Section 9 of the Pentland Act, 1911, but, alas, in spite of all their assurances of the recognition of the housing needs, the number of new houses constructed under this Act fell from 113 in 1931 to 42 in 1933, and only recovered to 87 last year. I beg the Government to make greater use of this admirable scheme. The full provision of £25,000 a year ought to be made and spent every year, as it could usefully be spent, instead of getting £10,000 as in 1933. But if those who are entitled to benefit under that Act are to be expected to bring their housing accommodation up to the new standards which are to be imposed in this Bill, the provision ought to be and, indeed, must be, largely increased.
  The third weapon for dealing with rural housing is the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, under which good work has been done especially in conjunction with the scheme of the Department of Agriculture under the 1911 Act. But this is limited to reconditioning, and there is a growing and natural reluctance on the part of local authorities to make full use of these Acts owing to the rating burdens which they throw upon heavily burdened ratepayers, who have to pay their full rates for the benefit, in the case of these housing Acts, of their neighbours on the land who enjoy derating under the 1929 Act. I ask the

  579
  Government, in connection with the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, what is meant by paragraph 17 of the financial memorandum to the Bill. In this paragraph it is said that:
  "The additional charge on the Exchequer…will, it is anticipated, amount to approximately £22,000 per annum for 20 years."
  Does that mean only an increase of £22,000 spread over three years? The Secretary of State has told us this afternoon that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recognised the special needs of Scotland, but he certainly has not recognised the needs of the rural areas, if that is all the provision that is to be made. If that be all, it means a decline in the amount of work that is going on now. Although the need is no less and will indeed become greater when this Bill is passed, actually the increase in the number of houses completed in 1933 over 1932 was 3,600, and in 1934 it fell to 3,000. The estimate for 1935 which I received to-day in answer to a Parliamentary question is only 2,700. Therefore, the number of houses being provided under this Act is now declining, and if indeed it only means that £22,000 is to be spent, spread over three years, there will be a still further decline in the amount of work done in rural housing under these Acts.
  There is a. further point, and perhaps it is the most important in connection with rural housing. The effectiveness of the schemes of the Department of Agriculture under the 1911 Act is dependent upon two factors. It is dependent, first, as regards the reconstruction of existing houses, on dovetailing their schemes into those of the local authority under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, and secondly, as regards new houses its effectiveness is dependent on the receipt by the landholder of the subsidy which was paid under the 1923 Act to private enterprise, and which has been withdrawn under the 1933 Act. The Secretary of State has referred to the importance of the farm servants problem, and I entirely agree with him. It is vitally important to improve farm servants' housing. But there is another great problem in the Highlands of Scotland, although it is not confined to the Highlands, and that is the crofter houses. You will not be able to deal with crofter houses and the houses of landholders all
  580
  over Scotland unless you can supplement the scheme of the Department of Agriculture in some way to make up for the loss of the subsidy under the 1923 Act which was abolished by the 1933 Act.
  I ask the Government, first, for an assurance that they mean in future to increase the amount of money at the disposal of the Department of Agriculture for tackling the question of landholders' houses in rural districts, and that they will provide some means for supplying the absence of the subsidy which used to be available under the 1923 Act, so that they can press forward with redoubled vigour with the building of houses for landholders up to the new standards which are to be imposed under the Bill. The improvement of housing in the rural districts and in many of the small boroughs is not keeping pace with the improvement in the big towns, and I ask for an assurance from the Government that this differential subsidy under Clause 27, Sub-section (2) will be used to launch a real housing programme in the small boroughs and rural districts in Scotland, and that increased provision will be made under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act and also under the Department's schemes which are carried out under Section 9 of the 1911 Act for dealing with landholders' houses.
  Turning from these special problems to the general problem, let me say at once that my criticisms of the Bill will be neither captious nor carping. Here is a Measure which, with all its faults and blemishes and vices, is cast, unlike that unhappy little brat, the 1933 Act, in a massive mould. It is not only better adapted to Scottish conditions than the English Bill but a better Bill in my opinion than the English Bill. If, therefore, I feel bound to criticise it let me make it clear to its authors that I do so with respect. Its first vice is its complexity, amounting almost to unintelligibility, a serious vice, perhaps not so serious to the supermen who sit majestically on the Treasury Bench, with a group of highly skilled public servants and draftsmen behind them, but certainly serious to ordinary plain fellows like the rest of us. This Measure is as involved, as ugly and as misbegotten a specimen of legislation by reference, as I have ever read.
  Mr. SKELTON: On the question of complexity, I think there is one Clause

  581
  which closely resembles some of the features of a section of the Wheat Act, of which the right hon. and gallant Member has some knowledge.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: An Act of which I have some knowledge but not as an example of legislation by reference for it had no predecessor to refer to. I ask the House to look with me at Clause 70, for example. It says:
  "For Section thirty-seven of the Act of 1930 the following section shall be substituted:
  "37. In any case where—

  (i) a complaint has been made to the Department—

  (a) as respects any district, by any four or inure local government electors of the district, or

  (b) as respects any county, by the district council of any district within the county,

  that the local authority have failed to exercise any of their powers under the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1925 to 1935, or under the section which is directed by Section forty of the Housing, Town Planning, &c. (Scotland) Act, 1919, to be substituted for Section one hundred and twenty-five of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897."
  Later the Clause states:
  "Subsection (1) of Section one hundred and forty-six of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897 (which relates to procedure on neglect of their duty by a local authority), shall have effect as if the duties imposed by Section twenty of the Act of 1925 were duties imposed by toe first mentioned Act."
  Finally the Clause states:
  "Section one hundred and forty-seven of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897 (which makes provision for refusal or neglect of a local authority), shall be amended by the insertion after the word 'herein' of the words or in the Burgh Police(Scot-land) Act, 1892, or in the Housing (Scot-land) Acts, 1925 to 1935.'"
  Imagine the unhappy chairman of the housing committee of a local authority sitting with all these statutes on his library shelves and pulling them down one by one like an organist pulling out stops. It is useless to tell me that I find this Clause unintelligible because I am a stupid barbarian from the wilds of the far North. The men who will have to administer the Act are just ordinary people like most of us here. First of all they were told to build houses, then to town plan, then to plan improvement areas. First of all it was four-fifths of a penny rate, then a lump sum, then a unit sum, and then back again to a lump
  582
  Sum Who are the chairmen of the housing committees in Angus or Argyll or Caithness or Galloway? Farmers or merchants or professional men. They will have to work this Measure. They will have to get an understanding of it into the heads of their colleagues on the councils, and on the housing committees, and into the heads of the landlords and factors and all who have to deal with the Act. The chairman of one of the housing committees in one of the biggest and most prosperous counties of Scotland told me only a week or two ago that in his opinion it took two or three years to get the provisions of any Housing Act into the heads of the people who were concerned—to get them to understand the responsibilities, the obligations, the duties and the rights which devolved upon them from any one of these Acts. Surely then it is vital to the speedy success of the Measure that plain straightforward language should be substituted for the involved prolixity of legislation by reference.
  Then I ask the House to consider the size of the task with which we are confronted and the prospects of successful and rapid progress under the Bill. The central fact is that according to the census of 1931 7 per cent. of the population of Scotland live in one-roomed houses and 37 per cent. in two-roomed houses. The standard of overcrowding laid down in this Bill seems fantastic and almost fanciful beside facts like those. The Secretary of State has told us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised the special needs of Scotland in relation to this problem. But has he? I ask the House to glance at paragraph 16 of the explanatory memorandum, where we get some sort of estimate given us of the rate of progress which is likely to be made. That is, after all, a very important point. It is only 27,500 houses in three years. It is hardly fair to take the first year, because the scheme will take some time to get into operation. But take the next two years, and we find that the total is only 25,000 houses in the two years. Presumably slum clearance will be going on at the same time. I ask the Government to give the House an estimate of the number of slum clearance houses which will be erected in each of the three years mentioned. At the height of the financial crisis in 1932 there were 15,000 State-assisted houses

  583
  built, in 1933 there were 20,000; and in 1934, owing to the unfortunate 1933 Act, there was a relapse to 18,000.
  Mr. SKELTON: Almost every one of those was a slum clearance house.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: There was a lapse in the number of houses built. It is useless to pride yourselves on the number of slum clearance houses being built if you are not at the same time tackling the problem of overcrowding which is making the slums. There was this number of houses built—in 1932, 15,000; in 1933, 20,000; and in 1934, 18,000; and now under this scheme 12,500 is to be the average of the second and third years. With low costs and cheap money the country demands much more vigorous efforts, not only to supply the houses, but to give useful employment in the building trade. "Money is cheap," declared the Prime Minister in his New Year broadcast; "let it be used for work of national development." Yes, I agree; let it be used to root out slums and overcrowding in Scotland. How much money and how many houses to deal with slum clearance and overcrowding in the first three years are referred to in paragraph 16 of the memorandum?
  Mr. SKELTON: The limit is only the requirement' of the local authorities.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am very glad to hear that. We may take it, then, that the figures given in the memorandum are only an estimate, that possibly they will be exceeded, and that every effort will be made to exceed them and improve upon them. Even so, the greater the help that can be obtained from any other agency, including private enterprise, the speedier the progress of the campaign. A Bill like this is bound to occasion clamour from all the vested interests, but the Government must put public interests first, and,. subject to fair compensation for houses or land compulsorily acquired, private interests must be subordinated to the public interests. In turning deaf ears to clamour and resisting proposals which would offer to private interests an opportunity of making excessive claims for compensation and hampering the efforts of local authorities in dealing with slums and overcrowding the Government will deserve and will receive our support. But the greater the general measure of good will which the plans of local autho
  584
  rities and of the Government enjoy the quicker will they come to fruition, and any proof of real injustice to individuals who have done their utmost to fulfil their duties as landlords would bring discredit on the scheme and be a real source of delay. The House will, therefore, have to scrutinise carefully the provisions for compensation. I do not understand them, and I hope that the Minister will begin by explaining the basis of compensation laid down in Clause 54.
  Then it seems to me that the anxiety of the small shopkeeper is not altogether unfounded. He is a healthy, vigorous and valuable element in our social and economic organisation. His usefulness is proved by the success with which he is conducting his struggle against the multiple shop and the co-operative store. I cannot help believing that public opinion is on the side of the small trader in the struggle, and I would welcome some assurance that be would be given a good chance of getting new premises in the new areas to which families living under overcrowding conditions will be relegated.
  The hon. Member for Govan invited the House to reject the Bill on three grounds: First, that it provides for the transfer of responsibility for housing from local authorities to unrepresentative organisations. If that were indeed the case I should regard it as a serious criticism of the Bill, but as I read the Bill and as I understood the speech of the Secretary of State I cannot see that local authorities are compelled—they are permitted—to delegate certain powers and give certain specific jobs of work either to commissions of management or housing associations, and they can at any time withdraw those powers if they find that they are being abused or not used to the fullest advantage. Both responsibility and control, therefore, will remain with the local authorities, even if these other bodies are appointed. If for example a reactionary authority hands over control to a reactionary management commission, when a new and more progressive majority gets into the local council it can take control back again. Therefore the responsibility and control rests with the local authorities.
  Secondly, the hon. Member said that the Bill failed to provide local authorities with adequate financial assistance. We heard from the Secretary of State that

  585
  he had the consent of the local authorities of Scotland to the financial terms of the Bill. I imagine that he was referring to the amount of the subsidy when he said that the local authorities had agreed to it. Indeed the hon. Member himself referred to the terms as fairly generous. In those circumstances it seems difficult to justify his attitude.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: Generous in comparison with the terms given in the last Bill.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I do not think that that is altogether a bad description of the terms as we understand them. But the terms would never have been favoured by the Highlands of Scotland if it had not been for Clause 27, to which we attach importance. Lastly, the hon. Member objected to the provisions for compensation of owners of property. But he did not show any cause for objecting to those compensation provisions. I have put some question to the Government on that point. The Secretary of State has said that it is not true that compensation would be paid under the Bill for property which is a menace to public health. Against these criticisms we have to set the central feature of this Bill, and that is that for the first time the great social evil of overcrowding is to be made an offence, and that a determined effort is to be made to grapple with it. A big social evil like overcrowding cannot he tackled without upsetting a great many people and disturbing the habits of generations; but, subject to the reservation of our freedom of action on later stages of the Bill my own disposition, while awaiting the replies of the Government on the points raised, is to offer whole-hearted cooperation to the Government in improving the Bill and in achieving the great task of abolishing slums and overcrowding in Scotland.
  We are sometimes told when we support Government Measures that we are merely registering the decrees of the Government. In this case the introduction of the Bill is clearly the response of the Government to the Debate on Scottish housing in July last when Members of all parties condemned the then existing housing policy of the Government, and when we demanded vigorous measures to deal with overcrowding. But the Bill is not
  586
  enough. Even fashioning and moulding the Bill in Committee is not enough. Money is wanted; above all, administrative drive and leadership are required. Public opinion in Scotland will seek anxiously in the speeches of Ministers for evidence that these requirements will be forthcoming, and that the Government are resolved to abolish slums and overcrowding in Scotland.
  6.1 p.m.
  Sir ROBERT HORNE: The right hon. Baronet has sounded, I think, every note in the generous octave of his eloquence. I listened to him with pleasure, but I do not think it will be necessary for me to take up any time in dealing with what he has said. The larger part of his speech consisted of questions directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I have no doubt whatever about their adequacy to deal with the matters which have been put to them. For the rest the right hon. Baronet's consisted of a paean of self-satisfaction at the fact that in the year 1933 he was not as other men; that, indeed, he alone foresaw the future, that he alone declared what was going to happen, and that deaf ears were turned to him by the officials who were in charge of the Measure then introduced. I am not concerned to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was right or wrong, and even if I thought he was wrong I should hate to do anything to disturb the self-gratulation in which he indulged himself.
  I would rather reflect that we are to-day not in the year 1933 but in the year 1935, and in presence of a much greater theme. So far as I am concerned, I welcome a Bill which is intended to get rid of overcrowding in Scotland. There is nothing in which my own personal sentiments have been so much engaged of recent years as in the desire to see the slums cleared out of our land and overcrowding abolished. It is impossible to have a healthy and contented people living under the conditions which exist in Scotland to-day. The Government have already taken active measures to deal with slum clearance, and I would like to pay my personal tribute to the present Secretary of State for Scotland for the energy with which he has dealt with this matter and the success which so far he has achieved. We are now dealing with the other branch of the subject, and I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend

  587
  that it is not enough to deal with slum clearance, and that you only create more slums by the conditions which you leave behind if you do nothing to get rid of this great evil of overcrowding which we have in our housing conditions in Scotland at the present time.
  Now, of all moments, is the time at which we ought to tackle the problem because, as the Prime Minister said in the speech already quoted by the right hon. Baronet, money is cheap to-day. The Government to-day can undertake these great tasks with much less expense than would have been incurred at any period upon which we can look back, and certainly, I think, with much less expense than they are likely to be involved in if they long delay the Measure now brought forward. No one knows at what moment trade may revive and the increased demand for money cause money to become dearer. I am, therefore, of opinion that the Government have seized the appropriate moment for dealing with this topic, especially when we have regard to the fact that there is still a vast amount of unemployment, and that the building of houses provides more varied employment than any other kind of industry in which we can engage. In those circumstances, it seems to me that we are in a position to serve two great purposes, one, to relieve unemployment by giving people jobs of a kind to which they are accustomed, and the other to get rid of the sore which at present exists in the body and organism of this country and which, so long as it lasts, must fester and poison the whole of our private and public life.
  The main object of the Bill, accordingly, is to deal with overcrowding. The Secretary of State in his lucid explanation of the provisions of the Bill said that it was necessary to lay down some measure by which overcrowding could he controlled. I agree, but I do not fail to recognise the difficulty of the task. There must be a certain amount of elasticity in any conditions which are laid down in that respect. Only the other day I was told of a gentleman who, unfortunately is unemployed at the present time and living on unemployment benefit and who has a family of 15. I am not certain what amount of accommodation he will require under this scheme. At any rate, sporadic difficulties will arise. I imagine also that as the birthday approaches of a child
  588
  whose attainment of a specified age will immediately convert a house into an overcrowded house, the parents will feel a certain amount of resentment at the idea that they should have to find some different accommodation, which perhaps will not suit the wage-earner of the family nearly as well as the existing accommodation.
  Many difficulties of that kind will arise, and I think the Secretary of State will agree that a certain measure of elasticity will be required, especially in the beginning when we are considering the scales which are to be applied. Let me give two instances. Should not we in Scotland regard it as somewhat extreme to say that where a father and mother and, say, two boys of 12 and 14, or two girls of 13 and 15, are living in a two-roomed house, that house should be regarded as overcrowded 7 It seems to me that to lay down conditions of that kind such as are prescribed in the Bill, would strike at conditions which are to-day usual and normal, and perfectly reputable and decent. Again, when it is laid down that a father and mother may not have their child in their own room if that child is 12 months old, a standard is applied to people in every line of life which is far too high for practical working. When we come to consider the scales by which overcrowding is to be judged there will be many suggestions which will require to be met as to the particular gradations upon which it is to work.
  Let me come to a practical matter with regard to overcrowding to which I think the Secretary of State will have to give attention. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) very properly dealt with that part of the country with which he is mainly associated and referred to it with fine sentimental feeling. I wish to direct attention to some considerations affecting the great town of Glasgow with which I am very familiar. Let us see for a moment the effect of the application of these scales of overcrowding in Glasgow and the results to a considerable and very reputable portion of the population. I have had figures given to me which show that the application of the present scales would immediately convert into overcrowded houses between 60,000 and 70,000 houses in Glasgow. These, of course, if this

  589
  Measure were immediately applied, would then become unoccupied houses. It would no longer be permissible for the proprietors of those houses to let them to tenants.
  Owing to the particular conditions under which we live in Scotland, and the different legislation and regulations which apply to us, we, unlike our neighbours in the great country of England, are rated upon unoccupied premises. I do not know whether Members of the House are fully aware of that fact. The Members whom I see present now are mostly Scottish Members who are aware of it, but as regards the House of Commons generally I think it ought to be recognised that we in Scotland live under a rating system totally different from that which exists. in England. In England all rates upon houses are paid by the tenant. In Scotland half the rates are paid by the owner and the owner in Scotland is under this peculiar obligation, which does not exist in England, that even when the house is unoccupied he has to go on paying the rates. This has some extraordinary results which, I think, should have serious attention. Let me show what happens at the present time. If a factory in Scotland is shut down, the owner of the factory is still liable to pay rates upon it except upon one condition—and I ask the House to mark the monstrosity of this condition—namely, that he takes the roof off the factory and makes it useless for ever, unless of course he should choose afterwards to put the roof on again. For a practical people I think that is a most fantastic arrangement.
  Look at some of the direct results. If a company owns a factory in Scotland and another in England, and if business is not good enough to keep both going, what does that company do? It carries on in England where it will not be required to pay rates on its factory should it be compelled to shut down, and, on the other hand, it not only shuts the factory in Scotland but takes off the roof. I ask hon. Members whether this is not a direct way of doing injury and detriment to our trade, and whether it is not a disability from which we ought to be able to escape at the present time? Accordingly, I would venture to suggest to the Secretary of State that it would be advisable to take into account the condition of the houses which become
  590
  unoccupied through the effects of this entirely new standard which is being imposed—and properly imposed—upon housing. I would ask him to take into consideration the effects upon those people who are left with unoccupied houses and who will be penalised in rates, as the result of a lack of occupancy, created by public legislation.
  This arrangement is particularly burdensome for this reason. As I have said, the owner pays half the rates and in connection with the Rent Restrictions Act this extraordinary result has taken place. In the year 1920 it was recognised both in Scotland and in England that some addition to the rent would be fair even under the Rent Restrictions Act in respect of the increased cost of materials and labour to the property owner, and also in respect of the increased rates which he had to pay. It was allowed by legislation at that time that 40 per cent. should be added to the rent, but that no increase of rates after 1920 should be entitled to be taken by the owner and put upon the rent. The result was that while 40 per cent, increase in the rent came into the hands of the proprietors of houses in Scotland, through the increase of rates which has taken place the proprietors were only able to get about 15 per cent, of the assumed increase of 40 per cent.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: Was there not also during that period, when the right hon. Gentleman was President of the Board of Trade, an Act passed by this House which enabled the houseowner in Scotland to escape with another proportion of rating—a special Act piloted through this House by Robert Munro, as he then was?
  Sir R. HORNE: He was entitled to two items, of 40 per cent. and 74 per cent., but my figure still remains, that out of this increase that he was supposed to be able to get, all that he has been able to realise in the city of Glasgow on the average has been 15 per cent.; and over many of the communities in Lanarkshire the landlord has not been able to get anything at ell in respect of rents, because of the enormous increase in the, rates. Let us remember that, while rents since the War have been raised in Glasgow, or have been capable of being raised, by 47½ per cent., rates in Glasgow have risen by 253 per cent.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: To the tenant also.
  Sir R. HORNE: The tenant undoubtedly has been paying his share, but my hon. Friend is good enough to remind me of another complication about this matter that does not apply in England. The owner in Scotland is compelled to collect the tenant's rates, and it is very difficult for any such owner to induce the tenant to believe that the extra amount that he demands is going to the support of the community. In most cases he believes it is going to the support of the landlord.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: You do not know anything about the tenants, but you would if you went down to those quarters of the town.
  Sir R. HORNE: I know a considerable amount about them, but this is not the way to argue that question. Let me put in figures what happens. If you take an ordinary, well-known tenement in Glasgow, composed of four types, with on each floor two two-roomed houses and one single-roomed house, a very ordinary block of tenements in Glasgow, built probably at an expense of £1,500, generally financed as to £1,000 by bonds and as to £500 by the builder, that is a very ordinary instance of what has happened in Glasgow over a long period of years. What is the difference between the period before the War and the period since? Whereas the revenue upon the £500 which the builder himself embarked was previously £29 11s, 8d., as a result of the high rates in Glasgow and the increased cost of materials, and in spite of the increased rent which he has been entitled to charge under the legislation of 1920. that amount has come down from £29 11s. 8d. to £14 10s. 6d. The House will at once realise that if a single one of the houses in such a tenement becomes unlet, the whole of the revenue upon the property disappears. I wish the Secretary of State to have that in mind when he considers the effect of his overcrowding legislation, legislation of which I entirely approve, but—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: How do you get your figures?
  Sir R. HORNE: I think they are unchallenged.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I challenge them.
  Sir R. HORNE: At any rate, let them be challenged by someone who knows better.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman flings figures at us, and I think we are entitled to get his authority for those figures. Is it the local authority or is it the property owners?
  Sir R. HORNE: They are figures that have been published time after time, and, so far as I know, they have never been challenged. Of course, they do not apply to every property, but they do apply to a, very great number of properties throughout Glasgow, and I was taking a typical instance.
  Mr. McGOVERN: Given to you by the property owners.
  Sir R. HORNE: I am quite prepared to give credence to what my hon. Friends opposite say when they argue their case, but I beg of them to give at least some credence to what I am saying. The facts given by people who are doing this business are more likely to be accurate than—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this matter of the owner paying rates on unoccupied houses, is he aware that that only came into operation some 30 years ago, that at that time the rates were not put on unlet houses, with the result that they held those houses up to ransom in order to increase the rents of the houses that were occupied? It was because of that that there was an outcry in Glasgow, and I was among those who were in that outcry 30 years ago.
  Sir R. HORNE: Whatever the hon. Gentleman has to say, he says with great vigour and point, but I am directing the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that the new overcrowding regulations will in the first place strike at the one-roomed houses, and the kind of tenements I have described will be shut up to an extent that will make it impossible far the owner to get any return upon his money at all. But to put upon the owner, in addition, a burden which does not apply at all in the southern end of the island, the obligation to pay rates upon a commodity from which he gets no return at all, and cannot get a return by reason of the legislation which is now being passed, is surely an injustice which

  593
  cannot be defended. I would therefore beg my right hon. Friend to take into account, in dealing with this matter, the making of some arrangement by which these unoccupied properties may be relieved of rates. I realise very well the extra burden which may be put upon other properties, but, as was pointed out in a very interesting letter to the "Times" newspaper a few days ago, in the depressed areas such as we are now dealing with, where rates are very high, it will be quite impossible for the local authorities to take enough rates out of the others to compensate for the properties that will become unoccupied.
  I beg the Government to deal with this housing question in a large spirit and without any niggling attitude. If they are really going to tackle slum clearance and overcrowding in Scotland, they must leave no sense of injustice behind them. They will build very badly if they build on injustice, whether they build houses or anything else. Therefore, I suggest that they should take into account, in the case of such unoccupied properties, the subventions which may be necessary to provide, and also that very poignant case mentioned by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland the case of the small shopkeeper who may be entirely dispossessed of the position he occupies in a particular property, or, on the other hand, who may entirely lose his custom through the action which the local authority may take.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: What about a man losing his job by a new machine? Is there no compensation for him?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about rationalisation?
  Sir R. HORNE: I am dealing with troubles which are caused by the legislation which we are proposing to pass in this House now, and accordingly it is the consequences of our actions that I am looking to. I am not considering troubles attaching adventitiously, which no person can control, but at least we are in a position to prevent injustices which might otherwise occur. Now may I refer to another question of principle which seems to me to be dominant in the whole of this matter? There was set up sometime ago a committee under the chairmanship of the Lord Provost of Edin
  594
  burgh, commonly known as the Whitson Committee. That committee reports on' the whole matter of housing in Scotland and reveals the troubles to which the Secretary of State referred so eloquently to-day. It sets forth scales by which the standard of comfort in housing in Scotland may be improved. What you find in Clause 64 of this Bill is, I think, in almost every particular taken from the Whitson. Committee's report. The Whitson Committee recommends baths, water closets, and so on, in every house, which it is now suggested may be made compulsory by a by-law. I gather from what the Secretary of State said, though I shall be grateful for the removal of any misapprehension, that this will apply only to new houses and not to the old houses.
  Mr. SKELTON: It will apply to old houses "where reasonably practicable."
  Sir R. HORNE: We can, of course, discuss the phraseology of the Bill in Committee, but I think that in the 1925 Act you will find that all the considerations, including the cost of bringing about the changes, are taken into account. In the meantime let me remind the House that these suggestions emanate from the Whitson Committee, but the Whitson Committee, in presenting them in their report, lay down that existing owners ought to receive a subsidy from the Government in order to enable them to recondition their property.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Hear, hear.
  Sir R. HORNE: They provide that 50 per cent. of the expense shall be borne by the Government and 50 per cent. by the owner. The 50 per cent. amounts to 66 per cent. in the case of the rural worker's house, where changes like reconditioning are made by the owner, and two-thirds of the cost is available by subsidy from the Government. But in the present Bill no such proposal is made. I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was so ready to jeer at the suggestion that it should be made, because I gather that the town council of Glasgow, which has not got a majority of people who usually support the views that I hold, passed a resolution the other day in favour of a reconditioning subsidy being payable to the proprietors of houses in Glasgow.
  I put it to the House that the proposal of the Whitson Committee should be

  595
  adopted. I hope that the House will remember the reasons why that committee made this suggestion. The property owner certainly has not the' resources to recondition his property to this extent, and after what I have said hon. Members will realise how impossible it would be for him to find the resources to do so himself. The Whitson Committee suggested that it was important that we should not get rid of the tenements altogether, because people wanted to live near their work. They also said that reconditioning could be much more quickly done than abolishing houses and entirely rebuilding, and that it would be more economical for the State to proceed on those lines than by building new houses; it would cost less to recondition property which was substantial and in good condition than to build new property, and it would be much quicker.
  One of the troubles of the overcrowding regulations is going to be the speed in which you can bring them into force. How quickly in Glasgow are you going to be able to supply the deficiency of 50,000 or 60,000 houses? How long will it take to get in a position in which you can eliminate overcrowding? The quickest way in which to deal with this matter is to leave the present property owner to recondition his own houses; it will also be far cheaper than subsidising entirely new houses. Why should not the owner get the subsidy? I should be very interested to hear what any of my friends on the Socialist benches have to say in reply to this matter. Let us look at it fairly. New houses have been built in recent times, with the added arrangements which were suggested by the Whitson Committee and are proposed in this Bill, but how has it been done? Have the municipalities done it themselves? The municipalities, with all their rates behind them, have only been able to put in these conveniences by a grant from Parliament, and why should it be said that people who, up to now, have provided the housing of the country and, who up to the time of the War, provided even a surplus of houses, should not receive subsidies? Why should it be said that we should come to the aid of the municipalities with a subsidy, but refuse such a subsidy to people who are eager and willing to recondition their
  596
  properties at a much less cost to the State?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: The municipalities are not making anything out of it, and the private owners are.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member wishes to speak later.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am only replying to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot speak now and later as well.
  Sir R. HORNE: I do not fear interruptions, but I wish to get on with my speech. I wish to direct attention to some other points under this head which occur in the Bill. If I am not wrong in my interpretation of the Bill as it stands, the provisions make it possible for a local authority compulsorily to acquire houses in their district, and to proceed thereafter to recondition them and to obtain from the Government the provided subsidy. I should like to be corrected if I am wrong.
  Mr. SKELTON: There is no subsidy in the Bill for reconditioning.
  Sir R. HORNE: From my reading of certain clauses I should imagine that the local authority is entitled, certainly under Clause 19, to acquire compulsorily, and thereafter they are entitled to get under the clauses dealing with contributions from the Treasury what is necessary in the form of subsidy at the rate of £6 15s. per house. If I am wrong about that, I am very glad, but I think that a close scrutiny of the words of the clauses would certainly lead one to believe that such reconditioning subsidies were available to the local authorities. Under the provisions with regard to the redevelopment of areas, it seems to me to be unquestionable that in redeveloping an area where only 50 per cent. of the houses need be unfit, the local authorities would be perfectly entitled to keep the fit houses in being and to recondition them so as to make them suitable under the standard laid down, and, at the same time, to claim a subsidy of £6 15s. per house for the reconditioning which they have done. If I am wrong in that, I will depart from the point.
  What I wish to bring prominently before the House and the Government is the fact that, unless a reconditioning

  597
  grant is made, the scheme of overcrowding will be for a long time abortive. If you have an enormous number of empty houses, you will make it impossible for any of the present property owners, with the meagre revenues they are getting from their properties, to continue, and you will be left in a state of things in which it will be very difficult to carry through the scheme. Look at what the Government propose to do in contrast to what the Whitson. Committee laid down. They propose that the property owner shall, at his own expense, recondition his property to the extent of putting in those desirable new equipments, and that thereafter he will be able to put his scheme before the local authority for their approval, and if they approve it they will give him a certificate which will hold him immune for five years.
  Who was the genius who designed this particular project? And who could envisage anybody who would do anything of the kind? I cannot imagine a person with an authenticated gold mine, if he had only five years run of it, would put down all the plant to run it. With rent restrictions and rates which burden the property owner in Glasgow, what possible inducement could there be for him to go to the expense of making new additions to his property, which would not only cost him money but would lead to his losing money on the rents which he is enjoying and entirely eradicate the whole of the revenue which he is at present getting? Such a provision must have been written pour rice. Nobody in his senses would ever do anything of the kind suggested in that Clause. I notice that one of the medical officers of health, talking about this matter, said a proprietor would have to be given at least 20 years before he could properly be induced to make such a change, but even then the temptation to do it would be very small. Unless you give this subsidy for reconditioning to property owners, you inevitably land your scheme in hopeless confusion and a great many people in hopeless disaster.
  I should like the House to think for a. moment who these property owners are. There is an imaginary idea that they are people of bloated wealth battening on the lives of the people. Who are the property owners, in fact, in Glasgow? I know some of them, and I have met a great many of them in recent days. A vast number of them are people who are
  598
  trustees of properties, who are beneficiaries and have no resources to spend on reconditioning the property to the extent that would be required. I would remind the House that in Scotland the customary form of investment which a man has left to his widow and children has been an investment in house property, either tenements themselves, or bonds and dispositions in security for such property. These investments are held by vast numbers of women, widows—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Hear, hear!
  Sir R. HORNE: I have seen many of them, and I shall not be deterred by the jeering of the hon. Gentleman opposite from putting their position before the House. Hon. Members opposite are accustomed to be listened to with complete respect when they talk of the distresses of the people with whom they come in contact in their constituencies, and I venture to claim my right to talk on the distresses of the people in my constituency. There are many of these people who are living on pittances derived from investments in property of their fathers—all that remains of investments in property which has decreased in value through a variety of acts of legislation. These people are compelled to bear the whole load of the burden which has fallen upon the community in respect of rent. The State has had to bear the burden with regard to the mass of the population in the case of increases in the price of food and lack of employment, but this limited class of people have had to take upon their shoulders the whole burden connected with the supply of housing accommodation. On the average, the return on their-property has been no better than on a Government investment, but there has been none of the security which a Government investment gives. I will read: a letter which I have had since I arrived in the House. Some of the circumstances mentioned in the letter are unusual, but the distress which is mentioned is clamant throughout my constituency. The woman who writes to me says:
  "I am wholly dependent on the income from two tenements since my husband was drowned five years ago while off duty. I receive no compensation, and I do not receive a widow's pension. I have struggled to educate my two children, so if conditions are made any worse than at present, some drastic steps will have to be taken to provide for people who are in such a position as I am."

  599
  These are people for whom there is no unemployment benefit. Their distresses seldom come before the public. These people are largely inarticulate, because they are still proud. I submit to the House that we cannot do injustice in such circumstances. Parliament is responsible for encouraging investment in house property. It made heritable bonds a trustee security, and innumerable people have been induced to put their money, into them on the strength of the recommendation of Parliament. The Bill in its present form would completely destroy not only the ordinary values of property but also the value of heritable bonds. During recent times working-class tenement property in Glasgow has become unsaleable, one can get nothing for it; and so far as heritable bonds are concerned, many which were put up recently in the ordinary centre where they are sold have found no bidders, and, prior to that, the bonds were selling at only very low prices. Further, a vast amount of the savings of the people is in these heritable bonds, and in the feu duties connected with these properties. I do not know whether anything is to be realised on the feu duties, but I would quote a sentence from a report by the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow, a leading body of lawyers.
  "For the past 20 years holders of bonds secured over dwelling-house property have suffered severely through the Rent Restriction Acts which have prevented the calling up of bonds and imposed limits on the rates of interest which could be charged—limits which were, for many years, less than the current yield of Government stocks, although the investments had not the same degree of security. Bondholders have been forced without recourse to watch their security subjects diminish in value while in many cases the granters of the personal obligations have died, and in some cases the estates of personal obligants have actually been paid away to their heirs. The effect of the Bill in a very large proportion of cases will be to take away what remaining value such security subjects have, as site values will rarely be sufficient at the best to do more than compensate holders of feu duties or ground annuals which rank prior to the bonds. The effect of the Bill on holders of fue duties and ground annuals will also be extremely serious."
  I would recall the fact that a great corporation like the University of Glasgow has £350,000 invested, as I understand, in property, feu duties, ground duties, etc., and other corporations have got very much larger sums invested in the same
  600
  way, providing the revenue to pay pensions to people who are in distress. This kind of investment is widespread. I believe that by some of the provisions of this Bill we might easily create a state of affairs which would prove disastrous to the whole investing community, a whole body of people in Glasgow who are interested in the stability of ordinary investments. I hope the House will forgive me for dealing at such length with that particular topic, but I regard it so gravely and with so much anxiety that I cannot believe it is possible to lay too much stress on the effects of some of the Clauses of the Bill.
  I will not deal with other points at any great length. I will only say that questions will arise as to whether the compensation which is being offered is anything like adequate to the purpose. I have pointed out that we have already made these properties almost worthless when tested by market value, and if this is all the tenants are to get, it is almost negligible. There are other Clauses dealing with the rights of local authorities. I recognise that the explanation of the Secretary of State has, to some extent, limited the points to which I might have adverted but, still, it is possible for a local authority to proclaim an area for redevelopment and, although there has to be an inquiry, to go ahead, with it without there being any appeal to the sheriff or anybody else. In Committee we shall have to look very closely at some of these Clauses. While I support the Bill wholeheartedly, and, indeed, with more enthusiasm than I have been able to give to any other legislation except that dealing with unemployment insurance, I would urge on the Secretary of State that many large questions remain to be dealt with when we come to the Clauses, and that I hope he will keep his mind open to deal with them in a way which will be favourable to the views I have presented.
  6.52 p.m.
  Sir I. MACPHERSON: I shall detain the House for only a moment or two, because I know there are a great many of my colleagues representing Scotland who would like to say a, few words about this all important Bill. I always listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) when he is opposing a Bill relating to Scotland. He

  601
  is usually prolific in his grounds of opposition, but to-day he appeared to have the greatest difficulty in finding genuine opposition to this Bill. I would like to congratulate the Secretary of State on introducing the Bill. It is a tremendous step in advance; it shows great courage and great foresight. At the same time I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) that when we are dealing with a subject of this magnitude we ought to do so in a generous and a just and fair spirit. The Opposition Amendment puts forward three main objections. First, there is the objection that duties are being transferred to unrepresentative bodies. That point has been dealt with. It is not compulsory upon any public body to transfer its housing duties to any unrepresentative body, the Bill is quite permissive, and housing authorities may continue with the extremely good work they are now doing, as to which no criticism can be levelled against them. The second objection concerns compensation. I quite agree with the principle that the public right is the main consideration, but it is monstrous to suggest that where an innocent person owns property, whatever the size of that property, which has not been a menace to the public health or welfare, no compensation should be paid when that property is compulsorily taken away. Where property is taken compulsorily in the interests of the public the owner of that property should, unless there is some very strong ground to the contrary, be entitled to fair and reasonable compensation.
  My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) rather congratulated himself on finding his successor in office, the present Secretary of State, having to reverse his policy of the Act of 1933. I do not mind how often he reverses his policy if the result of the reversal is such a fine Bill as this. If the Secretary of State found that the Act of 1933 was not workable, he was entitled to introduce a Bill of this kind, and the House will be glad that he has done so. I shall not deal with the housing problem in large cities, because there are many exponents of housing policy connected with urban districts in this House, but I would like to refer to Clause 27, which deals with the differential subsidy. The general State
  602
  subsidy is very fair and adequate, and I am glad that there is a differentiation to deal not only with important industrial centres but remote parts of the country such as are found in the Highlands and Islands. Owing to the low rateable value, the difficulty of transport and the difficulty of getting materials and labour, questions arise there which are quite different from those in the ordinary self-supporting areas of the South. In the Highlands the problem is not so much overcrowding—which for the first time is to become a penal offence under the law of this country—but the habitability of the dwellings there. I should prefer to see an extension of the Rural Housing Act, 1923. That Act gives the power to create new houses, unlike the Act of 1926 which deals entirely with the reconditioning of rural houses. In the Island of Lewis, under the Act of 1923, no fewer than 300 houses were built, to the great advantage of that remote community.
  Then there is the question of housing the farmworker. The housing of the agricultural labourer in England and the farm servant in Scotland has always received sympathetic interest in this House, and I am glad to hear that no fewer than 17,000 houses have been provided within the last two or three years, and that the previous Acts and the present Bill will allow that process to go on until the Autumn of 1938. The other rural housing question in Scotland concerns smallholding properties. The right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland drew attention to the fact that the Department of Agriculture in Scotland did a lot of good work for rural housing, and I agree with his observation that it is well worth considering whether there should not be an extension of the powers held by the Department of Agriculture. They know the housing conditions better than any other body, and I feel that if they took a sort of housing commission responsibility upon themselves for dealing with the whole rural population in the North they would be able to cope with any difficulties that could arise. I shall not say more, except that I welcome this Bill whole-heartedly, because I feel sure that not only will it be of great benefit in the cities but of great benefit also in the rural parts. It is a Bill of scope and magnitude. I think the financial provisions are the fairest I have seen included in any Bill

  603
  presented to this House. I, therefore, congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland, and while reserving to myself the right to move an Amendment or two in Committee upstairs, I say now, without hesitation, that I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I listened to the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and in the main I thought it both lucid and reasonable. As one followed the right hon. Gentleman from point to point he did carry Members with him in a complete understanding of the policy that is being pursued by the Government in this Bill, and I think that the House has little complaint to make in connection with his explanation of the details of the Bill. I regret, however, that the right hon. Gentleman did not deal more completely with the question of reconditioning, to which he made only a very brief allusion, and with the question of compensation. In connection with these two matters there was not that lucid explanation of the proposals in the Bill which one would naturally expect. In the Standing Committee we shall have an opportunity of hammering, out the details of the Bill, but I do say that we ought to know more now of the intentions of the Government with regard to compensation and the reconditioning of houses. I have listened also with attention to the right. hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). I think I do him no injustice in saying that while his division in Glasgow is overwhelmingly middle-class, and that a. large section of his constituents are bond-holding and property-owning people, there are also a. great many people in that area who belong to the artisan and poverty-striken mass of workers. In my experience of four years and nine months here I have never heard the right hon. Gentleman come to this House and put forward any plea on behalf of that section of the people, whom he is bound to represent as a public representative in this House. His speech to-night was a plea, for redress and consideration for the' owners of all the bug-ridden, rat-infested property in the City of Glasgow. He spoke for slum-property owners. I am not devoid of. sentiment—I think that the individual who is without sentiment loses much in life—and if I had taken
  604
  the right hon. Gentleman's speech seriously, I think he would have moved me to tears about the sufferings of these people who own property in the City of Glasgow. I think that if his speech were published throughout Scotland at the next general election it would do more to damn the National Government than anything I have heard in this House.
  Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: Absolute nonsense.
  Mr. McGOVERN: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) associates with those who talk nonsense, and I have no doubt he knows as much about it as anybody in the House. He is entitled to his opinion. At the same time, I am entitled to my opinion, and I will maintain it in this House without fear or favour. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is interested in slum property-owners and bond-holders and not in the great mass of the population of Glasgow and Scotland who are being dealt with under this Bill. He gave us an exposition of the different assessments for rating in Scotland com. pared with England. Any person familiar with the rating system in Scotland may think that it has its faults. But when the right hon. Gentleman comes to tell us that owners of property should be freed from rating because their property is empty, I would ask him if that is also to apply to every unemployed man, and if he is to get free from his rates in Glasgow? Just as a factory or a house is not earning when it is empty, so the unemployed man is not earning, and he should be equally entitled to de-rating.
  I would say this in connection with the right hon. Gentleman's statement concerning bonds. I have had a little experience regarding property and property-owners and the fixing of bonds in Glasgow. For 27 years before I came here I was in the building 'line—from the age of 13. For 19 years I was a working master-plumber, and I was continually in association with the property owners and the house factors of Glasgow. When we are dealing with the question of compensation in this Bill we have to ask ourselves: What is the system of fixing bonds that has gone on in a large number of areas in Glasgow Properties were run up by speculative builders, and were built perhaps at a cost of £1,100. They had a false valuation placed upon them, sometimes by a man in the company. There

  605
  may have been a lawyer or a chartered accountant in the company dealing not only with the valuation of the property but with the fixing of the bond. A false valuation of, say, £1,500 would be placed on the property and a £1,000 bond drawn on that property. Always, the whole of the cost of the initial building of the property was placed in bond. Not only does the owner put a £1,000 bond on the property, but he expects to pay interest on the bond, to pay feu duty, to pay ground annual and at the same time to draw a further income from the property. He is the owner of, the property in name, although he has put no money into the property at all.
  Let us examine the other point of the speech. When the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson) speak of fair compensation for property owners, what do they mean by that? I know properties in Glasgow that have been up for 100 to 120 years; properties that are bug-ridden and rat-infested and diseased from stem to stern. Are hon. Members in this House seriously suggesting that when this diseased property is pulled down, because it is endangering health, the property owner should be compensated in any shape or form? I feel great difficulty in restraining my speech when I am dealing with people of that kind. For years the owners have drawn money from the tenants of these properties and have, in many cases, refused to do any sort of repairs to the property. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of 471 per cent. I could take him to properties in the East End of Glasgow, in the Calton area, where owners have starved their properties of paint although they were given that increase in order to carry out repairs to their property, You get them with no demarcation, with wash-houses broken down, and so on. These are whole tenements with not a single pane of glass in three or four stair-heads, and where the windows often have not been washed for years in many cases. In these houses no painting or repairs of any sort have been done. In a large number of cases it has been necessary to bring in the sanitary authority and get a certificate for the house to force the owners to do the ordinary repairs required by common decency. These are the things we have to point out in this House when
  606
  "reasonable compensation" is talked of. It means compensating people of that kind in Glasgow. When the right hon. Gentleman talks of property owners, let him have a thought sometimes for the poor people who are compelled to live in these disease-ridden houses and give consideration to their feelings, their health and their life in connection with the exploitation that has gone on in these areas.
  The Secretary of State, when dealing with housing generally, pointed out that we had built, I think, 183,000 houses since the. war. There was a Commission in Glasgow which told us that we equired in Glasgow alone 136,000 houses We required in 1917, 46,709 houses and 5,000 houses annually for a period of 18 years, which means that 136,709 houses would have been required up to this. year in Glasgow alone. Let us also remember this point, to which I have often referred. The right hon. Gentleman may say that in Glasgow there are many thousands of houses which are unfit for human habitation, but official figures do not record anything like the total number of houses unfit for human habitation. I am doing no injustice to the sanitary inspector when I say this. When I say to an inspector: "Why do you not put a closing order on that house?" he will say: "We cannot close it because we are bound to rehouse the people, and we have no alternative accommodation for them." Therefore, you have the housing committee and the health department working continually one with the other and deciding that they will not condemn houses because new houses are not ready in which to rehouse the people.
  That is one contradiction that I always see. I do not say that I have any practical suggestion for getting over that difficulty. But I do say that for a local medical officer to have power to work with his corporation and to have influence brought to bear on him not to condemn houses as unfit, because the authority is not able to re-house the people affected, is a serious matter. I say without fear of contradiction that the great mass of the tenement property in Glasgow to-day is totally unsuited for human habitation and is a danger to public !health. Instead of talking in terms of 10,000 or 12,000 houses being unfit for human habitation in Glasgow,

  607
  if we went round the city making a thorough and businesslike examination of these properties, we should have to add tens of thousands of houses to the total estimated by the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman says that a great deal of money is being paid by the State to Scotland—£1,800,000 a year. I was amazed when the Secretary of State claimed great credit for that. Why, it is not a fourth of the cost of a modern battleship. We spend £10,000,000 on a battleship, ultimately to destroy human life, and yet we pat ourselves on the back when we spend £1,800,000 to preserve the health and well-being of innocent people in Scotland.
  I do not want to be obstructive on this or any other housing Bill because I recognise how serious this matter is to the mass of the people in Scotland, and, while I am fighting for a greater measure of progress, I am prepared, if the Government can make a step forward, to accept that, if that is the most that they are prepared to do. I remember the words of Carlyle:
  "In thrifty Scotland, in Glasgow or Edinburgh, in other dark lanes hidden from all but the eye of God, there are scenes of woe, destitution and desolation such as one may hope the sun never saw before in the most barbarous regions where men dwelt."
  That is a true description of life in areas like Glasgow. I will not attempt to be obstructive. I hope that in the Committee stage of the Bill we shall get that spirit of accommodation which the Under-Secretary of State has shown from time to time. I invite the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead to come to the Committee and give us assistance in redressing some of these wrongs. On previous Bills he has never paid attention or come near the Committees to give us the benefit of his advice.
  We have heard a great flourish of trumpets in conection with the deeds to be accomplished under the Bill, but I have lived long enough on this planet to know that Bills are introduced from time to time with great gusto and cheers, and that that is the end of that part of history. There was the Bill of 1933. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) in the Committee upstairs, and I must pay my compliment to him,
  608
  because, whether he is critical or not, there is no Member of this House who pays greater attention on committees to the affairs of Scotland than he. We were told of the great benefit that was to result from the Act of 1933; I do not think I am doing the right hon. Gentleman any injustice in connection with that Measure. Then there were the unemployment regulations. They were to be another great chapter in human history. Many such things have been hailed as great chapters; therefore, I am very sceptical that the Government intend to deal seriously with the question of the slum landlord and with the owners of property that is to be reconditioned. I shall wait, and I will admit my error if I am wrong. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead can go home to-night and sleep safely in his bed, in the knowledge that the Members of the Government have a property sense and will defend propertied interests. In spite of what I am saying, I hope that the Bill is going to accomplish what we are told it will accomplish, and that we shall have a great measure of progress in housing.
  We have put down an Amendment to the Bill in connection with low-grade houses. We say that there has been a tendency to provide the jerry type of house in Glasgow. I have had experience of them as a tenant and they are smaller in their accommodation. Their fittings are of the most shoddy character. The grinding and cutting down of the cost of house building has given us the most shoddy article on the market, and we feel that housing officials and the Government take the view that anything is good enough for that section of the common people who are on the bottom rung of the human ladder. The provisions of the Bill lead us to believe that the Government and the ruling classes are looking to a long period of poverty and unemployment for the great mass of the people who are at that end. The Government ought to have made proper provision for the incomes of those people before putting them into houses where it is questionable that they will be able to survive the economic results of the policy of the Government. It is no use laying down hard and fast rules. I welcome two to a room as a step in the direction of rehousing the people on humane and civilised lines, but if the rents are such that the great mass of the people cannot pay them that is

  609
  going to be disastrous to the health of the women and children rather than a steady advance. An additional room means, in lighting, fires, linoleum and beds, extra expense which these people cannot provide, and unless the Government are prepared to provide an income they have no right to talk about a civilised advance in connection with the health of the people.
  Allusion is made in every speech about housing to the housing commissions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty says that that provision is optional. I agree that it is. For the last two years I have been hammering away at this matter, pointing out, in connection with the Government scheme, that if we apply reason and human intelligence we can see the drift to boards in every direction. Just as unemployment has been taken out of politics, so I can see the desire to take housing out of politics and away from the control of the local areas.
  Mr. TRAIN: Hear, hear.
  Mr. McGOVERN: The house builder says "Hear, hear." I see all that taking place. Hon. Members say that it is optional, and they think that the case is met. Take the history of the means test as applied to housing. The Minister, or whoever occupied his position previously, called together a consultative committee, and they were dissatisfied with the people who were living in subsidised houses. It has often been cited in election leaflets that the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) live in subsidised houses, and have about £400 as their incomes. Nothing has been said about our having to live both in London and in Glasgow and to maintain two homes, and that the resulting income is very much less than that of the people who are criticising. The consultátive committee was got together and—"Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly"—invited the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) and his good lady, who is a member of the Glasgow Corporation, to discuss the question of the people who were in the houses, and they recommended a means test for housing. It was not finished there and neither are the Government finished with it now. The
  610
  Bill brings it a step nearer. The committee said, "We must have a form of means test," and they induced many areas to compel tenants to supply information about their incomes. Other corporations refused to do that.
  The Government and the Scottish Office have been dissatisfied with that position, and they have gone a stage further. When certain areas had to dive down in the world because of unemployment and economic conditions and said, "We want a reduction in rents." the Scottish Office said, "We are prepared to consider a reduction in rents on condition that you get each applicant for a reduction to supply us with a note of the income of the home." That shows that there is a gradual step forward, and the Bill, which confines the subsidy entirely to people with certain incomes, indicates that a means test is being put in complete in another form. For that reason I am sceptical about the idea of boards. The plan is to get certain areas to set up boards and, after a large number of areas in Scotland have instituted boards, to say, "It is hardly fair that a large number of areas should have them and that a minority should have none, and therefore we are going to recommend that the minority should have compulsion applied to them in the interests of the majority," like the suggestion that we have heard during the India Debates.
  Then we shall get the nominated boards free from party politics and from local pressure and local opinion, and it will be possible to fix one standard of rent for the whole country. There will no longer be low rents in a progressive area and high rents in a reactionary area; there will be nothing but high rents, just as there will be nothing but low relief under the Unemployment Assistance Board. Step by step the Government are gradually building up boards outside the influence of the people. The Bill is one more attempt, and our efforts will be strongly directed to the elimination of the relevant Clause from the Bill, because we regard it as a danger to democracy and to municipal undertakings. I content myself to-night with that; I could say a great deal more, but I reserve what I have further to say until the Committee stage, which I shall certainly attend, in an attempt to make the Bill a better Bill.

  611
  A point which I forgot to mention is that we believe that housing should be supplied to the people on a basis of interest free money. When you build a battleship for £10,000,000, you do it not by a loan but by taxation. Housing ought to be based upon taxation. An amount, say £100,000,000 or £120,000,000 a year, should be devoted to rehousing the entire people of this island, the houses should be let to the people, and repayments should only be sufficient to cover the building of future houses and should be spread over a number of years. It should cover whatever duties are payable and the cost of the ground and the annual cost of repairs. Housing is essential to the people, who should not be compelled to go through a period of continual terror of being evicted, from their houses by reason of inability to pay. The question of housing is an economic one. Very few hon. Members of this House have a housing problem because they have the incomes to pay for or to build their houses. This question only affects those who have insufficient economic power and resources to enable them to pay for their houses. We ought, therefore, to raise the money by taxation, and it should be loaned interest free to the local authorities so as to relieve the localities from the pile of debts and burdens which are at present imposed upon them. Housing is a, State duty and not a local duty. When the Bill goes further in the Committee stage we will use every power which we possess to improve it, to lick it into shape and to make it a Bill worthy of the people of our native land.
  7.29 p.m.
  Mrs. SHAW: I congratulate the Minister on his clear explanation of the Bill this afternoon, and I offer him my thanks for his reassurance on Clause 64. His speech will go a long way to allay the just fears and apprehensions which have possessed the mind of many people in Scotland since the Bill was introduced. The fundamental principle of the Bill is an attack upon overcrowding; with that, no one could disagree. All of us are aware and ashamed of the miserable conditions under which many of our people are living and have lived for far too long, and all of us deplore the repercussions of those conditions on
  612
  the social life, wellbeing, health and morals of our people. But there are many points in this Bill on which I do not altogether agree. I shall vote for the Second Reading, because I venture to suggest that it is a good Bill as it has set out to attain its object, but at the same time I feel that there are a few points on which I do not agree. I am aware that some of my objections may be committee points, but I should like to call the attention of the House to one or two of them. The right hon. Gentleman said that he knew there was apprehension in the minds of the people, and I think he also said that there had been representations from different associations. All Members of the House have received those representations. It is no secret to say that the property owners and the factors have written and sent memorandums to all Members of the House, but I have had more representations than that. My mail-bag has been increased very considerably by the representations I have had from working men and women who want to know their position in this matter.
  In spite of those representations, however, I do not see this question through coloured spectacles. I approach the subject with an open and free mind, because I am not a property owner further than owning my own home, I have no financial interest in property, nor am I a bondholder. I have no interest in institutions, hospitals, universities or charitable institutions, nor, I might even go so far as to say, co-operative societies or friendly societies. I have no interest in any of these organisations, but I understand that many of them have very substantial financial interests in property. I have, however, a long experience of work on a local authority, and have given a very great deal of attention and consideration to the matter of housing. I hope that on this great question I may be able, with that experience, to bring to bear a certain amount of common sense tempered with what I may call fair play to all sections of the community.
  The right hon. Gentleman gave us a very grim picture of the bad housing conditions in Scotland, and I should be the very last one to minimise it. But I think it is well to say, and I think the

  613
  right hon. Gentleman did say, that we must remember also that we have built a great many new houses in Scotland. There are new housing schemes in and around Glasgow which have sprung up in recent years, and which have quite transformed the life of the city and its surroundings. I believe that under one housing scheme alone there are as many people living in new houses as the total population of Inverness. But even with all that the difficulty is not solved. It seems to me that the difficulty of the housing question has never been fully appreciated. We have had Act after Act, until one's head buzzes with trying to look up the references that are given in this Bill; but even now the question is not solved, and it never will be solved until we can supply houses at rents within the capacity of the working man to pay. No matter how many houses may be built, no matter how much we may decrowd, a solution will never be reached until we have houses at rents within the working man's capacity to pay. The Bill gives no indication of what the rents are to be. I was a little disappointed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say to-day that he would not indicate a rent figure. I would venture to suggest to him that it would be a very great help to local authorities in framing their schemes for improvement and for dealing with overcrowding if a maximum rent figure could be stated.
  I come now to the standard of accommodation. The Bill sets up a new standard, which will mean the provision of a very large number of new houses; but, if that standard is to be strictly insisted upon for existing buildings, we shall not only be faced with a large number of new houses, but we shall have what is perhaps worse, a greater number of empty houses, with disastrous results not only to the owners but to the bondholders and the small shopkeepers. Having regard to the structure of houses in Scotland—the size of rooms, air space, ventilation, windows, the height of ceilings—I would suggest that this new standard is too great a jump in the other, direction. If my memory serves me rightly, in 1931 the standard of accommodation was three per room, and that standard was also approved in the report of the Whitson Committee. I am at a loss to know why within four years that standard should have been altered to two per room, or even one. Surely, if the
  614
  measures to be taken in Scotland are to be practical, the steps to abate overcrowding must be more gradual. In this connection I want to put the woman's point of view. I can never be accused of advocating the rights of women, either in this House or outside, but as regards this standard of accommodation I am constrained to put forward the point of view of the working-man's wife. Think of her position. She may find herself having to move into a house of probably five rooms and a kitchen. With a large young family, she has had difficulty in finding the rent of the house she vacated, and now she has the mental anxiety of finding a higher rent for new house. In addition to that, she has the physical strain of trying to keep a larger house clean, as well as attending to her family. It is not physically possible; it cannot be done. Either the family or the house must suffer, and, from a health point of view, I would suggest that a small house kept scrupulously clean is to be desired rather than the conditions which may arise if there are no facilities for cleaning a larger house.
  This standard of fitness also lays down that a child under one year does not count. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) mentioned this matter, but, being a woman, perhaps I can make it a little plainer than he did. When that child reaches the age of 12 months, it is no longer to sleep in the same room as its parents. I wonder who framed this Bill. At any rate, whoever framed it or had anything to do with it knew not the first thing about bringing up a family. If there is one question above another on which the advice of a woman is needed, it is the question of housing. I regard it as nothing short of fantastic nonsense to say that the wife of a working man must put her infant of 12 months into a room to sleep by itself, or into a room with other young children who themselves might need attention during the night. We hear sometimes the word "elasticity" used in this House, and I hope in this connection it is going to be stressed to the uttermost.
  There is also the question of annual holidays. Picture hundreds of people in. the West of Scotland, in Glasgow particularly, who desire to take a holiday at Glasgow Fair. Many of them join holi

  615
  day clubs. Hon. Members opposite may think that I know nothing about holiday clubs, but I know that my people subscribe to holiday clubs. They save small sums all through the year in order to have their annual holiday, probably at Rothesay. But, think what is to happen before they get there. They will have to apply to the local authority for a permit, and one can visualise the local authorities at coastal places being inundated with applications. The holiday period will be over before they can be dealt with. I am not putting up a case for the coast landlady; indeed, I would go so far as to say that in the past she has made her living out of overcrowding.
  As to the position of the landlord the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) is distressed because powers are to be taken out of the hands of the local authorities. I cannot subscribe to that. I think that the local authorities have in many cases had too great powers in the past, and under this Bill they are going to have still more. I should like to see the powers of the local authorities tightened up, particularly in regard to two matters—one, the allocation of houses, and the other the prosecution of the landlord. Local authorities in Scotland own matey houses themselves, and under this Bill they will own more. They are, indeed, competitors with the private owner, and let us remember that the local authorities are partly subsidised by the rates at the expense of the private owner. It seems to me to be unfair that the local authorities should have the power of prosecuting the private owner. Let us suppose that the houses belonging to a local authority have become overcrowded. Who is going to prosecute the local authority? I suggest that this matter should be left in the hands of the procurator fiscal.
  With regard to re-development areas, that is certainly a very desirable thing, and one that many of us would wish to see carried out, but here again, while provision is made for the sending of a notice of plans to owners and occupiers, there is no provision for the sending of such a notice to owners of feu duties, ground landlords, or the holders of bonds, who themselves may be vitally affected. The Bill certainly contains a provision that objections may be lodged, but, even allowing for that, I would
  616
  suggest that a notice of plans should be served upon all interested parties, and that, if objections are lodged, a different machinery should be used for dealing with those objections. Here again, however, I am afraid I am trespassing on a Committee point.
  I shall not detain the House longer by going into any more of these points, although, as a member of the Whitson Committee, I should have liked to have dealt with the questions of reconditioning and compensation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead has, however, gone exhaustively into them, and I shall not occupy the time of the House by dealing with them further. They are both great questions, and will require the utmost consideration in Committee. I end as I began, by saying that I believe that this is a Bill which has been framed with the intention, and justly framed with the intention, of helping to deal with this great evil, but I hope that, after it has been before the Scottish Grand Committee, it will come back to this House a better and a more reasonable Bill, and the effect of its operation will redound to the credit of the National Government for what it has done, in taking this great step forward in social legislation, not only for the prosperity of the country but the future of our race.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. LEONARD: I regret very much that the hon. Lady has expressed the woman's point of view in the terms that she has used. I am certainly prepared to admit that she is entitled to speak for women, but, as one who goes into hundreds of houses in St. Rollox, I am afraid that the type of woman from whom she has collected her woman's point of view is not to be found in great numbers in that division. No woman who has ever been in a small house will agree that by going into a little larger house the woman's labour is increased. People who have been forced to live in cramped, confined conditions, with no place to put their clothes, with their food on the table all day long because there is nowhere else to put it, do not complain that an extra room or two rooms gives them more work. They have found ease and contentment and less anxiety than attended them under the conditions that they were previously forced to endure. I was also

  617
  very disappointed to hear her despairing that in four years we should depart from the three to one room concept of overcrowding to a two to one room. I think the four years too long for us to make the advance instead of too short.
  I was not at all surprised when listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) state his case. I anticipate that before we go to a Division many mere will express similar points of view, because it never surprises me to hear vested interests fighting for their rights in this House. This is where they come to fight for their vested rights, and it is no use denying house owners and agents the same rights as are claimed by other sections of the community in the protection of their particular interests. I am not unmindful of their difficulties, but they must realise that other people, even moneyed people, have also anxieties and difficulties to face, and many in other forms of activity have lost hundreds and thousands of pounds. Some of the big industries, of which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not a member, but which he knows have been indulging in the practice of reducing the value of the pounds given to them by small shareholders who have had their pound turned into shillings, and no redress has been given to them. Those who have put their money into buildings and have not sunk enough to meet the risks entailed in the holding of that type of property cannot complain of their own negligence in that matter.
  I have never adopted the policy of providing houses for which the working-class can pay, because in my opinion you have not for many years given wages to the working-class which enable them to pay the rent, and you will have to face the necessity of helping from State funds to provide the houses which the system under which we live has failed to provide. I am not in any circumstances going to agree that the houses built by either State or municipal activity should be houses built down to low wages. If we cannot get the wages up, the State will have to come in and protect those who will have to live in these houses.
  When the English Bill was before the House my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) painted a humorous picture, which entertained the House, of the jerry building and the bad workmanship that went into the con
  618
  struction of many houses. He pleaded that, in order to ensure that good materials and good workmanship were employed, steps should be taken to see that the wages paid were fair and that no builders were allowed to build for any municipality unless those fair conditions applied. The Secretary of State is a great believer in the possibility of the leopard changing his spots. He was very insistent on the idea that, with just a word or two from him, the rings that have functioned would abandon their attitude and would all come together in a nice little Sunday school circle and agree not to take more than a very small return for their services. The right hon. Gentleman must have missed a little paragraph that appeared in the papers recently, especially in the Scottish papers, to the effect that the cement people have been very much perturbed because someone of an independent attitude had not been conforming to their price. But by a little persuasion—the type of persuasion was not specified—he was induced to conform and in the last few months the price of cement has jumped 4s. to 5s. a ton. Having seen the advantage of coming together, perhaps the 4s. or 5s. will very shortly be raised to 10s. or 12s.
  The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) referred to the method of applying the subsidy and touched upon the very good results that had accrued under the unit grant laid down in the 1930 Act. I should like to give an additional illustration of the incidence of this matter in areas where the rates are heavy. I have been informed by one who was previously in the House and is competent to deal with housing matters that the same subsidy will be given to Hamilton, with a rate of 14s. 10d. as to Annan, with a rate of 7s. 3d., to Glasgow, with a. rate of 13s. 10d., to Aberdeen, with a rate of 8s. 2d., and to Edinburgh, with a rate of 8s. I think some consideration might have been given to the possibility of so framing the Bill that heavily burdened areas might receive some greater consideration than others. I find that the Under-Secretary at one time was very apprehensive of the interests of the necessitous areas being lost sight of. At that time he was criticising the Bill of 1930 and was sitting on this side of the House. He said:
  "The proper course the Resolution should have taken would be to give the more

  619
  necessitous areas sums from the Treasury which would to some extent have met the problem of slum clearance."
  A little further on he was more emphatic.
  "When one compares the need with this paltry provision one sees that the arrangements under this resolution offer no real inducement to hard pressed local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1930; col. 2489, Vol. 237.]
  I have had worked out for me the position that, with the subsidy as now proposed, £6 15s. from the State and £3 5s, from the local authority, a, man, woman and child, or five units, under the 1930 Act, would receive no less than £12 10s. This shows, when worked out in capitalised figures, a subsidy of £128 per house lower than that which could have been provided under the 1930 Act. Coming to the clauses of the Bill, I notice that the first clause imposes the duty to ascertain the number of overcrowded houses. If I state one or two points pertinent to Glasgow, it might be helpful. I hope that the time allowed for this matter will be ample. If I only mention the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, it will be sufficient to show the need. The houses that will come under review under the definition given will be no less than 99.2 per cent. of the whole town of Greenock that he represents. Glasgow, of course, will not be so high. Nevertheless, the problem there is a big one and will take some time. With regard to the definition of overcrowding, I notice that no guidance has been given as to the height of ceilings. The floor area should not be the only factor as far as space is concerned. I need only mention attics to show that the floor computation is entirely unsuitable to give a proper definition of what is required. I notice also that houses are referred to and not rooms. It will still be possible, as in. the past, for the kitchen or living room to be looked upon as a place in which to sleep. I should like to see a modification of this so as to prevent people from sleeping in the room where the whole family congregates throughout the day. I see that under the schedule there is to be no sleeping room under 50 square feet. In Glasgow the very minimum for a sleeping room is 81 square feet. I suggest that a change might be made there. Overcrowding is
  620
  to be an offence after the appointed day. The Bill makes it clear that it is possible to have several appointed days. I should like to know if it will be possible to have several appointed days in one city because, as hon. Members can see for themselves, the problem facing such a city as Glasgow is a patent one and requires some consideration. I notice that a house declared as being overcrowded will be brought under control. Does the Bill prevent overcrowding of a new house and it becoming vacant?
  The question of the accommodation of a person not a member of the family will give considerable trouble. Take the instance of a brother of the wife or husband. Will that relationship deem him to be a member of the family? Other illustrations will appear to the hon. Member himself. I do not think that the licence for temporary overcrowding should be unconditional. The period of one year is too long and requires considerable modification. I am not prepared to say what would be a suitable time, but the time is too long. I heard the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mrs. Shaw) refer to windows, but I have not seen any reference in the Bill to windows or ventilation. You may have as big dwellings as you like, but unless the windows are properly spaced and ventilation is attended to your space will be rendered futile.
  I wanted to say rather more than I am going to say with regard to re-development areas. I wonder if the word "buildings" can be better defined than it is at the present time? I presume there will be a legal definition somewhere but perhaps that will not be ample for the purposes of considering the matter from its proper angle in the Committee. What is a "substantial extent"? In Clause 13, it appears that we might allow most of the area to be let as an open space, but "substantial extent" is something which may keep any municipality from going into the matter, and I should like to have some attention paid to the point.
  I am definitely opposed to re-conditioning. I do not think that my opposition will be sufficient to prevent it from taking place, but I hope that this line of activity will be kept at its absolute minimum, if we indulge in it at all. It is a great reflection on property owners in general that houses of the age to which the hon.

  621
  Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) referred should even be considered as something that might be re-conditioned. I would fight very strongly against anything being done that would keep in being any longer many of the buildings which I am positive some will accept as suitable for re-conditioning. If it be the case that some people to whom the right hon. Member for Hillhead referred have been living on the rents of one or two houses and that they are going to be placed in difficulties and become destitute, I do not wish to be harsh, and I hope that I shall not be looked upon as harsh; but if there are any persons who think that they should be allowed to prevent their houses from being put into a condition that will permit of the full exercise of human self-esteem and respect, I am not prepared to believe that they are as proud as they were said to be in the statement that has been made. There can be no pride on the part of any persons living on the proceeds of one or two houses. If they are capable of allowing people to continue under those conditions because of their own personal interests, I do not call it pride.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will the hon. Gentleman say exactly what conditions?
  Mr. LEONARD: The conditions referred to were those in respect of a lady who lived on the rents from two houses she occupied.
  An HON. MEMBER: Tenements!
  Mr. BUCHANAN: "Houses" was the word that was used.
  Mr. LEONARD: "Houses" was. the word used, I took particular note of it.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: According to the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) these houses were in a perfectly compact and substantial condition.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: He did not say anything about it.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I am talking about what the right hon. Member for Hillhead said, and therefore there is no question raised as to whether these houses were suitable for habitation or not.
  Mr. LEONARD: I do not think that we know enough about the details. The impression was that if the owner of those
  622
  two houses was forced to do something to make them habitable, it would put her in financial difficulties, and she was a very proud person, and my assertion is that a person who refuses to put such houses into condition cannot have much pride.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: She has not the money.
  Mr. LEONARD: I have already dealt with that point with regard to people without money in other forms of activity. There has been criticism by the hon. Member for Shettleston, and I hope that there will be a great deal more before we finish with the Bill, regarding the proposals to allow outside organisations or associations to have anything to do with the housing of the people of this country. I want to know, first of all, where public ownership has been proved not to be up to private ownership standard. If you cover the whole ambit of housing as attended to by the municipal authorities of the country, you cannot find any instances where they have not been capable of attending to the requirements in a better manner than do private interests at the present time. While it has been stressed that they are permissive powers and the local authority might accept them if they so desire, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) pointed out that you may have reactionary authorities. The right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) told us that, if they took the step and it proved a failure, or if they acted in some way against the interests of the locality, they could, at the next election, take it all back from them. But elections are not as simple as that. Few, if any, elections turn on one pivotal point, and it is possible that if it were proposed to take back power that was given, some other herring might be put on the plate to allow the electorate to scramble for it, and the question of control by other associations would be entirely lost sight of.
  I am rather inclined to think, as has already been stated, that the Government are quite consciously in this, as in other things, endeavouring to take back from democracy what democracy has fought for and has been winning. I am strongly of the opinion that it is because of the advancing recognition of the power of the people that things intimate to

  623
  themselves are to be kept within their own purview and control, and that it is because of that that the Minister of Health, when introducing the English Bill, stated the policy of the Government. He said that the policy of the Government was to keep housing on an even financial keel. That is a very desirable object to have in view, but we have to see that the plimsol line is kept above water, and it is as important to watch the plimsol line as it is to watch the even keel. There is no more effective body to keep the plimsol line well above water than the elected representatives of the local authorities.
  With regard to the review of the Exchequer contributions, power is given to determine or review the subsidy in October, 1937. That is a rather short period for experiment. It should be much longer than a two years' period of activity. The local authorities of Scotland are entitled to a longer period of guarantee. Hon. Members should keep in memory the difficulties into which we got by the withdrawal of the 1924 subsidy. It placed the City of Glasgow at a great disadvantage, and I presume many other parts of the country, and because of that fact I hope that the point will be taken into consideration. As to the question of the disposal of the balances of the housing fund, I hope that some effort will be made to alter the question of the disposal of the balances in the housing fund. I have here a statement from the Chamberlain of Glasgow, which says:
  "In the event of a surplus accruing at the end of any quinquennial period, it should be noted that the Government's share of any prospective reduction in interest charges will, under the Bill, be greater than under existing conditions, whereas in respect of any increased interest rate the local authority will have to bear the extra burden."
  My last point deals with the by-laws and I am surprised that the representatives of property in general have got up such a hullabaloo about them. Many of them should have been put into operation long ago. There were powers in the 1925 Act. I do not adopt the attitude of charging anyone with anything unjust, but I am not above suggesting that perhaps the interest represented in the corporations of Scotland, representatives of owners of
  624
  property and factors, were to a great extent responsible for some of the bylaws within their power not being applied. The question of passenger lifts seem to point to the possibility in the future of having the large tenement type of building introduced into Scotland, taller even than the buildings at the present time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] I am definitely against that, no matter who says, "hear, hear!" I pay the medical officer of Glasgow, along with other citizens, £2,000 a year more or less, and he tells us that one of the great agencies of health is sunlight. I want sunlight in every street. I do not want shadows, but sunlight in every street, and I think the difficulties of congestion are so apparent that it is not necessary to amplify them. Therefore, I am not inclined to look with any kindness upon the idea of the passenger lift. For these reasons, and having in addition given indications of the attitude my colleagues will adopt in the future, I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  8.15 p.m..
  Mr. BURNETT: I rise to speak as one who feels that this Bill to deal with overcrowding is both due and overdue. What we have wanted for some time has been houses and more houses. I know that local conditions are different in one place from what they are in another and that there are some places where the big problem is the slum problem, but at the same time there are places where overcrowding is the bigger problem. The Whitson Committee in their report stressed the fact that overcrowding was as big a problem as the clearance of slum conditions. They also stated that it was a threat not only to the people from the point of view of public health and morality but also to the houses, because it tended to convert them into slum, conditions.
  I have watched with some regret the fact that so many houses have been pulled down and others erected, and I do on that, matter want to issue a caution. I have felt that we were not going ahead in the providing of more houses which were so essential. In the constituency which I represent we have not the large tenement mansions, some of them. 300 years old, where every room is farmed out to a separate family. We have not that

  625
  slum problem to the same extent as in other centres, though we have insanitary houses and houses that are damp. We have not any of those unlet houses to which the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) alluded, but we have a greater degree of overcrowding than exists in the other larger cities of Scotland. Last month the Aberdeen Town Council made an inquiry with a view to finding out whether there were many families requiring four-roomed houses. For that purpose the list of applications for council houses was gone over in the factor's office. The inquiry was to find out how many families consisting of nine or more persons were on the factor's list.
  I have here a list of the families. There are 58 families of nine or more persons on the factor's list, and 56 of these were cases of overcrowding. In nearly all those cases the families were living in two rooms. I will quote a concrete case. I heard an hon. Member say that he did not agree with concrete cases, but I will read out from the list—the official list, that was made on that particular occasion in Aberdeen. Here is a case:
  "Husband, wife and seven sons, aged 18, 17, 17, 16, 15, 3 and 2 years; four daughters 19, 12, 4 and 1 year making a total of 13 persons, or an equivalent of eleven adults, in the back room of a shop in which there was accommodation for two and a-half adults only. Income £5 7s.—Rent £12 yearly."
  That family is overcrowded by 8½ adults. There are here cases of overcrowding by 8½ adults, 7 adults, 7, 6½, 5½ and 5½. When we have cases such as these I feel justified in saying that overcrowding is an exceedingly urgent and serious matter. While I have not personally come across cases as bad as these I did come across one case a fortnight ago of a family of five—father, mother and three children—sleeping in one bed, and two other children sleeping on cushions in a small attic room. When we have overcrowding to that extent I feel that the chief thing is to be able to deal with it from the top. My criticism of the overcrowding standard set forth in Clause 2 and in the Schedule is that it begins by dealing with the overcrowding from down below. We have cases of overcrowding to the extent of 6, 7 and 8 adults. To start as we do in this Bill to say that two persons and an infant is the number that may be permitted in one room is not helping the matter very much. It will be years
  626
  before we shall come to the time when that is really a practical problem to be dealt with.
  There is the question, which has been raised by other hon. Members, of the growing family, where you have a father, mother, and two children of perhaps two years and one year. I am sure that it is not the feeling of hon. Ladies who are Members of this House that children of two years and one year should sleep in another room from their parents. The alternative might be that the mother should get the father to sleep in the other room and look after the child of two, but possibly the discipline exercised in that case might not be approved of. I am doubtful whether the standard we have set is desirable. I think that the standard we had before might well remain for some time. The big problem that we have to deal with is the growing problem of overcrowding, which is of first importance, and we must get rid of that in our big towns. There are any number of cases of overcrowding that might be quoted. Within a year the number of cases of applicants on the Council list in Aberdeen, cases of people who were overcrowded, increased from 1,090 to 1,340. That fact is accounted for partly by the large numbers of people coming in from the country at the present time. While we are dealing simply with slum clearance we are not overtaking the overcrowding problem, which is a most important matter.
  With regard to the provision of floor space, I note that the minimum floor space imposed in the Bill is 110 feet. There are a certain number of rooms in the older part of Aberdeen which have 250 feet or more of floor space, and it is a matter for consideration whether in those rooms there might not be some relaxation until sufficient houses are provided, and then we shall be able to tighten up the whole question. I should like to pass to Clause 19, which gives the local authority power to acquire houses and other buildings and to alter, improve and enlarge them. I should also like to refer to Clause 48, which places upon the property owner the duty of submitting plans to the local authority as to reconditioning and ascertaining from the local authority whether, when those improvements are carried out, the house will be declared fit and will remain fit for another five years. That clause

  627
  follows on the recommendations of the Whitson Committee, which considered that reconditioning was a very important matter, because it meant that we could provide sufficient accommodation within a reasonable time, and also that it was more economical. It was also regarded as an improvement in the conditions of those people living in houses which had perhaps a life of 20 years or more before them.
  But the owners of these houses have no opportunity, so far as I can see in the Bill, of carrying out the work, for reasons which are given pretty fully in Section 71 of the Whitson Report. We had a large number of witnesses before us in connection with that Committee, and I do not think there was one witness who stated that he considered that the property owner could manage to carry out reconditioning as an economic proposition. We saw one building, I think it consisted of two tenement blocks in Glasgow, which had been reconditioned by a contractor. In that case the work had been done so as to bring in a return, but those blocks, as far as I remember, had been obtained at a purely nominal sum, and the rooms within them happened to be particularly conveniently arranged. Therefore reconditioning could be done successfully. That is exceptional. All the other evidence went to show that reconditioning was impossible.
  It is important that reconditioning should be dealt with in the Bill in such a way as to be possible to carry out. I have discussed this matter with our sanitary inspector and have visited a number of houses to see what are the possibilities of reconditioning. We have some 22,000 tenements which can be called modern. They were erected 40 years ago, or less buildings of solid granite, and window frames and joists and walls in excellent condition, but which would not fulfil the conditions in the Bill. They have not got bathrooms, and the sanitary conveniences are between two houses except in the case of the oldest where they have less provision for sanitary accommodation. They will not be ripe for demolition within 50 years. If they are to be reconditioned and brought up to the standard mentioned in the Bill it will be a matter of some difficulty. Some of these tenements have three and four rooms on one storey,
  628
  and others three and two rooms on one storey. One room can be taken to provide the extra accommodation, but we should then be losing a certain number of four roomed houses available in the city and creating a certain number more of two roomed houses. The majority of them can only be reconditioned by building an annexe at the back, which would be exceedingly costly and in some cases it would be impossible. If the landlord were to carry out this work he would not be able to ask higher rents, because the rents already are rather above the level of the rents of similar council houses. As a rule owners of this kind of property are not well off and it is therefore obvious that reconditioning by the private owner is impossible. If he hands it over to the local authority then the local authority will be in the undesirable position of being the universal owner of these houses in the constituency. That is to be avoided. Under the Bill a local authority can hand over its responsibilities temporarily, and take them back when required. It is undesirable that a whole mass of electors in a ward should be the tenants of the town council, who have a say in the rents to be imposed. They would be in the position of landlord and tenant; and probably public and private interests would conflict.
  There is another question, and that is the position of a proprietor when he has sold his house. Most of them are bonded. Take the case of a house bought for £3,000 in 1913, and fetching a rent then of £300, with a feu duty of £30. Possibly it may have a bond upon it of £2,000. No one can say in present conditions that such a house would bring in the proprietor anything more than £20 a year. The bondholder would gladly discharge his bond probably for something like £1,000. He cannot do so as long as the proprietor owns possession of the house, but if the proprietor sells then the trustees may say that they must foreclose on the bond and the result is that the landlord becomes bankrupt. There have been a number of such bankruptcies. We shall have to consider this if we are to enforce the provisions of the Bill. I hope that the suggestion put forward by the Secretary of State as to a modification of the conditions with regard to these by-laws will be carried out. I want to see an overcrowding Act which will mean the build

  629
  ing of a lot of houses. In this Bill we have a Measure which most certainly can do that. I want to see it pushed forward, so that the conditions which give us so much trouble in my own constituency are as quickly as possible wiped off the face of the earth.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. MILNE: I rise to congratulate the Government on the introduction of this Bill. I am aware that in certain quarters it has been received with a chorus of disapproval, but in a sense I welcome the outcry because it is the best evidence that this is a thorough-going measure of reform. You cannot expect to carry through a drastic reform without treading on somebody's toes. The Bill bristles with points of controversy. Let me say a word on one of them. We have heard a proposal that urban owners should receive a grant from the State in order to enable them to recondition their houses. The Bill makes no such provision and, as I understand it, the Government are not prepared to concede the claim. I think that the Government are right and I hope they will maintain a firm attitude. The rights of private property must be respected, and if a local authority acquires a property compulsorily then the owner is entitled to fair compensation. It may well be, as the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) said, that the compensation provided in the Bill is inadequate. If that is so let us amend the Bill. But the claim for a grant for reconditioning is in my judgment wholly inadvisable. An investment in heritable property is no more hazardous than many other forms of investment, and the risk of legislation is just one of the risks which every investor has to face.
  No supporter of the Government could defend a Bill if its aim and object were to expropriate the private owner. That is not the object of the Bill. Its sole purpose is to secure, what the Bill calls, a higher standard of fitness for human habitation. It may be that the standard prescribed in the Bill is too ambitious and will have to be relaxed. If that is so, let us amend the Bill. If the claim for a grant be conceded as a general principle then in my view social legislation will soon come to a standstill. Throughout the past half century Parliament has passed many factory Acts, and every time a factory
  630
  Act has been passed I do not doubt that throughout the country hundreds of factory buildings required to be reconstructed and rebuilt. But whoever heard of a claim for compensation? Social legislation will become quite impracticable if you are to scatter largesse to every vested interest you brush against. The claim for a grant for reconditioning is really a reductio ad absurdum, at any rate in the form in which it was presented this afternoon. Here we have a Bill which I hope and expect will improve the health of the people, lengthen the expectancy of life and reduce the death rate. There are other interests which may be adversely affected. What about the shareholders in cemetery companies? What about funeral undertakers? That business is just, as necessary as the business of the house-builder, a calling no less honourable.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: Does my hon. and learned Friend suggest that Parliament should legislate so as to increase the profits of undertakers and cemetery owners?
  Mr. MILNE: The Noble Lady misunderstands me. I was suggesting that the claim in the form advanced this afternoon was a reductio ad absurdum. I apprehend that it may well be, when this Bill becomes an Act, that the business of the funeral undertaker will be seriously prejudiced in overcrowded localities. Are we then to have the right hon. Gentleman coming down with a moving appeal for compensation? I hope the Government will be firm in the matter. In the Committee the Bill can be amended extensively. For my part, I am prepared to accept drastic Amendments, and I am sure that we shall see that no injustice is done to the private owner or to any other party, but we are not going to allow this Bill to founder in a snowdrift of vested interests.
  One other point on a wholly different topic. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to prevent overcrowding, and there are drastic Clauses for that purpose. Those Clauses have been somewhat loosely drafted and will require to be overhauled in Committee. There is one Clause which seems to have escaped attention. At any rate, no one has mentioned it, to-day, and it really

  631
  raises a question of principle. Clause 9, Sub-section (3), enacts:
  "A local authority may institute proceedings for any offence against any of the foregoing provisions of this part of this Act committed within their district."
  A local authority may institute proceedings." If that Clause remains in the Bill, it is going to give a new lease of life to private prosecutions in Scotland. We had hoped that we were getting rid of private prosecutions. I think I speak with a sufficient degree of accuracy when I say that in Scotland in the case of common law crimes private prosecution is now unknown. Private prosecution survives in the case of a few statutory offences, such as offences against the Education Acts, and possibly in the case of Revenue offences, though I am not sure. The Revenue is a law unto itself in these matters.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends continued it in a very extreme form recently in the Unemployment Act, in connection with young people's offences.
  Mr. MILNE: I was giving instances where private prosecution survives. There is poaching. One hundred years ago an Act of Parliament was passed which empowered landowners to institute private prosecutions against persons found trespassing on their lands in pursuit of game. That Act is still in full force, and in practice the landowner employs his own solicitor. But private prosecution is altogether objectionable. It still lingers in more backward countries; in England it is the ordinary procedure. It is objectionable for two obvious reasons: In the first place, in the case of private prosecution the prosecutor as a rule lacks experience. He is unfamiliar with criminal procedure. Moreover the private prosecutor is acting for an employer. His incentive and his aim are to secure a conviction. The public prosecutor is not only expert but he is impartial. If a stranger were unacquainted with Scotland he might well, in considering the position of the public prosecutor, suppose that he would be regarded with public execration. The very opposite is the case. In Scotland the procurator fiscal shares equally with the sheriff in the esteem and confidence
  632
  of the public. The public know that he is efficient and that he is fair and merciful.
  I have some apprehensions with regard to this clause, and my concern is especially for the occupier. The owners are equally entitled to consideration, but in most cases they are far better able to take care of themselves. In the overcrowded tenements the occupier is often an illiterate person and inarticulate. Someone may say, "Oh well, but why all this anxiety? If a local authority were to abuse its power and to act harshly it could be brought to book on the Floor of this House." Make no mistake about that. His Majesty's advocate, the Lord Advocate, has the control and direction of all public prosecutions, but in this clause Parliament delegates its power to a local authority and surrenders control. Private prosecution is utterly undemocratic and retrograde. I do not know how this clause has found its way into the Bill. It may be that some authority asked for it. Even if the clause had the clamorous support of every local authority in Scotland I would still oppose it. But I do not suggest that. I expect that the Clause inadvertently slipped into the Bill, and I hope that in Committee we can as easily shake it out. That is a very minor point. What is important is the main purpose of the Bill, and I intend to go into the Lobby and vote for the Second Reading with the utmost satisfaction.
  8.45 p.m.
  Miss HORSBRUGH: One speaker after another during this Debate began by pointing out that he or she was not a property owner, and had nothing to do with the ownership of slums or of any houses at all. After the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne), I feel that I ought to begin by stating that I have nothing whatever to do either with funeral undertakers or the owners of cemeteries. Most of us who are here to-day are here with the one desire to thank the National Government for at last taking steps to deal, more effectively I hope than any previous Government, with the appalling problem of overcrowding in the houses in Scotland. Over and over again we have had housing Acts. One Government after another has tried honestly to deal with this subject. When we began to make these efforts we

  633
  thought we were going in the right direction by simply getting houses built. We thought that in that way we could do away with the evil. That scheme failed and I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the fact that they have grasped the real way of getting rid of the present appalling housing conditions in Scotland, and that is by concentrating on certain definite aims and objects.
  We were told by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) and by other speakers that the introduction of this Bill marked a, volte face or a change of policy. It is not so. The Government have not come here with a new decision. Only now have we got the local authorities to deal on practical lines with the subject of slum clearance and only now are we ready for the next step in the declared Government policy. I have already said that we tried in the past to get rid of the slums. We absolutely failed, until we produced this new scheme of getting the authorities to concentrate on a five-years' programme to destroy the slums, and now we can look forward to making progress in other directions. Were it not for that scheme I do not believe that we would be able to look forward to-day to the early destruction of at any rate 40 per cent. of the slums in Scotland and the re-housing of the people who are at present living in them.
  Now we come to the introduction of this Bill to deal with the second part of the problem which is the evil of overcrowding. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) spoke of the appalling conditions in his own constituency and many of us who spoke here last summer upon this problem gave instances of similar conditions prevailing elsewhere in Scotland. I think every hon. Member in this House, to whatever party he or she may belong, detests the thought that men and women, our own country-people, should be living under such conditions. I believe that we ought to approach the second reading of this Bill with this idea in mind: Are these people to be re-housed; are we going to do away with the overcrowding and are we going to get houses under this Scheme? I think the scheme in the Bill is the best that could have been brought
  634
  forward. I think it is excellent in many ways.
  My right hon. Friend, in introducing the Bill gave us a lucid description of its provisions and he encouraged many of us here who look forward to seeing a new Scotland housing her people as they ought to be housed. My right hon. Friend gave us a vision of that kind and he spoke with the sympathy which we have learned to expect from him. I would only say this: In our effort to make Scotland that perfect dwelling place for her people which we all desire to see, in our effort to achieve that ideal, do not by any chance let us lose the opportunity of getting as many people as possible quickly out of their present conditions. In considering the standard which it is proposed to set up, I wish to consider also the existing conditions as we have heard them described in this House and elsewhere—both in Scotland and England. I had the honour of serving on the Moyne Committee and also on the Whitson Committee and having seen something of slums and overcrowding in both countries, I would say, without fear of challenge, that the gross overcrowding which exists in Scotland cannot be equalled anywhere south of the Tweed. It is that gross overcrowding which we have to attack.
  We know that the number of houses to be built will be enormous. We know that with the best will in the world, it will take a long time to build them. What I fear is that with the standards which we have in the Bill at present, many local authorities may begin to "de-crowd" the cases which are most easy to "de-crowd" and may disregard the worst cases, which ought to be dealt with first. Because of that I hope that my right hon. Friend and the Members who are to consider this Bill in Committee, will see to it it is so framed that the worst cases are dealt with first. I believe that if we took the figures of those living in more than three to a room in Scotland, we would find that the number of houses to be built was something like 70,000. I do not make this suggestion because I want to see a low standard but because I do want to see the people of Scotland housed as they have never been housed before and as it would pay us to house them. I do so because I am so afraid that in our effort to get up to a higher standard these unfortunate

  635
  people may be left even longer to endure the present conditions under which they are living.
  There is a question which I would like to put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Is he sure that once the Measure has passed through this House and has become the law of the land we are going to be able to carry it out under present conditions? By that I mean are we going to get sufficient organisation in the building trade and sufficient supplies of labour and material to carry out what is intended I Are we going to be able to find a way of moving people from one part of the country to another and of producing the necessary materials quickly enough? In short, are we going to be able to see these houses built and the people put into them? That is a task for the local authorities such as they have never tackled before. We are putting upon them an enormous charge. We are asking them to build as they have never built before in Scotland. Are they ready for it? Has all this been organised and thought out or do we think that our responsibility ends when we have voted here for this Bill and passed it through all its stages. Are we to be content to say we have passed the greatest Measure for helping social conditions in Scotland that has been passed for many years? Our responsibility does not end there. We must see to it that the local authorities have the power and the help necessary to get the houses built.
  I realise that under the Bill we make provisions regarding the local authorities who do not carry out its terms. I am not for one moment suggesting that the local authorities will not wish to do so, but, if they fail, the Department can step in and build. We have also had the point brought to our notice of the work of housing associations and management committees. We have heard criticisms and expressions of horror at the awful thought that housing associations should build or manage houses. Personally, I approach this matter with the one idea in mind "Can these houses be produced?" I hope that there will be no "dog in the manger" policy in regard to it because there is plenty of building to be done whoever does it. I cannot see anything undemocratic about the permissive provision in the Bill with regard to housing
  636
  associations and management committees. I believe that those who object to it are exceedingly undemocratic in their outlook. If a body democratically elected by the citizens of a city chooses to arrange for some houses to be built under a housing association, I cannot see that that is undemocratic. I think those who are undemocratic are the people who say that, after the citizens elect a town council and give that council certain powers the town council is not to use the powers as it thinks best for the welfare of the people as a whole. As I say this provision is permissive.
  To me, at any rate, it seems more desirable that we should concentrate on seeing that the people of Scotland are taken out of their present conditions and put into good houses than that we should spend our time in discussing theories as to who is and who is not to be allowed to help to build the houses. As I have said there is plenty of building to be done and the more who come forward to do it the better for Scotland and the Scottish people. I would also touch on the subject of the advisory committee. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make certain that on that committee there is a woman member. My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mrs. Shaw) put forward various suggestions from the women's point of view and I would add this. We are often told that woman's place is in the home. If my right hon. Friend is setting up an advisory committee to deal with the homes of the people then, at any rate, he ought to take some advice from those people whose place, we are told, is in the home.
  My right hon. Friend also referred to the subject of flats. He said that inquiries had been made and that it was found that the great majority of the people did not wish to live in fiats. He pointed out that those people who were consulted were people who had come from the centres of the towns, from tenements, and who after their experience had no wish ever to return to them. Might I, with great respect to my right hon. Friend, point out that the people in Scotland of whom we are talking have at the present moment not the slightest conception of what the modern flat building can be? Over and over again, I have heard from people in bungalows or in those three-storey buildings outside the city that they would find the new flat

  637
  accommodation inside the city much more what they wanted. I should like to see experiments made in the development of the inside of our cities. We must look to the future. We must have well-built flats, with good balconies, with playgrounds, and with far more fresh air than they get very often nowadays, when the mother must either keep her children in the house with her or risk them running into the streets. To-day on the outskirts of the town there is often a small garden shared in many cases by many tenants. We see the gardens and their beauty, but they are not necessarily playgrounds for the children.
  I hope to see in Scotland models of the best possible flats put up, with balconies, with playgrounds for the children, with downstair places for the prams, really model buildings. I think the advisory committee would do well to consider these things, because if we are now looking forward to building homes for this enormous number of our people, we must look into the future, and I believe that gradually the people will come to realise that we cannot possibly go on building out and must come to building up as well. We must look to the town planning and the country planning of the future, and see how the people can best be served.
  I do not wish to be dogmatic on the subject of flats, but I think the majority of the people, because they never see these flats, cannot understand them. The majority of the people look back on dark tenements, with long stairs, perhaps put straight on the street, with no playgrounds for the children, no balconies, and no chance of fresh air. None of us want to see that kind of building in the future. We want more light and fresh air and better accommodation for the children. I am glad to see clauses dealing with the consolidation of housing accounts. I think in a great many cases we shall find that people are going to move from the housing areas into the small private enterprise bungalows that have been put up in so many places.
  In conclusion, I realise the difficulties that other speakers have referred to, but I think that in Committee many of them probably can be dealt with. In some cases, if one reads the clause where the onus falls on the landlord, before letting a house, to see that there will be no
  638
  overcrowding, it looks as if great difficulties will arise. We have an Act in Scotland to give a cheap sixpenny birth certificate, and it looks as if it will be inevitable to produce such a certificate before any house can be taken. I think the major principle of the Bill is excellent. I think it is the biggest thing that has been done to help the health and welfare of the people of Scotland for many years past. There are many drawbacks to be found in the drafting of some of the Clauses, but it is only because we look at these details and want to get the Bill more perfect that we criticise it. I believe that we who have taken part in this Debate and will, during the Committee stage, try to make the Bill what it ought to be, will look back afterwards on having taken a share in one of the biggest works any Government has -done in modern days.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. K. LINDSAY: I rise for two and a-half minutes, because I realise that a great many other Scottish Members wish to speak, and I should be the last to wish to stand between them and their remarks; but I would like to reinforce every word that has fallen from the last speaker. There is a great difference between worn-out, bug-infested property and property of good structure which is a little shabby. All this business about the small property owner can be settled, I believe, in Committee. If it be that the principle of the Bill is at stake, then we are up against something which is very serious, and you might think from the Press that this principle was going to invalidate the whole Bill. Yet we have heard to-day from several loyal supporters of the Government, like the last speaker, that this is the greatest single piece of reform the Government has put before the country. Someone evidently is wrong somewhere, and I suspect that, as on a good many other occasions, the National Government has to offend a few people on either side in order to drive through a really big Measure.
  There is in this Bill a central advisory committee. Either that committee is what Mr. Garvin calls "fudge," or else it is full of significance and meaning, and I share the view of the junior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) that it has to be given some real form. With regard to the management commissions, I inter

  639
  vened when the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) was speaking because they are purely permissive, and whether we have the management commissions or not, I was totting it up that in my own burgh there will be something like 3,000 houses under the control of the local authority. That is a big business. I am not suggesting for a moment that the local authority cannot run it, but I do suggest that the old form of local government is not necessarily the best suited to deal with it. There are housing directors in some cities, and I think there will have to be housing directors and managing directors everywhere.
  But how are you going to drive through this great new piece of legislation? That is the thing that I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State to answer. I think most of us here are in favour of the main principles of the Bill, but how are you going to drive it through? That seems to me an enormous question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to appoint two special men and that was a very significant step, about a year ago to go round to the local authorities and pass on information. Now we are giving to these local authorities a really big business job to do, and I suggest that not only should there be a woman on this central advisory committee, but some first-rate men too. I suggest that there is a young architect to start with, I suggest that there is a quantity surveyor, and I suggest that there are people who have real knowledge of the building materials industry and also of land. I suggest further that they are paid. You may pay expenses, as the clause says, but on these advisory committees, when you want a real job done, you do not generally just get a few people to give parts of their spare time. I want to be certain that at any rate the chairman is paid, and that it should be a really responsible job.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has done one other very important thing in Scotland. He has set up a departmental committee on health, and I believe the report of that body will be one of the most significant things in the future for Scottish health. Here is a great opportunity to do another important thing, and that is to make this central advisory committee the head of a big new movement for getting rid
  640
  of overcrowding. There will be a great many new questions cropping up which local authorities are not used to tackling. Some of us have experience and could quote examples—in my own constituency in the last year, for instance—which would horrify any business man, of the way in which the slum clearance scheme has been tackled. If you have still got the old-fashioned method of organisation in parts of the building industry, and of local government, and you throw on it this huge new strain, it will probably break down. We all want to see concrete results, and I am suggesting that the Secretary of State should take this clause in hand and give it some real meaning.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. TRAIN: I will not detain the House longer than five minutes as I know there are many of my friends who want to speak on this Bill. I rise with different feelings since hearing the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State explain some of the illusory clauses of the Bill. They are very different feelings from those which I had when I read the Bill. A great many people all over the country were rather perturbed when they read the Bill. Hon. Members and I have had a great deal of correspondence since it was introduced, but we have now the assurance of the Secretary of State that Clause 64 has been misunderstood and that he will remove any wording in it that does not make it clear. He assures us also that it does not apply to old houses but only to new houses. In dealing with overcrowding, the Government are tackling one of the biggest jobs that they could tackle. It is a bigger problem than slum clearance, and I was sorry when the Secretary of State set out on his great task that a large number of people were fighting against him instead of helping him. We want to get everybody into this campaign. As the right hon. Gentleman said, private enterprise in 1910 had a lot of houses to let and in Glasgow there were over 17,000. That was when the Government put a paralysing hand on the building trade by what was known as Form IV. That was in the days of private enterprise. To-day there are about 1,200 houses of which he could have the choice, but I am bound to say that I do not know of any modern houses in Glasgow which he could have.

  641
  What is the history of this Bill? Was it not that the Government took this question very seriously and set up alongside the English committee a Scottish committee known as the Whitson Committee? That committee duly reported and we find in the Bill many of the recommendations made by it. The committee sat for many weeks, and after hearing all the expert evidence we could on reconditioning and overcrowding, many of us on the committee found it a little difficult to sign the report; but rather than have a minority report, we tried to get together as near as possible. The conclusion of the committee was that reconditioning was a desirable thing, that compensation should be paid to the extent of 50 per cent., and that it was not to exceed £75 for any one house. We had estimates from qualified surveyors who gave us evidence that it could be done quite well for less than £75 per house. The owner would not be getting any more rent; indeed, he would be getting less where he had reconditioned—that is, where he took the middle houses out and made them into kitchenettes and bathrooms, so that he lost four of the houses in a four-storey tenement. His rent was accordingly reduced, and he would get £5 less a year while spending £50 a house. What is the alternative to that? An hon. Friend opposite, who is very familiar with graveyards and funerals and undertakers, judging from his speech, did not see his way to give any subsidy at all. What is the alternative to it? I am informed by people who know that in Glasgow there are £30,000,000 in property that would be condemned under Clause 64 as unfit for human habitation.
  It may be said that the local authorities will build plenty of houses, but they are building as many houses as they can at the moment. Just outside Glasgow at Bishop Briggs there are 40 houses which have been condemned for the last two years, but the people are living in them still, for they cannot get houses elsewhere. We are putting too much work on to the local authorities. We want everybody to build new houses. This grant is practically putting us back to the 1923 Act. We want everybody to help in building houses at rents that can be paid. No Government has ever had a better opportunity since the days of the South African War, when consols were standing at 112 and money and buildings
  642
  were cheap. We could then build three or four apartment houses to be let at less than £20 a year. Look at the difference between the Addison houses of 1919 and those of to-day. The latter are being built for £300 each, and they are similar to houses that cost £1,000 in 1919. The-interest then was 5 or 6 per cent. and the interest amounted to a year, while. now the interest is only £9 at 3 per cent.,. being a difference of £41 a year on the rent.
  The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) suggested raising a great loan of £100,000,000. We need £500,000,000 in housing bonds at, say, 2½ per cent., to buy out all the people who cannot recondition their property and build those fine flats of which the junior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) spoke. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) is optimistic, for he would build suntraps in Glasgow. I do not know where you are going to build suntraps in Glasgow; they would be more like rain-traps. If we can get down to the problem and remove all the fear that is in the minds of people who have been in the building trade and who have invested money in property—and it is not the builder who has put money in property but the investor—we should go a long way to solving this problem. We have the Trades House of Glasgow which is a benevolent institution with £650,000 invested in property. Of the £30,000,000 in property in Glasgow £20,000,000 is on mortgage. People invest their money in ground annuals, and the Kirk of Scotland for the quod sacra parishes invest a sum sufficient to give a return of £300 per annum in feu duties. Are we going to allow these people who have got all their money invested in property to be disgruntled? Get them on your side, and let us get on with a great housing programme.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. JAMES REID: At this late hour I will try not to go over the ground already covered, and if I do not say very much on general lines and the introduction of the Bill it is because I entirely agree with all that has been said by the last speaker and particularly by the junior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh). On that part of the Bill I will content myself with asking two questions. It is plain from statistics that, on paper, Scotland is nearly 10 times as badly off

  643
  as England in the matter of overcrowding, but I can hardly believe that to be the fact, and I hope that before the Committee stage the Government will inquire whether it is possible to give us information as to the relative differences in the average sizes and heights of rooms and other matters, which are just as important as the numbers of rooms in considering whether people are overcrowded. We cannot apply our minds to this matter in Committee unless we know rather more than is found in the census report. It may well be that in the two points I have indicated, if there is the same standard on paper as there is in England there is a very different standard in fact, and that if we want to reach the same standard in fact we must have a different standard on paper.
  It may well be my fault for not understanding the Secretary of State, but I did not gather what he proposed to do by way of fixing rents for the people who are taken out of overcrowded houses and put into new houses. I understood that if they were very badly off they were to get a reduction, and I understood that if they were getting normal wages they would pay normal rent, but I do not understand what is to happen to people who are tolerably well off. It is not by any means unknown to find people living in overcrowded conditions although they may have a family income of £5 a week or more. The cases are not very frequent, but they are frequent enough to make it necessary to have rules for them. I should like to know whether it is proposed, in the case of people taken out of the slums or overcrowded houses, that where there is a more than average family income they are to pay an economic rent. I think they should do so, and I hope it will so be provided.
  Now I come to where I think the Bill is deficient. It seems to be almost wholly admirable so far as it deals with the building of new houses, but as regards existing houses it appears to leave a good deal to be desired. However hard one wants to go ahead with the building of new houses, the capacity of the building trade is limited, and it is plain that even if within the next 10 years we remove every house that is a slum, or on the verge of becoming a slum, we shall have half-a-million or more antiquated houses which people simply
  644
  must inhabit for the next generation, whether we like it or not, because there is no way of building a sufficient number of. houses in the interval to take their place. Is it fair that the man who has done something for himself, who has got himself out of the slums or prevented his house from becoming overcrowded, although having no more, and very often less, than the average wage, should be passed over, and that everything should be done for the man who has allowed himself to go down into the slums or allowed his house to be overcrowded? That he should be promoted over the head of the decent and thrifty man who has put himself into the best house his means can afford, although that house is antiquated, is unsatisfactory. I believe that the public opinion will demand that we are not to limit our benefactions to those who have allowed themselves to sink into the slums. We cannot afford to neglect all those millions of people who are living in conditions which are far from satisfactory but which are neither within the scope of overcrowding nor slum clearance legislation.
  The only way we can benefit these people is by improving or reconditioning their houses. It is the only possible way. An hon. Member shakes his head, but if it is the fact that it is physically impossible to rehouse these people in the next generation because the full capacity of the building trade has been taxed to build houses for those in the slums or on the verge of them, how can we help those people otherwise than by improving their existing houses? I believe the Bill is very deficient in not making provision for that to be done. That the Bill approves of the principle is plain, because it contains provisions—wholly unworkable provisions it is true—not only to facilitate reconditioning by private owners but provisions, to which considerable exception will be taken in Committee, allowing compulsory acquisition of property by local authorities for the purpose of reconditioning. We shall want to know a good deal more about those provisions in the Committee stage. It is not because the Government do not sympathise with the improvement of existing property that they fail to make such provision, but simply because somebody is against providing a subsidy for it and I can see no reason for that attitude.

  645
  The Whitson Committee, which consisted of a great number of people of different political views, and which heard a good deal of evidence, was almost unanimous in the conclusion that there were at least 200,000 houses in Scotland which could be improved without uneconomic expenditure. They would have a useful life of something over 20 years, and the improvements would be worth the cost. Further, there are a great number of houses which will necessarily become derelict unless they are improved by being joined up to make two houses into one. There are far more two-room houses in Scotland than can possibly be needed for families small enough to go into them while keeping above any standard of overcrowding, and unless we amalgamate these small houses and make them into bigger ones we shall have derelict patches in the cities which will cost the Government five times as much for subsidies in the end as they would if the Government would only give a reasonable subsidy for the improving of them. I appeal to the Government from the point of view of economy in the long run not to be short sighted and not to refuse the recommendation of the great majority of those who form the Whitson Committee.
  As I and a lot of other people read Clause 64, dealing with the by-laws, it appears that the grossest injustice is going to be done to existing owners. I say the grossest injustice for this reason. There are property owners who have maintained their property in accordance with the standards of the time, and the State has recognised it as a trust investment, but now, when the nation demands, rightly, that a new standard of housing shall be adopted, it says: "We are not going to pay for it. We are going to make the unfortunate owners pay for it who happen to be in a position where we have a stranglehold over them." That, no doubt, suits those who favour confiscation and sit on the benches opposite.
  I understand that the Socialists are wholly in favour of confiscation, and that it is part of their programme, but that anybody who sits on this side of the House should favour that legislation astonishes me. [Interruption.] Then no doubt some of the party opposite will help us to get this matter put right. However that may be, the Secretary of
  646
  State is undoubtedly going to relieve our apprehensions to a considerable degree, but at what cost? Surely there is here a dilemma. If those by-laws are to be enforced, it can only be at the expense of the grossest injustice to owners unless the State contributes its share to the cost of the improvement. If the by-laws are not going to be enforced, it can only be at the cost of leaving in the lurch the people with whose case I dealt a little while ago—the decent, respectable, thrifty people who have taken themselves out of the slums and out of overcrowded areas and are now told by the Government, "We are not going to put these by-laws into operation in the case of your house. You can stay on for another generation in your present unsatisfactory conditions. We are going to give the whole of our money to the people who have allowed themselves to sink into the slums." I believe that public opinion simply will not stand that, and that the only way of avoiding that dilemma is for the Government to recognise that if the nation demands a new standard of housing the nation has to pay for it. That is simply justice, neither more nor less. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Cabinet as a whole will reconsider this matter as one of the utmost gravity for the future of Scotland and will be in a position before we reach the Committee stage to inform us that these bylaws are to go on but that they will be coupled with a satisfactory financial arrangement.
  9.26 p.m.
  Sir JOHN WALLACE: We have had a most interesting Debate and the speeches have been of a very varied character. We have had some speeches that occupied a very long time in delivery and others that were shorter. If I may without offence express a preference. I will say that I enjoyed the shorter speeches very much better than those which in view of the fact that so many Scottish Members wish to speak occupied a time rather longer than was necessary. I would like very cordially to congratulate the Government on the introduction of this Bill, and to congratulate especially my right hon. Friend on his speech in introducing the Measure to the House. I think he has made one of the most successful speeches he has ever delivered in this House, and he has expressed in definite

  647
  terms his determination to see this far reaching Measure placed upon the Statute Book.
  I only wish to put before the House two points of view. There are two different kinds of apprehension in Scotland regarding this Bill. One relates to the subject raised by my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken. It is the question of compensation, which always seems to arouse the ire of at least some of my hon. Friends on the other side of the House. I do not know the particular reason which inspires their attitude against compensation because in other spheres of life they are sound believers in the principle of compensation. On that particular point I want to read a letter which I have received from a man in my own constituency, illustrating very well the point of view with regard to compensation. This letter represents in a very reasonable way my own idea with regard to compensation. It is as follows:
  "I as a working man and owner of working-class property in Dunfermline, view with alarm the housing (Scotland) Bill now before Parliament. The Bill is designed to abate overcrowding. With that I agree. I have a block of houses, two storeys, eight tenants, main doors to each house, solid stone back and front and gables beautifully finished in Kauri Pine, with W.Cs. for every two tenants outside, built 29 years ago and passed by Dunfermline Dean of Guild Court. It will be structurally impossible to put baths, sculleries and larders into each existing house, and many others are in the same position as I. Even if it could be done, the expense would be prohibitive. If I cannot meet the expense my property will be condemned, and I will lose my all. Please see that the Bill is so amended that it will not be a Bill that will bring ruin to many-thrifty working-class property owners who have invested their savings in property."
  I would like to know if my hon. Friends opposite are in sympathy with the case stated so reasonably in this letter. If they are against the principle of compensation qua compensation, then my constituent who writes in these terms might, under Clause 64, be deprived, as he suggests, of his life's savings. I suggest to those who oppose the principle of compensation that they must have in mind the very wide ambit of compensation and the need for some discrimination in dealing with this vital consideration.
  The other apprehension felt in Scotland with regard to this Bill is of equal im
  648
  portance. I notice that my right hon. Friend in introducing the Bill to-day to a very large extent disarmed criticism. It occurred to me that he may have disarmed criticism to rather too large an extent, especially in dealing with Clause 64. I should like to refer to this Clause for a moment. The first Sub-section reads:
  "A local authority may, and if required by the Department shall, make with respect to houses used or intended to be used for human habitation by-laws regarding any of the following matters."
  I should like to know from my right hon. Friend or from the Under-Secretary the significance of the, modification now attached to that particular Clause. What we want in Scotland to-day are houses for the working people at reasonable rents. Possibly I shall convey my idea better to the House if I give single example of what I mean by that statement. Not very long ago I visited a house in my own constituency—as I have visited many—and in my opinion that house was unfit for human habitation. It was damp almost beyond description. It was inhabited by a decent man and his wife and family, and there, was one particular point about it to which I paid special attention. We often hear it said that people who live in slums would make slum conditions inevitable wherever they go, but I do not accept that contention. This house, which had caused this man to be ill with rheumatism and which had crippled his daughter with rheumatism because of the damp, was kept in a most spotless condition by' a. fine upstanding Scottish wife who kept everything from grate to ornaments spotlessly clean and well polished. This man and wife did try for a long time to get alternative accommodation, and I want to know whether, in view of the modification of Clause 64 that has been announced by my right hon. Friend, there is adequate provision for such a case. I should like to know whether these people can be provided with the alternative accommodation for which they have waited for years. The dominant need to-day in Scotland is for decent housing, and surely, after the statement made by my right hon. Friend—
  Mr. JOHN: Would the hon. Member say that the owner of the premises to which he refers should be entitled to compensation?
  Sir J. WALLACE: I have made no such observation. I do not suggest that any property owners who allow their property to get into that condition are entitled to compensation. I have not suggested any course of that kind. On the other hand, when I asked earlier whether hon. Members opposite agreed that compensation should be given in the case to which the letter referred I got no response.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: About the man crippled with rheumatism, and his daughter who also had rheumatism. I have got it myself—and I am interested. I should like to know if there is any medical explanation why the sturdy wife had not got rheumatism.
  Sir J. WALLACE: I always observe a certain amount of reserve and reticence about asking for particulars of that kind. It is quite possible that I arrived at the house on a lucky day for the wife, because she showed no sign of rheumatism on that occasion. My hon, and learned Friend ought to know what are the inevitable physical results of living in a damp house. If he wishes for any further particulars, I can give them—and I am quite serious in this—about the tiny room and kitchen of the house which the man described to me as a snail's skating rink. It was an accurate description; snails were all over the place. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State what adequate provision could be made for proper alternative accommodation at a reasonable rent for people living in conditions of that kind? That is not an isolated case, because I have come across many houses of a similar disgraceful character.
  After what my right hon. Friend has said about half the population of Scotland living in either one-roomed or two-roomed houses, no further argument is required to show the extreme importance of the housing question in Scotland. In deciding the standard of overcrowding we must be careful to make our terms definite and reasonable. It is quite possible that in 'considering this very important question the element of gradualness will have to be taken into account in the remedial legislation which we have in view. The dominant need of the people of Scotland is decent housing accommodation, and I hope that no modification of Clause 64 will prevent
  650
  our removing a great blot on the reputation and escutcheon of Scotland, so far as housing conditions are concerned.
  9.38 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: This Debate seems to have taken rather a queer twist. I came to the House to criticise the Bill but I have stayed to applaud the speech of my right hon. Friend who introduced it. He seems to have clothed a rather soulless document with a garment of humanity, so, instead of dealing with the Bill as I had intended, I shall deal with it as I see it through the eyes of my right hon. Friend. I would like to join with the rest of the House—or with the majority of those who have spoken—in thanking him for having shown, on behalf of the Government, determination to rid Scotland of slums once and for all. Everyone has friends in his constituency who live in those dreary, drab, squalid surroundings and under conditions that cramp all brightness of outlook and all hope, and we feel a sense of relief that the Government have at last determined that this stigma on our humanity and good name should be removed. We have been waiting a long time for it. Those are the reasons why I welcome the decision which my right hon. Friend has put before us to-night.
  I am worrying about one thing: in our determination to benefit one section of the community it behoves us to remember that there may be a danger of inflicting hurt or injury on some other class of the community, who tare possibly equally deserving. When I first read the Bill I said to myself, "In this grand piece of legislation is there a possibility that we shall be hurting any minority, in order to bring benefit to the majority?" To judge by the postbag, which many of us have had pretty full during the last few weeks, there is obviously one section of the community which appears to be hurt by the Bill. The property owners' federations have been so vocal and so vociferous that they have certainly convinced their members of the possibility of injury, and at times they have, I think, convinced me, too. But when there is so much propaganda, and when I get letters from old ladies, typewritten letters, going into the last detail of what they have suffered in their incomes, and letters from associations and organisations that are normally very little concerned with housing conditions, I begin to wonder

  651
  whether they are not protesting too much, and I begin to see the way in which they are going materially to benefit.
  Then I come to the final conclusion, which is this: I cannot believe that any Government would be so incredibly foolish as to introduce legislation which would be obviously unfair and politically unsound at this stage of the Government's career, and I suggest to property owners, and to the federations who look after them, that, putting it at its very lowest, it is surely obvious that the Government would not introduce unfair and unjust legislation, for one reason at least, which is that it would have a bad effect on their chances at the next election. I have put it at its very lowest, but if we regard the Minister and the Under-Secretary as understanding humane and sympathetic individuals who are responsible for the Bill, knowing them as we do, we can be satisfied that, in its intention and ultimate effects, this is a fair, honest and just Bill, designed to bring the greatest justice to the greatest number. Every piece of legislation has meant injustice for some section. Every piece of land legislation has meant injustice for some landlords, and every piece of factory legislation has meant injustice for a section of the factory owners. Therefore, we have to face the fact that this legislation may entail a certain amount of injustice for property owners. We have to ensure that those injustices, should they exist, are limited within reasonable bounds. From what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon in introducing the Bill I feel that by judicious amendments, which he has promised to consider fairly, we shall probably evolve out of this Measure, which some of us were prepared to criticise, one of the really magnificent pieces of social legislation that this Government has yet brought before the House.
  I should like to put to the Under-Secretary, who, I believe, is to reply, one or two points with which I would like him to deal in his answer. I should like him to try to remove the feeling which exists among a considerable number of property owners in Glasgow, as well as in the West of Scotland, that there is an atmosphere about the Bill by which property owners are to be regarded as a grasping, greedy and hard
  652
  hearted section of the community. I do not believe it is true, nor does my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) believe in his heart of hearts that it is true. He knows the facts as well as I do. But I think it would be a good thing if my hon. Friend, in his reply, would remove that feeling. I have several other points that I should have liked to put to him, but I will put them to him privately, and the Committee stage will give us the opportunity of having them thrashed out.
  There is only one final word that I would say, and that is to ask him if he will confirm quite definitely that there will be a right of appeal to the sheriff, and that reasonable compensation will be given—and here I share the view of my hon. Friend opposite, that reconditioning must inevitably take place if this great housing campaign is to be a success. As I said to my right hon. Friend the other day, the Government have created a standard of health in cattle, and if, as a result of foot-and-mouth disease, cattle are destroyed, there is adequate compensation. In this Bill the Government are creating a new standard of health in housing. Some houses will not, and, indeed, cannot, attain to that standard, and therefore it is surely obvious, and follows from the policy of the Government themselves, that there should be a fairly reasonable standard of compensation. If the Government will give us these assurances, they will not only relieve the minds of the factors and property owners, but will also relieve the anxieties and doubts of a large number of people throughout the West of Scotland who are dependent on the returns from housing property to give them their means of livelihood.
  9.47 p.m.
  Mr. K I R KWOOD: I would like to begin by replying to the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), because I believe he spoke on behalf of the property owners in the West of Scotland. There is no doubt from his speech that he was well briefed. I interrupted him when he was making great play with the fact that the property owners in the West of Scotland had to pay the rates on unlet houses. My interjection to him at that time was to the effect that that is perfectly true, but it has only been put into operation within the last 30 years.

  653
  Up till then the city assessor in Glasgow did not tax the property owners, with the result that they held, not only many dwelling-houses, but many shops, unoccupied when there was a demand for both shops and houses, in order to force up rents. When the present city assessor put into force the law and taxed unlet property, the immediate effect was a reduction in rents all round. I have only given that as one of several illustrations that I am going to give to show who are the wise, gentle old maids, widows and orphans with whom we are dealing here, and for whom special consideration is asked.
  Then the right hon. Member for Hill-head told us about the sort of people who are property owners—how there are thousands of them and how the hard earned savings of those who went before them were put into "stane and lime"—a good old Scottish phrase—in order to safeguard their descendants when they went away. That was not because they were anxious to supply houses which the Scottish folk required. That is not what the houses were built for. They were not built to supply people with shelter at all—that was only incidental; they were built, and the money put into them was invested, because it was a safe investment. An investment in what? In the homes of the people. I was born and bred in a house of that type, in the city which the right hon. Member for Hillhead has the honour to represent. We were in that house for 30 years, and the landlord never spent £5 in repairing it.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: You must have taken good care of it?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes, we took good care of it, and that is why it is such a safe investment. That is why the fly old Scotsmen put their money into "stane and lime." The workers recognise that these houses are their homes, and they take care of them. They spend hours—not only the mother of the family, but the husband also—in trying to make their home as comfortable as they possibly can, even in the very poorest localities, even in slum property. When I think of the power that is behind the property that they are trying to defend, trying to get a square deal, because several of them have written to me—factors, chambers of commerce, shopkeepers, and so on, all individuals who are looking after private
  654
  gain, and are not looking after the welfare of my native land at all—that never enters into their cranium—
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: When the hon. Member was working for wages, was he not working for private gain—his own gain?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes, that is perfectly true. The workers have to sell the only commodity that they have—their labour power incorporated in their bodies, which, in order to live, they have to sell to the employer. But this is quite a different matter—
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: No.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I leave you, Mr. Speaker, to be the judge. In this case they have never done anything personally; it has been handed on to them and to their fathers. I have two cases in which personal friends are appealing to him not to speak in the direction in which I am speaking now, because their father left them this property and they are living on the proceeds—they have never done an article of work.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: You must have been their father.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. and learned Member had better inquire into these things; he is better acquainted with that side of life than I am. They have never done anything; the money has been invested, and they draw from the property, which has been handed down from generation to generation. There is another thing that I want to put before the House. It is no use our giving instances of this poor widow and that poor orphan. We have to deal with a gigantic affair. The hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train) is not, I am sorry to see, now in his place. I had intended to make reference to him, but the last time I did so when he was not present he thought I should have waited till he came back. My time is too limited for that, so I shall not make the reference; I must let it go.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead made his case for those who are getting no return for the money they have invested in property. He said they provided for our needs, and we have no right to penalise them now because we have raised the standard of housing that

  655
  met the requirements of the day when those houses were built, 30 or 40 years ago. I should agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should not penalise folk in that way if the same idea were put into operation where the worker is concerned. A change has come over civilisation. We are all out for peace and do not need to build so many battleships, and, in order to give an indication that we were in earnest, the Prime Minister went to America and interviewed the then President. As a gesture of his earnestness—he was always great on gestures—he stopped the building of a cruiser in my constituency. The firm was compensated but the workers were not. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
  I took the matter up and questioned the Prime Minister in the House, and he said the compensation that the workers would get was our incomparable social services. If our incomparable social services are good enough for the workers. they are good enough for the property owners. They have no more right to be compensated than the workers, and, if it were left to us, you may take it from me that we would deal more generously with the widow and orphan or any others who were going to be hard hit as the result of raising the standard of housing than the ruling class of the country are prepared at the moment to deal with the working-classes when they get thrown out. There is not only the case of peace; there is also rationalisation in industry. All over the country engineering shops and shipyards have been shut down and scrapped and the employers compensated. For the workers there are our incomparable social services. Then we are supposed to be hard hearted because we stand up for our rights and draw attention to this mode of procedure regarding the workers.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: The shipyards were not compensated when they were shut down. The shipbuilders made an arrangement mutually among themselves. That was also done with the English licensed premises, and it is quite competent for the workers to do the same.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: We shall have no objection to the property owners doing the same thing, and I am going to show how they can afford to do it. In 1909
  656
  and 1910 there were 30,000 unoccupied houses in Glasgow and 42,000 scheduled as unfit for human habitation. Since then all those houses are occupied and the property owners have been drawing rents from them. The Glasgow medical officer of health reports that there are 71,000 tenement houses without bathrooms or sanitary facilities and that 600,000 people live in dwellings which should have been scrapped a quarter of a century ago. Glasgow property owners have obtained £15,000,000 in increased rents since the War. The rent commission of inquiry reported in 1925 that property owners all over Scotland were receiving from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 a year increase of rent, so that they have received an aggregate of at least £48,000,000 in the last 12 years.
  Sir PATRICK FORD: Any suggestion of compensation is not for people who own that type of house, but for people who own a quite reasonable type of house which now has to have more conveniences attached to it.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Labour party are quite prepared to meet a just demand at all times. We would never at any time be parties to crushing either the widow or the orphan, or the strong and the robust. The party to which I belong, and for which I speak, believe on this point that, if any of us or a party of us have either physical or mental equipment, it was not given to us for our own aggrandisement, but in order that we might defend those who cannot defend themselves. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) told me that he was going away, but I said that I was going to say a word to him. In the last Debate he criticised the Government because they did not get on fast enough with this question of overcrowding. He is the last person in this House who should have done anything of the kind. I said some harsh things about him on the last occasion, and I am not going to do that to-day, but the fact remains that when he took over the office of Secretary of State for Scotland the first thing he did was to have a raging campaign throughout my native land in favour of building more houses. He laid the project before the local authorities, and made a great speech in Edinburgh which was broadcast from one end of the land to the

  657
  other, and the local authorities trembled in their shoes at this mighty man who had arrived in their midst.
  Clydebank at that time had not a Labour majority, but the town council unanimously declared for the building of more houses because of overcrowding. That was their belief. We have heard the right hon. Gentleman giving the Government gyp to-day because they had not attended to the matter. They negotiated with the Secretary of State for Scotland and eventually determined to come and see him, but he refused to see them. I then made tracks for the Secretary of State but—it might have been fortunate or otherwise—he could not be seen. However, I got the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who, to his everlasting credit, as far as I am concerned, received the deputation from Clydebank. But the Secretary of State for Scotland turned them down. Why? Because the same set of individuals who are opposing this Bill because they fear that compensation is not to be paid to those who own houses which are unfit for human habitation, are the individuals who are responsible for the bad housing conditions in Scotland. There are no worse housing conditions in Europe than those which prevail in Scotland. And yet the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness rose in his place to-day, and got at the Government because they are not attending to their business and making amends regarding overcrowding. It was because of his reference, and his mannerisms in making the reference, that no Government, including the Labour Government, had done any better than the present Government, that I thought it was due to me to do what I could, at any rate, to put him in his place.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I did not refer to the question whether the Labour Government had done better than the present Government or not. I only said that in one particular respect they had not done what I wanted, which was the variable subsidy, except in one Bill for which I gave full credit to Mr. Tom Johnston as a Labour Member of the Cabinet. So the hon. Member must not say that I was unfair to the Labour Government. As regards the present Government, I gave full credit to them for the effort which they are making in this Bill, which I said was cast in a massive mould, and I said, that subject to what I heard from the
  658
  Under-Secretary of State, I was prepared to support the Bill. Therefore, from what I heard of the last two sentences the hon. Member seems to have been misrepresenting my position.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Hon. Members will notice that the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness did not touch the kernel of the statement I have made. He went round-about and made a reference to the Government, but he did not deny, because he dare not, that he turned down Clydebank, who asked him to give them liberty to do what he suggested that all Scottish local authorities should do, and that was to build houses to meet the demand. It was not a partial vote in Clydebank but a unanimous vote of a town council which was not Labour, though they are now, I am glad to say. It was the pressure that was brought to bear by the same individuals who are bringing pressure to bear on all the Tory Members from Glasgow at the present moment. It was the same organisation. The Tory Members are making a grave mistake when they come to the Government and say that the Bill is an irritating Bill and causing terrible trouble in our constituencies. They should have the courage to stand up against it. They are only a few individuals who do not count. It is wrong to affect the lives of tens of thousands of decent men and women in this way, and we should not allow the idea of self-interest to enter into the matter for one minute. Those who fight to retain the tenements and continue our system of housing which is undermining Scotland's physique, are giving the country the evil reputation of having the highest infantile mortality in the United Kingdom.
  10.14 p.m.
  Mr. SKELTON: We have had a most interesting Debate, which has covered the main points suitable for discussion on the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind very fully and adequately, and I think that all who have listened to it will feel that the main arguments for and against the Bill, if there are any arguments against it, are clear in their minds, and it remains for me to deal not with every point of detail—for some of the points that have been raised are clearly Committee points—but with the main arguments and points of view which have been made from many quarters of the House.

  659
  I must not forget that there is before the House a reasoned Motion for the rejection of the Bill. It is not often that in the last speech in favour of a Motion for the rejection of a Bill one is told, as I was told by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), that we must not listen to certain sections of criticism but must fight on with the Bill, because the welfare of tens of thousands of people depend upon it. I entirely agree with the hon. Member.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hope the Under-Secretary is not going to take advantage of that remark. It was simply in reference to the compensation of individuals who may demand compensation far beyond what they are in justice entitled to.
  Mr. SKELTON: I do not intend to strain my hon. Friend's language to any undue extent but, however qualified it may have been, I did listen to that phrase with satisfaction. I think it represents the point of view and reflects the opinion, not only of hon. Members opposite but of hon. Members below the Gangway, who have also put down a Motion for rejection of the Bill, and that when the Bill goes to the Scottish Standing Committee—which assumes that they do not expect that the Motion for rejection will be accepted—they will do their best to help the Committee to make the Bill the best that it can possibly be made. Of course, it is the duty of an Opposition carrying out its work of opposing, to put down a Motion for rejection for the purpose of criticism. I do not, therefore, propose to deal at great length with the actual terms of either of the Motions for rejection.
  I think my hon. Friend opposite strained somewhat the meaning of the provisions of the clause whereby a, local authority may transfer to a Commission the work of managing houses. One must realise that the main object of that criticism was to express a feeling that local authorities should not delegate their work to unrepresentative bodies. I think, however, he stressed the phraseology of the clause, which is permissive only. I will not enter into the constitutional question, because that has been dealt with and answered by my hon. Friend the junior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh). Let me deal with one
  660
  or two points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). With regard to the special subsidy for distant areas I do not think the language of the Bill is in any doubt. The test of whether such a subsidy will be exigible is whether or not the cost of the erection of houses is specially great, owing to the distance and so on. Low valuation is not taken into account. It is the cost of the house and not the state of the valuation that is the test.
  On another point which he raised he asked whether small burghs will get the advantage. Certainly, if the class of house in a small burgh, as most of them are, is the class of house described in Clause 27. My right hon. Friend raised what I thought was somewhat of a hare with regard to the figures in the Financial Resolution. The object of those figures is to show, on the estimated amount of construction, what the Treasury expense will he in the years immediately ahead. On the strength of that, my right hon. Friend asked me what was the total number of houses which we expect to complete in the three years. That is to say, what will be the number of slum clearance houses. I can give him an estimate, and that is that we expect in the year 1935–36 to complete something like 22,500 slum clearance houses, in the following year 15,000 and in the next year 10,000. That will complete the five-year programme. If he doubts our capacity to keep to this programme, may I say that the tenders approved for 1934 were for over 20,000 houses, and that the tenders which have been approved as the weeks go by during the present year, give us every reason to hope that we shall be able to carry out the programme. We may reasonably expect, with proper administration and organisation and a proper activity at the centre and in the localities, that this will be achieved.
  The House knows the great activity that has been shown in regard to slum clearance since my right hon. Friend directed his attention to the problem. We are speeding up in slum clearance and may expect to keep a, steady pressure, and as regards overcrowding, I see no reason to doubt that 25,000 completed houses is quite within the bounds of possibility and that with slum clearance these houses will become predominantly

  661
  decrowded. The phraseology of Clause 64 is a matter of some concern to hon. Members. The general intention of that clause is consolidating, and so far as it deals with existing houses there is no intention to raise entirely new standards. If the clause is read as a whole it will be found that it gives ample scope for variation. By-laws have to be confirmed by the Department of Health, and if a by-law of unreasonable strictness is put up to the Department by any local authority, if it should desire to do such a thing, then the exercise of administrative common sense would come in and the by-law would be put into a reasonable and fair form.
  The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) spoke with great clearness and force upon the general effect of the building of houses to deal with overcrowding upon existing houses in Scotland, and particularly in Glasgow. Broadly, his fear was that by building the necessary houses to accommodate the people who are overcrowded at present—the overcrowding exists mainly in the one and two-roomed houses—you would cause a large number of these one and two-roomed houses to be put out of use, to become empty. His second point was based on a reading of Clause 64 which I do not think he will hold now, that a large number of houses would become useless if there were to be a substantial raising of the standard of existing houses, such as he supposed to be involved in Clause 64.
  The main result of his argument was that a hardship is involved in the Bill on existing owners, and he made a few suggestions as to how we should deal with that hardship. The first suggestion was that the houses which, it was assumed, this Bill would throw out of use and which would become empty, should be given the advantage of de-rating, should be relieved of owners' rates while they were empty. It will be seen that that proposition, given the assumption of a certain measure of equity, would have to be carefully considered. I think the House will agree that if you can point to a particular piece of legislation affecting especially a particular piece of property, it is a matter for consideration at all events as to whether you are not impressing upon that particular interest or piece of property too great a hardship. The first proposal that there should be
  662
  relief of rates for the houses which, on my right hon. Friend's assumption, are going to be rendered empty by this Bill, is a proposal which at all events directly deals with an assumed grievance. I shall not say more on that point.
  The other proposal to which my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members have addressed themselves, was that a subsidy should be given to private owners for reconditioning, on the ground that by that means you would be dealing with and meeting an assumed hardship. The kind of subsidy that was referred to was the subsidy which was first described in the Whitson Report. The proposal for the relief of rates on houses which are specially affected by the Bill is at all events a direct way of meeting that particular point. I would add, with regard to the second proposal, that it does not seem to me, when it is analysed, to give any advantage to the householder from the point of view from which it was proposed.
  The proposal of the Whitson Committee was that 50 per cent. of the cost of reconditioning should be met by the State and the local authority, but with a maximum of £75, and it was said that a great deal of the reconditioning in view could be done for sums of about £80 or £100. Take the figure of £80, by way of example. That would mean that the State and the local authority would give £40. A typical case which was referred to as suitable for reconditioning—it is the best case that can be taken—was the case of a tenement each storey of which contains three houses, two of which are two-roomed houses, and one a one-roomed house in the centre, and the proposal is that the one-roomed house should be converted into a bathroom and lavatory for the two-roomed houses on either side. Assuming that the cost is £80, the suggestion is that the public authority should give £40, and that that would be a real advantage to property owners. Would it?
  Assume the reconditioning is done. What happens? One house out of the three ceases to be a rent bearing subject. The owner of the three houses loses the rent of one.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is not the point.
  Mr. SKELTON: I am sure my hon. Friend and I approach this matter from

  663
  different points of view, but perhaps he will allow me to complete my argument. One of the three houses ceases to bring in the rent of £13 or £15, or whatever it may be, and, as to that loss of rent, the Whitson Committee makes no suggestion at all except that rents would be controlled by the local authority. With regard to the actual cost of reconditioning the owner only gets half. Therefore, what the owner, for whom this is supposed to be so great 'an advantage, would have to consider before reconditioning under the Whitson scheme would be this: Can I afford to spend £40 myself and as a result lose the rent of one of the three houses? I venture to say that that suggestion, from the point of view put forward by my right hon. Friend himself, is unworkable unless the rents of the other two-roomed houses are substantially raised.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: To the workers?
  Mr. SKELTON: Is it practicable? I do not myself believe that in the economic conditions of the West of Scotland—though they are improving—it would be practicable, even if it were desirable, to raise the rents of two-roomed houses which have been reconditioned. I do not believe it is possible and if it were possible I do not myself believe that it is desirable.
  Sir R. HORNE: Does not my hon. Friend see that his argument amounts to this, that as it is expected that the private property-owner will be killed out anyhow, there is no use giving him a draught of oxygen beforehand. What he fails to see is that although, as I agree, the extra revenue which he is going to get under the conditions which have been described will be nothing, nevertheless he will be able to preserve something which is still valuable to him, namely, some portion of his invested capital. That is what has to be considered. May I ask my hon. Friend, if that is his view of what is going to be the result to the private owner, why do they dangle this carrot before him in the Bill, asking hire, by himself and entirely unaided, to recondition the property and then saying they will "vet" him for five years?
  Mr. SKELTON: I will deal with that point in a moment. I am dealing now,
  664
  I hope clearly, with the proposition of my right hon. Friend that there are two ways of helping private owners who are affected by the Bill, one by relieving the houses affected of rates, and the other by the project which I am discussing. I am not discussing the merits of the question as to whether the private owner ought to get subsidies or any of those points. I merely say that unless, as a sequel to the reconditioning, the rents of the two remaining houses are raised, so as to compensate for the loss of the third house, I do not believe the scheme would' be workable.
  Mr. LEONARD: The hon. Gentleman in giving recognition to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) suggested that he was going to consider the derating of decrowded houses. Is he bearing in mind the fact that the decrowded house will still be available for smaller families?
  Mr. SKELTON: In the meantime I am only dealing with this matter on the assumption of my right hon. Friend and, on his assumption, I venture to say that while his first proposal is certainly of assistance, his second proposal is not of assistance. I wish to put that most clearly to him, because I think it is fundamental. The next point which he makes is that there will be a large number of one and two-roomed houses still existing, but empty. I think he forgets that in redevelopment areas many of these one and two-roomed houses will be demolished, and the question there, the question of equity which no Parliament could refuse to consider, is this: Where a one or two-roomed or other house is demolished in the course of a redevelopment area scheme, is compensation to be paid along fair lines? You must remember that here is a habitable house being demolished. On that question I would only say that the demolition of habitable houses under improvement or redevelopment or clearance schemes, whatever you like to call them, has been going on since 1923, and that it is not proposed to alter the method of compensation which has been going on in relation to the 1923 slum clearance Act and the 1930 Act.
  Broadly speaking, that method of compensating for habitable houses which have been demolished in the course of an im

  665
  provement scheme does not date even from 1923, but dates practically from the Unionist Housing Act of 1890. From 1923 onwards, thanks to those clearance schemes, improvement schemes, and so on, it has been necessary to give compensation for a considerable number of habitable houses demolished in the course of the clearances. The owners have been compensated along the same principle that compensation will be given under this Bill.
  Sir R. HORNE: On the basis of a market value which you have destroyed.
  Mr. SKELTON: No, Sir. The assumption that this Bill has had any effect upon market value is, I believe, a relic of a misreading of Clause 64, and if my right hon. Friend will look at the Unionist legislation of 1923 and the Labour Act of 1930, which had exactly the same effect upon habitable property under certain conditions as this Bill will have, he will realise that compensation has had to be paid for a number of habitable houses in Scotland. We have had no complaints as to the amount of compensation given. So far as I know, no questions have been asked in the House, and no complaints have reached me. I cannot put it in a more categorical way, because the question of compensation is not one for the Department, but for the local authorities and individuals concerned. But I wish to make it very clear to the House and to the wider audience outside that now that another Bill will deal with habitable houses existing in re-development areas, no new principle of compensation detrimental to the interests of the owner of a habitable house is being introduced, but that the principles which have been in operation under the 1930 Act and which, practically unchanged, have been in existence since 1890, are the principles which will apply. That appears to me to be a matter of the very greatest importance.
  I have dealt in this broad way with the main question of the one-and two-roomed houses as affected by this Bill, but let me emphasise once again my belief that when the system of re-development schemes is in operation, you will. not have that great mass of empty one-and two-roomed houses that is sometimes held before us as a probable result. I think many of them will be swept away and compensation
  666
  given, as I believe, on fair terms. It is further to be recollected that when the housing of the population is re-adjusted to the needs of the families, there will be considerable demand for two-roomed houses. When the standard of overcrowding is discussed people talk as if all families were increasing units, but after a certain stage the size of families decreases. It decreases when the children grow up. I think—and I am not alone in this view—that the utility of two-roomed houses in the future has naturally but inaccurately been very much underestimated. That is entirely apart from any question, which cannot of course be argued about, as to the probable size of future families. All we know is that, on the whole, the size of families tends to decline and that process may continue.
  I am satisfied that there are not in the proposals that we put before the House those elements of injustice and of danger to particular classes of the community that are anticipated, and I venture to say that we would not be responsible for a Bill which put undue pressure and hardship upon any section of the community. I do not believe that in principle the point made by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me is one to which he himself would adhere. I do not think anybody with such a burning sense of injustice as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs would say, when he thought the matter out, that injustice did not matter when it was applied to only a few people. We must in social legislation see that we do not put pressure, hardship and injustice upon a few or many. Such criticism cannot be made of this Bill, and echoes of it still remain in this Debate as an aftermath, I think, of a misunderstanding of Clause 64. When this Debate is fully considered by those who have taken part in it and who study the OFFICIAL REPORT, they will realise the true interpretation of Clause 64, and I believe that many of the fears that they have expressed will turn out to be out-of-date and no longer existing.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the point I raised in regard to compensation? Why are the Government so anxious to compensate those who will be penalised because of new ideas in housing, when they are not so anxious to meet the just demand of workers who are penalised as the result of rationalisation?
  Mr. SKELTON: If the hon. Member has done me the kindness to follow the' observations I have put before the House, he will see that I have been dealing with the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead that there is a particular hardship. I was merely making a comment on his two suggestions, and further than that I do not propose to go at this stage. Before I close, let me recall, what I do not think has ever been far absent from the mind of the House, and that is the object of this Bill. On any historical question people give different explanations, but my own belief is that the lower standard of housing in Scotland as compared with England, rests on the fact that until a much later date than England, Scotland was a very poor country. Great parts of England have enjoyed great prosperity ever since the Middle Ages. Most of Scotland was terribly impoverished until the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution is not so far back, and a standard of housing is something of very slow growth, and it is not surprising that the Scottish population on the whole finds itself worse housed and overcrowded—and, indeed, endures those conditions more readily—than a population which has far greater traditions of wealth behind it.
  But let us make no mistake. At this time, when progress moves upon such rapid feet; when the idiosyncrasies and the points of view of one district are obliterated in the general quickening of transport and the speed with which news travels from one part of the world to another, we cannot allow the present housing conditions to continue. I reecho what my right hon. Friend said, that by far the most grievous feature of Scottish social life to-day is overcrowding. Much is said—my hon. Friends opposite will not misunderstand me, or think this was the motive of this Bill—of the economic difficulties of Scotland, the way that Scotland is falling back in the race for industrial development, and so on. I think those views are exaggerated., but if we want to attract new industries to our country we must bring them to a country where the workers are well housed, where their inner spirits are filled with that sense of content for which good housing is essential, and though that is not our motive for dealing with a crying social need, I believe
  668
  that when this Bill is operated and this appalling proportion of overcrowding-15 out of every 100 living more than three to a room—is steadily decreasing, we shall have a factor in Scottish life which will be of direct assistance towards its future industrial and general prosperity.
  The suggestion has been made from time to time—not in this House, but I have seen it elsewhere—that there is something revolutionary in a Government which contains Tories dealing with overcrowding. May I read one sentence from what was said by a Tory statesman—I will tell the House who it was in a moment:
  "After all, whatever political arrangements we may adopt, whatever the political Constitution of our State may be, the foundation of all its prosperity and welfare must be that the mass of the people shall be honest and manly and shall have common sense. How can you expect that these conditions will exist among people subjected to the frightful influences which the present overcrowding of our poor produces?"
  That is not a revolutionary proposition of an Under-Secretary in 1935. That was the great Lord Salisbury, speaking in the year 1884; and I do not think that even those among us who are Tories and have the greatest respect and belief for tradition—and I myself am not wanting in that respect—will feel that a step which is going to remedy a grievance pointed out in 1884 by one of the greatest of Tory leaders can, from a Unionist point of view, be regarded as an unjustifiable revolution.
  10.50 p.m.
  Brigadier -General Sir WILLIAM ALEXANDER: I do not propose to detain the House more than a minute or two. I have sat here continuously since a quarter to four in order to make a speech which I thought it necessary to make, especially in regard to a constituency such as mine, right in the heart of Glasgow's industrial area, where the bulk of the property consist of single-apartment and two-apartment houses. Of single-apartment houses there are 1,700; of two-roomed apartment houses there are close on 16,000; of three-roomed houses there are close on 3,000 and there are less than 5,000 with more than five rooms. When I heard the statement of the Secretary of State to-day, I decided that I would cut out a great deal of the

  669
  criticism I proposed to put forward in reference to the undoubted injustices in this Bill and the need of a fair deal for all parties. It was my view, on hearing the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that he had taken a brave and a wise course; and that instead of this Bill, as issued, being twin sister to the Unemployment Assistance Bill, we are going to receive consideration and a drastic improvement and amendment of the Bill, especially in regard to Clause 64. But when the Under-Secretary delivered his speech, it appeared to me to a very large extent to countermand the commitments and promises made by the Secretary of State.
  We are all in favour of the ideas and the hopes of this Bill so far as overcrowding is concerned. The only exception that we take to the Bill is that it creates injustices for certain classes of decent, respectable people who have invested savings in these properties, and also for landlords. We also believe that there is a better and more businesslike way of dealing with this overcrowding than by this policy of simply building new houses and giving no compensation for properties which could be reconditioned at much less cost to the State and to the taxpayer. I will give an idea of one way in which a considerable improvement could be made both in the matter of finance and in the matter of the time to be occupied in dealing with this problem of de-crowding. In my own constituency, which is typical of many constituencies in Glasgow, the bulk of the working-class property is of the single-room, two-room and three-room type. In a tenement you have a single-room house in the centre and two-room houses on either side. It is proposed that these properties, which are built of good, solid stone, could be economically reconditioned to meet the requirements of this Bill.
  It does not seem to have occurred to anyone that it would pay to compensate the owners of those properties to recondition, and to pay them well, because while you cut out the single apartment in order to convert it into a bathroom and the conveniences for each of the two-roomed houses on either side, the tenants can still keep those two rooms, and there is no more disturbance than putting out one person from a single apartment, and you achieve more cheaply and quickly a
  670
  solution of the evil of overcrowding which we are trying to abate. It will be necessary in Committee materially and drastically to alter the injustices in the Bill in order to make the Bill popular to the mass of the people in Scotland. There is one thing in Scotland that we do like, and that is a square deal for all classes irrespective of rank. I hope that in Committee we shall be able to eliminate the weak spots in this otherwise good Bill, so that it may come back to the House for passing as a sane, sound, commercial and popular proposition.
  10.57 p.m.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I, also, am very much disturbed after the speech of the Under-Secretary of State. I took it from the speech of the Secretary of State that there was to be a very definite exclusion of existing houses, which were to be compelled to have these desirable conditions imposed upon them, but now it seems that there is at the end of the Bill a sub-section which says:
  "The operation of any by-laws made under this section may be limited to houses of particular classes or in particular areas."
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is in Clause 64?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Yes. This can be dealt with over the heads of the local authority. We must remember that we are dealing with a Government Department and we have seen such handling of the unemployment business, and we do not know what they may do. We know that the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. As the result of the introduction of the Bill there has been an extraordinary amount of uneasiness, not only among the property owners but among the workers, who are afraid that their privacy is to be disturbed and that inspectors may be coming in late at night to see how many people are sleeping in a room.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: They did that.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: That is the sort of thing, and there is disturbance in every class of the community. Hon. Members must not take it from the attitude of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) or, still more, from the attitude of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that most of the working-class in Scotland

  671
  believe that the man who has erected a house, although it may have been done out of the fruits of his own labour, has done them an injury. I never could see why there should be this feeling against a man who built a house and sheltered another man. I should have thought that would be very popular. It is very like a man who lends money to his friend—who loses his money and his friend—the ordinary rational being would say that as long as a man did not over-charge or over-rent, but took a small and moderate return, as many property owners take from small property investments, that was not a person to be done down and not compensated. He is spoken of by some hon. Members opposite as if it was a criminal offence to own property, as though the property owner were a man whom it was no midemeanour to chisel out of his halfpence. As a hard working father, the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs has, I hope, accumulated a little, and will not leave his sons without anything. I hope he will have the good sense not to put his money into house property. But these gentlemen do not represent the tenants. What always strikes me in the working man's relations with his landlord is his astonishing honesty and desire to give the landlord a square deal. He has no hatred for his landlord. He pays his rent, wishing it were not so high, but the higher rent is camouflaged by the disgraceful rating system in Scotland. It is scandalous that the poor landlord, even though he only gets a return of 2½ or 3 per cent., should have to bear the unpopularity due to these high rates. It was the city assessor of Glasgow who got the Bill through which mixed up the two things. The tenants do not know that it is the wicked corporation that is piling up these enormous charges; they think it is the poor landlord.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of correction. It is not the corporation at all that is to blame because the rents are high. The city assessor rates the assessment on the rent, and it is because the landlords have made the rents so high that the rates are correspondingly high.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: But the landlord's rent has been restricted, and now he has to collect both the rent and the rates. He is made the Stubbs, the debt
  672
  collector of the corporation, and no one is more unpopular than a debt collector. He gets all the unpopularity that ought to attach to the corporation. I remember a sermon being preached on the importunate creditor, and its being discovered afterwards that the importunate creditor was the preacher's own landlord. He never thought of the roof that protected him from the cold Scottish winds and the hail and the snow. It is like a man who borrows your umbrella. The landlord is the person who puts the umbrella over the tenant. Why should there not be some little consideration for him?
  Why is there so much overcrowding in Scotland? It has been largely due to cold and hunger. People took in lodgers to help them with their household expenses. Food is infinitely more important than even a house, though of course both are important. What we really want is better feeding of the people. How did this overcrowding come about in Glasgow? It was because, during the War, there was a tremendous rush of people into the city owing to the colossal wages that were being paid to the munition workers—£10 and £15 a week. On the other hand, the rents were restricted, so that the one person who got nothing was the man who sheltered the people. Then they stayed on in Glasgow because they thought it was better than the place from which they came, and that was the real cause of the overcrowding.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is all over Scotland.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is all over Scotland because Scotland is always a cold country. If people are given rooms and no means of artificially heating them, they will crowd together. If the buildings were on sensible lines, with heating pipes passing through them. there would be no temptation to overcrowd, but if the people are not given the coals with which to heat their rooms, they are of no value to them, and they all crowd into one room. Mention has been made of the fact that many people are sleeping in kitchens, but there is no more comfortable place to sleep in than a kitchen. Sensible people want to keep warm in the cold Scottish winter, and that is the reason for the small Scottish houses. Of course the time may come when we have a better system of housing, with central heating for whole streets and towns, and when

  673
  it will be possible to turn on hot water from taps, but in the meantime, as long as the Scottish climate continues as it has been in my experience, there will always be a tendency for people to crowd together for the mere purpose of keeping warm. It is not the size of the house or the size of the rooms that makes for happiness. Hon. Members who have bibles may have read in the Old Testament that it is better to dwell in the corner of a housetop where love is than with a brawling woman in a wide room.
  Under Clause 5 people are to be licensed to have persons in excess of the permitted number to sleep. What a monstrous proposition! There is a town in my constituency where battleships come in occasionally. The inhabitants, women especially, beg me to get battleships to visit the place. One woman told me she could put up 12 sailors in one room at 1s. 6d. a night and a shilling for breakfast and she could make enough money to keep her children in boots and clothes for the winter. After all, the doors are open and there is the greatest possible propriety. There is safety in numbers.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do you not think it a disgrace that she should have to depend on that to get boots?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Of course it is. but what have you clone to help them? I have tried to keep the shipyards and distilleries open. There is no doubt that we have a lot of bad houses. We have heard from the hon. Member for Shettleston about houses with the sanitary arrangements all wrong. If he would use his influence with the plumbers to do their job properly, I will get the lawyers to do their work and we shall get houses for the poor people a great deal cheaper. I do not think it is possible for the worker to pay more than he is doing. If you give them bath rooms and the landlord sacrifices the rent for the single house, only getting the same rent for the two houses with bath rooms, there will not be overcrowding and within a year or two the difficulty will be to a large extent solved.
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: It is an unusual procedure for Government supporters to continue the Debate after. the Government spokesman has spoken. It is not
  674
  uncommon for the Opposition to do that, but most uncommon on the part of Government supporters. I am not criticising hon. Members for doing a most unusual thing in carrying on the Debate after the Government speaker had closed it, and I make no apology for following the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) as this to us is a serious problem.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: A very serious problem.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: It is a problem which cannot be treated even after 11 o'clock at night with levity by the House of Commons. It is a problem affecting the well-being of great masses of our people.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Nobody has contradicted that.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not suggesting what either one Member or another has done. Whatever we may say about the Bill, it affects great masses of people. It is not a little thing. It affects districts throughout the whole of Scotland. I agree a good deal with some of the criticisms that have been made here. One of the reasons for my speaking is to reply to the hon. Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Sir W. Alexander). One of the matters at issue, and all must recognise it, is that the great masses of the people are concerned about housing, but, because of the great issue of poverty, even housing has become a secondary consideration. It is not because they do not wish to have houses, but because other ideas claim so much of their time and attention.
  When I heard the hon. Member for the Central Division claiming to speak for his division by saying that in his division one-and two-roomed houses, if you gave the owner the subsidy, could be made into even better houses for the workpeople, I really wondered if he knew his division. I know every street there. I have walked through it all. There has not been a house, with the exception of those built by the City Improvement Trust, built in that division in the last 60 years. Indeed, the average is 80 years, and he comes here with such a proposal. He thinks that it is fair that we should hand over public money at times—and this is used in connection with Conservative arguments

  675
  —when we have only a limited sum to spend. When we have only that limited sum, the amount needed for human needs is to be handed over to people who have property, some of which is 60 years old. What happens in any other business? Those people have to set aside something each year for depreciation and renewal. In this case they have not set aside a penny. I heard the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) read out a letter to which must be given a certain amount of sympathy. He stated that it was the case of a widow who lost her husband through drowning, that she had two children, and, he pointed out, was unable to pay for the reconditioning of her property. She is not the only widow. What he is claiming is a type of treatment for that widow which is not granted to other widows.
  Sir R. HORNE: I am asking nothing for that widow except plain justice; that, and nothing more. I ask that her property shall not be destroyed by Act of Parliament, without compensation.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: She is not the only widow to-day not receiving a pension. I could give scores of cases, but they have no property. The problem here is not merely a housing problem, but a problem for this country to see that that widow is decently treated, but not as an owner of property. She should be decently treated whether she owns property or not. He became a little annoyed when I asked where he got certain figures. He has not answered. When a man gives figures, it is not uncivil to ask him where he got them. One is entitled to know the source of them. If they come from the property owners, then we know the source and we can give them their proper place in the argument. The property owners are behind this agitation and, naturally, they make the figures for themselves. They have not been supplied by the local authority.
  Sir R. HORNE: The proper way for the hon. Member to deal with this matter is not to revile the source of the figures, but to challenge their accuracy.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: No.
  Sir R. HORNE: Certainly. These figures have been published and they have been public property. There is no ques
  676
  tion who has supplied them to the Press. One of the colleagues of the hon. Member knows where the figures come from. The proper course for the hon. Member for Gorbals is to challenge their accuracy.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: That is the old dodge.
  Sir R. HORNE: It is no dodge at all.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished advocate, and he is not doing credit to his profession. What have I heard in the courts? I put this to any barrister: I have heard learned judges say that if a man makes an assertion it is not for me to disprove it but for the man to prove it. My right hon. Friend has made an assertion about figures and he ought to prove it. Instead of doing so he says: "They come from the house owners, and because you are not a house owner, because you have no access to the facts you have to accept them." He has made no attempt to prove them. I hope I do not speak ungenerously of a colleague, but we feel that he does not do himself or Scotland justice. He has ability—I only wish had half as much—he has great capacity. We meet in the Scottish Standing Committee, where I have gone for 12 or 13 years, and discuss human issues, the Poor Law and other things affecting his constituents, although not to the same degree as they affect my constituents, but I have never yet seen him there. He comes here to-night, when there is an issue of human life under discussion—not merely the interests of property owners but the welfare of the residents in the houses, and how they are to live, and we hear his voice claiming justice for the owners of property. Never once during all the years that we have been discussing these other human issues has be ever helped us. It does not do him or his movement credit.
  This agitation has been carefully engineered. Why? The trend of the Government in recent months in the Scottish Office has been to make concessions to us. In Scottish Poor Law they have made concession after concession. The property owners were not likely to wait. Unlike the people on unemployment insurance, who can only agitate after their case has been decided, the property owners agitate before legislation is passed, and are now demanding

  677
  from the Government more in the way of concessions than should be given by any public authority to private owners. This agitation is engineered in order to make this Bill a battleground between the vested interests in property and the Government. We do not intend to allow that to be the battleground; we intend to make the condition of the great masses of poor people the issue. Everyone has said that we must deal with the canker of overcrowding, and at the same time we have heard a great deal about compensation. I have a case in my pocket of a person who claimed insurance from a company, the judge awarded damages, but the person cannot be paid because the company has gone broke. He cannot get one penny. And we are told that property owners are to be singled out for different treatment.
  We shall divide against the Bill because it does not go far enough. What is the use of giving people new homes unless you give them incomes upon which they can live in these new homes? That is the crucial issue. If I had to choose between a bad house and an income I should take the income. Food is the first consideration for these poor people, food and clothing, and unless you provide them with a sufficient income you are only making the problem worse. The Bill does not face the problem of income. I should be the last to depreciate the value of decent housing conditions, but we do feel misgivings that the Bill does nothing to deal with the income problem. As to the number of people to the house, this is no new problem in Glasgow. I think, however, that the fear of inspection has been exaggerated. It has not been badly abused in Glasgow. The only thing is that I do not like it. I do not like people having power to walk in and see whether you have three, four or five living in a house. Once the Government makes a stand for human decency, and it is accepted by the people, the great mass will carry it out without any need for investigation and inspection. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) knows that the great mass of the people in Glasgow do not go with their children into a public-house, not so much because of a law against it as because it is not thought decent.
  So let us get decent, human conditions for our people in Scotland. But I look
  678
  upon the principle of any kind of compensation as wrong. These owners have drawn rents from the people. We have heard some reference to the widow owner. I went to the Glasgow small debt court only a short time ago, and on the top of every paper I found that the name of the property owner had to be stated. Out of 300 owners, less than 10 per cent. lived in Glasgow. They lived in every place but Glasgow. They had never seen the property, and carde little how the people lived in it so long as the owners got enough profit out of it. I have no sympathy to give them. When people are universally unpopular among the great mass of fair-minded people, there is always a reason for it. They have not become unpopular because they own property, but because of the way in which they have dealt with the masses of the people, and they are the most unpopular section of our community.
  11.27 p.m.
  Mr. STEVENSON: I would not have intervened had it not been necessary to remove a misunderstanding in the minds of certain people with reference to property owners. Particularly I desire to do it, because I have been in close touch with them in my constituency, which includes a large number of very small properties in the east-end of Glasgow. The properties are of different types. I am satisfied with the explanation which was given by the Secretary of State that these property owners are satisfied with the Bill so far as it goes. The objection which certain of us take to the Bill is that it does not go far enough. The position is that the Government have provided that there are to he proper, wholesome, sanitary houses for the people who are at present either in slums under slum-clearing legislation or are living in crowded conditions. But it leaves what I think we can say are the very best of the working classes of our country to occupy houses with the lowest standard of sanitation. It is against that that we complain.
  You may build new houses to provide for those who now occupy the slums, but the working man in Scotland who has been able to pay a small rent is living in a two-roomed house, and there may be one lavatory for three families in many of these houses. These lavatories are kept perfectly clean in many cases, but in other cases, where there is a large

  679
  number of families, they are not in a satisfactory condition. We have to remember the condition of many of the properties in Scotland, and the fact that you cannot build a separate lavatory alongside a bedroom. You require to take away one of the rooms out of the house. I am looking at this matter entirely from the tenant's point of view, and I want to show what the financial effect is going to be on both the landlord and the tenant. So far as the landlord is concerned, if he voluntarily cuts up the building and makes proper lavatory accommodation in the case of the average tenement in Glasgow, he is going to lose a revenue of £20 a, year. If he is going to carry out reconstruction it is going to cost a capital sum of £600, entailing a loss of about £60 a year. That cannot be done. It cannot be paid for by these property owners in Glasgow.
  What we say is that the landlords are prepared to lose their £30 a year if the Government will contribute to the cost of this alteration. Not one penny of additional revenue will go into the landlord's pocket. The sole advantage will accrue to the tenants. That is what is wanted by those whom I represent. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) asked why had we not built up a reserve fund. We have not done so because the conditions in Scotland are entirely different from those in England. When the Rent Restrictions Act was introduced in 1920 property owners here got 40 per cent. increase to defray the extra cost of maintenance. In Scotland owing to the particular rating system we got our 40 per cent. increase and we got 7½ per cent. for the increase of rates on the owner up to that date but that 47½ per cent. had to be added to the value of the property and on that we are rated. The result was that as rates grew the percentage went down and in Glasgow, instead of 40 per
  cent. increase we barely have 15 per cent. There is a great distinction between the two rating systems.
  Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member is talking about something that has only operated in recent years but these houses have been in existence for perhaps 60 or 70 years, before the Rent Restrictions Act or anything of that description.
  Mr. STEVENSON: That is quite right, but there is a large number of houses which were built before the War, and during the War the rates were high. There is another distinction. There is another very great distinction between England and Scotland in this respect, that the owners in Scotland, by paying rates, have been contributing to the building of subsidised houses by the local authority. In other words, the owners have been building houses to compete with their own. The owners also contribute to the public assistance fund, and therefore they are helping to pay the rates of these houses. Nobody has suggested that the Government should recondition these houses where they have only a very few years of life. We are all satisfied that no grant should be given unless the Government is satisfied that there are at least 30 or 40 years' life in the property. We are not suggesting that you should throw money away, but we are suggesting that by reconditioning certain of these tenements which have a good life, it will in the end of the day be very much cheaper to the community at large, and it will achieve the main object of allowing the type of person who most requires it to live in a house that is not only wholesome, but which has up-to-date and proper sanitary arrangements.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 30.

  Division No. 57.]

  AYES.

  [11.38 p.m.

  Albery, Irving James

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

  Alexander, Sir William

  Burghtey, Lord

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Assheton, Ralph

  Burnett, John George

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

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

  Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Casttereagh, Viscount

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

  Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Eillston, Captain George Sampson

  Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

  Evans, Capt Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)

  Cooke, Douglas

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  Buchan, John

  Copeland, Ida

  Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

  Gillett, Sir George Masterman

  Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Gluckstein, Louis Haile

  Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

  Salmon, Sir Isidore

  Goff, Sir Park

  McLean, Major Sir Alan

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Greene. William P. C.

  Maitland, Adam

  Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Spens, William Patrick

  Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)

  May hew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Stevenson, James

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Milne, Charles

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

  Templeton, William P,

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B,

  Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Jamieson, Douglas

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

  Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

  Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Pearson, William G.

  Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Penny, Sir George

  Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Liewellin, Major John J.

  Petherick, M.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midiothian)

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Loftus. Pierce C.

  Ramsay, T. B, W. (Western Isles)

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

  Mabane, William

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

  Resbotham, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Sir Frederick Thompson and Sir Walter Womersley.

  NOES.

  Banfield, John William

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  McGovern, John

  Batey, Joseph

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mainwaring, William Henry

  Buchanan. George

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Maxton, James

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Paling, Wilfred

  Cleary, J. J.

  Kirkwood, David

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon, George

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Daggar, George

  Lawson, John James

  Wilmot, John

  Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

  Leonard, William

  Edwards, Charles

  Lunn, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gardner, Benjamin Walter

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further and better provision for the prevention of overcrowding in Scotland, the re-development of areas in connection with the provision of housing accommodation, and the re-conditioning of buildings, to make provision for the establishment in Scotland of a housing advisory committee and of commissions for the management of local authorities' houses, to amend the enactments relating to the housing operations of public utility societies and other bodies, to provide for the consolidation of housing accounts and subsidies, and to amend the enactments relating to housing in Scotland, and for purpsoes connected with the matters aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of the present Session'), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—
  A.—Of such expenses as may be incurred by the Department of Health for Scotland (hereinafter referred to as the Department')

  (1) in defraying the expenses of any Scottish Housing Advisory Committee appointed under the said Act of the present Session;

  (2) in making, during the five years next after the date on. which the Department recognises any central association or other body established for the purpose of promoting the formation and extension of housing associations and of giving them advice and assistance, grants in aid of the expenses of that association or body;

  (3) in making annual contributions towards expenses incurred by local authorities in providing, with the approval of the Department, housing accommodation required for the purpose of putting an end to overcrowding, or of providing for displacements occurring in carrying out re-development under the said Act of the present Session, being accommodation provided in houses the erection of which is begun on or after the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, but so, however, that such a contribution shall be payable during a period of forty years only, and that the amount thereof shall be the sum of six pounds fifteen shillings in respect of each house, except that—

  683

  (a) where it is necessary for a local authority, being the town council of a large burgh, to provide such accommodation on an extensive scale in one or more re-development areas, and the Department are satisfied that, by reason of the costliness of the provision so made, the total annual expenditure likely to be incurred by the local authority in providing such housing accommodation as aforesaid is substantially greater than the prescribed equivalent per house, the amount of the contribution in respect of a house in any such re-development area may be such larger sum than six pounds fifteen shillings, but not exceeding ten pounds fifteen shillings, as may be sanctioned by the Treasury; and

  (b) where the Department are satisfied that the total annual expenditure likely to be incurred by a local authority other than the town council of a large burgh in providing such housing accommodation as aforesaid is substantially greater than the prescribed equivalent per house, in consequence of the remoteness of the sites of any houses in which such accommodation is provided from centres of supply of building labour and material, and the impractibility of obtaining for such houses higher rents than are ordinarily payable by persons employed in agriculture or fishing, or by persons of a like economic condition, the amount of the contribution in respect of any such house may be such larger sum than six pounds fifteen shillings as may be sanctioned by the Treasury;

  (4) in making, towards expenses incurred by housing associations in the provision of such housing accommodation as aforesaid under arrangements made with local authorities under the said Act of the present Session, the like contributions as if the accommodation had been provided by a local authority;

  (5) in making in respect of works proposed to be executed by a local authority the like contributions as the Department might have made under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931, if the authority had made to another person in respect of the works the maximum grant permissible under those Acts.

  B.—Of such additional sums as may become payable under section twenty-three of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, by reason of

  (1) the extension of the provisions of that section to expenses incurred by local authorities in providing, with the approval of the Department, accommodation required for providing for displacements, occurring in carrying out redevelopment under the said Act of the present Session, from houses unfit for human habitation and not capable at reasonable expense of being rendered so fit, and in maintaining accommodation so provided;

  684

  (2) any provisions of the said Act of the present Session enabling local authorities to include, in an area declared under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930,. to be a clearance area, any land belonging to them and applying the provisions of that Act to land surrounded by or adjoining a clearance area and belonging to local authorities;

  (3) the making of contributions under the said section twenty-three in respect of houses provided by housing associations under arrangements made under the said Act of the present Session;

  (4) any provision of the said Act of the present Session substituting for the provisions of section twenty-five of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, provisions requiring the Department, after the first day of October in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, and in each third succeeding year, to lay before the Commons House of Parliament a draft of an order providing in relation to contributions under the said section twenty-three either—

  (a) for the termination of the Department's obligation to make such contributions in the case of new houses which have not been rendered available until after such date as may be provided for by the said Act of the present Session; or

  (b) for the continuance thereof without alterations; or

  (c) for the alteration of the amount of the contributions in the case aforesaid or of the period for which they are to be payable, or of both.

  C.—Of such additional sums as may become payable under section four of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, by reason of any provisions of the said Act of the present Session enabling the Department to make under the said section contributions towards expenses incurred by local authorities in making grants in respect of applications for assistance received before the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight;
  D.—Of such additional sums as may become payable under section five of the Housing, Town Planning, &c. (Scotland) Act, 1919, or under sub-section (3) of section one of the Housing, &c., Act, 1923, by reason of any provisions of the said Act of the present Session providing that as from the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, the contributions for any financial year to be made by the Department under the said sections in respect of any scheme, other than a scheme for the provision of houses for persons in the employment of, or paid by, a local authority, shall—

  (1) in the case of contributions under the said section five, be the amount, if any, by which the balance of estimated expenditure over estimated income for that year in respect of the scheme exceeds an amount equal to the produce of a rate

  685
  of four-fifths of one penny in the pound for that year levied in the authority's district;

  (2) in the case of contributions under the said sub-section (3) be an amount equal to one-half of such balance as aforesaid, save in so far as may be otherwise determined by the Department with the approval of the Treasury.

  For the purposes of this Resolution—
  the expression `large burgh' has the like meaning as in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929;
  the expression prescribed equivalent ' means the equivalent of ten pounds per annum for forty years or such other equivalent as may be substituted there for by virtue or in consequence of any order made by the Department in pursuance of any provisions of the said Act of the present Session for the review of contributions thereunder;
  the expression 'estimated' means (subject to the provisions of any agreement made before the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-five)—

  (a) in relation to income, estimated upon the basis that income from rents is taken to be an amount equal to the aggregate annual rents of the houses provided or acquired by the local authority under the scheme as accepted at the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-five; and

  (b) in relation to expenditure, estimated upon the basis that expenditure in respect of supervision and management, repairs, unoccupied houses, and irrecoverable rents, is taken to be an amount equal to the aggregate of the two following sums—

  (i) a sum bearing the same proportion to income from rents (estimated as aforesaid) as normal charges in respect of those matters during the five years ending on the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, as accepted, bore to gross estimated rent income during those five years, as accepted; and

  (ii) a sum equal to two per cent. of income from rents (estimated as aforesaid);
  the expression accepted ' means accepted by the Department for the purpose of the determination of the contribution payable by them in respect of the scheme;

  the expression normal charges ' used in relation to repairs means as regards any year in which, in consequence of regulations made by the Department, no charge or a charge of less than fifteen per cent. of the gross estimated rent was made in respect of repairs, a sum equal to the said fifteen per cent."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Sir G. Collins.]
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The supporters of the Government have kept, us here to this
  686
  hour, but I do not think it is too late for us to have a word from the Government on the question I raised in debate on the Bill as to the Housing Management Commissioners. We were told that it was solely within the discretion of a local authority whether it should hand over the management of its housing estates to one of these commissions, but this power is not so permissive. Clause 22 provides that:
  "A housing management commission may, on the application of the local authority, be dissolved by order of the Department, and any such order may provide for the reverting in the local authority of the property vested in the commission and for any other matter consequential on the dissolution of the commission."
  That shows that if the Department does not see eye to eye with a local authority it can, in defiance of the unanimous wish of the local authority, continue the Housing Management Commission in the factoring of the property. The same observations apply to the housing associations under the Bill. I do not intend to divide the Committee on this question. One of the Government Whips smiles. If he wants a division he can have it. He and other English Members saved the Secretary of State for Scotland from defeat tonight, and probably English Members may do so again. My point is that I was told in debate that the power to transfer house factoring to these Commissions was purely permissive, but since consulting the Bill I have formed the opinion that though it may be permissive to set them up the Department can refuse the request of a local authority to dissolve them.
  11.49 p.m.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: The Under-Secretary had to answer a great many questions during the debate on the Bill and he no doubt overlooked this one, which was brought to the notice of the Scottish Office. Does the Financial Resolution cover the granting of the extra financial assistance which the Government had in mind for the Highlands and Islands to slum clearance schemes under the Act of 1930? The point was raised by the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) and we should like to know whether, apart from the expressed intention of the Government, the power to carry out the idea is actually contained in the Resolution.
  11.50 p.m.
  Mr. SKELTON: I quite appreciate the remarks made by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). In my attempt to cover all the ground in my reply, I was perhaps on that point too unqualified. I would have been more correct if I had said that the management committee is absolutely permissive so far as its start is concerned, and that, so far as its coming to an end is concerned, the procedure is in the terms referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having given me the opportunity to correct what was an error in my speech. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), the special subsidy related to slum clearance. I do not think it was ever referred to. So far as the slum clearance subsidy is concerned, namely, the unit grant per person re-housed, there has never been any complaint nor, I think, any ground for complaint, that that subsidy is not sufficient.
  I will not weary the Committee with details, but I could recall burghs which have been able to give very low rents for slum clearance replacement houses. I hope the hon. Gentleman follows me. So far as the replacing of slum houses is concerned, the 1930 Act subsidy stands as it is at present, undiminished and unincreased. But if in a re-development scheme there were houses which would come in for special subsidy, then, of course, they would be eligible for it. I hope I have made the matter clear. That is how it stands. Replacement houses under the 1930 Act will get only their own subsidies, and the extra Highland grant for ordinary de-crowding work will be available where the necessary conditions exist.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: I am sorry to interrupt, but this is a bit complicated. The Financial Resolution refers to "such additional sums as may become payable under Section 23 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930." The point which the Lerwick County Council are anxious about is this: The cost of building a house is exactly the same whether it is built for slain clearance purposes or for de-crowd-
  688
  ing purposes, and the Government have recognised the necessity of giving an additional grant for de-crowding purposes. That necessity still remains for slum clearance purposes, and I am anxious to know whether the actual wording of this Financial Resolution would cover an additional grant under the 1930 Act.
  Mr. SKELTON: I quite understand the point. But the difference is that the subsidy which is going to be augmented under the Highland provision in the Bill is a de-crowding subsidy of £6 15s., which is clearly only meant for building houses and not for pulling houses down. The slum clearance subsidy, which will not be affected, is a subsidy on a much higher scale—that higher scale being for the reason that under slum clearance you have not only to build but to demolish as well. Therefore, I would say that where a scheme in the Highlands is attracting a slum clearance subsidy, it will still attract it. Under the new Bill, where it otherwise would have attracted a subsidy of £6 15s., it will attract the additional subsidy to the amount required.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: I understand that, but where the slum clearance subsidy is obviously insufficient, will they be able to get the increased grant under this Financial Resolution? That is my point.
  Mr. SKELTON: No, Sir, they will not. I have yet to see cases where the slum clearance subsidy would be insufficient. It is, as my hon. Friend knows, very high.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Three Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

  ANTHRAX (IMPORTED GOATS' HAIR).
  ANTHRAX (IMPORTED GOATS' HAIR).
  NATIONAL HEALTH' INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH' INSURANCE.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  HOURS OF WORK.
  HOURS OF WORK.
  MINERS (VACANCIES, OLLERTON).
  MINERS (VACANCIES, OLLERTON).
  INSURANCE FUND (DEBT).
  INSURANCE FUND (DEBT).
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
  ROYAL NAVY (SALUTES, GIBRALTAR).
  ROYAL NAVY (SALUTES, GIBRALTAR).
  INCOME TAX (MARRIED WOMEN).
  INCOME TAX (MARRIED WOMEN).
  EXECUTION, ARMLEY PRISON.
  EXECUTION, ARMLEY PRISON.
  PEDESTRIAN SUBWAYS, LONDON.
  PEDESTRIAN SUBWAYS, LONDON.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  IRAQ (PERIODICALS, RESTRICTIONS).
  IRAQ (PERIODICALS, RESTRICTIONS).
  MEXICO (RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, ENGLISH SUBJECTS).
  MEXICO (RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, ENGLISH SUBJECTS).
  HOUSING (SCOTLAND).
  HOUSING (SCOTLAND).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
BRISTOL TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (ADVERTISEMENT REGULATION) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to persons carrying on business as manufacturers or distributors of intoxicating liquor. I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BRITISH SHIPPING (ASSISTANCE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SILENCE ZONES.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is the intention of the Minister of Transport to consider the prohibition of the giving of audible warning of approach by drivers of motor vehicles; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I put this Motion on the Paper because of an answer given in another place to a question. The Minister of Transport stated that, if application were made to him by any local authority, he was prepared to give favourable consideration to the banning of the use of the motor horn over the whole period of the twenty-four hours in the area in question. I have his exact words here, but I have paraphrased them for the sake of brevity.
Before I say anything else I should like to pay every possible tribute to the present Minister of Transport. I think we owe a very great deal to his courage and his drive, and to the zeal which he has shown in tackling the appalling problem of road accidents. He has done a number of things since he was appointed to his office with which some people have disagreed and for which he has been somewhat severely criticised. I refer, of course, to the provision of pedestrian crossings and cyclists' tracks, the imposition of driving tests and the steps he has taken to secure better roads. I am not one of those who joined in the general chorus of criticism aroused by those provisions. As a matter of fact, as I have already stated to your Lordships, I warmly support the efforts of the present Minister of Transport and I think the country owes him a great deal more than it generally realises.
But there is, I think, a certain danger in all these matters in going just a little too fast. I should like to submit to your Lordships that when you are making great changes in highway law and administration, it is reasonable that time should be given so that the results of any experiment may be properly assimilated and we may be able to judge from those results whether the experiment is beneficial or not. Both in your Lordships' House and also in another place, I have made many speeches advocating the establishment of silence zones and the banning of motor horns during certain hours. I mention that fact, not in order to claim any special credit, but simply to show that I have no thought of prejudice in bringing this matter before your Lordships' House this afternoon. I do it simply and solely on the ground of public safety, for which I am perfectly certain every one of your Lordships is just as concerned as I am.
I submit that the banning of the use of the motor horn during the night hours has been entirely justified. If a driver wants to give warning to other road users then he can do it by flashing his headlights, and I have no doubt your Lordships have seen many drivers do that. But in the daylight hours a very different position arises. I should like to submit to your Lordships, if I may, the history of the question of audible warning of approach. It goes back a great many years, to the Local Govern-
1050
meat Act of 1888. Section 85 of that Act provides, in sub-section (1), that
"the following additional regulations shall be observed by any person or persons riding or being upon such carriage."
The words "such carriage" are defined earlier in the subsection as "bicycle, tricycle, velocipede and other similar machine." Then paragraph (b) of the subsection says:
"Upon overtaking any cart or carriage, or any horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or any foot passenger, being on or proceeding along the carriageway, every such person shall within a reasonable distance from and before passing such cart or carriage, horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or such foot passenger, by sounding a bell or whistle, or otherwise, give audible and sufficient warning of the approach of the carriage."
That was continued and brought up to date by the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, and other Acts.
I mention these facts to show your Lordships that this provision for audible warning of approach depends not upon the Order of a Minister, but upon ancient usage, and that it is prescribed by various Acts of Parliament going back to a period long before we ever heard of the Ministry of Transport. It was continued by an Order of the Local Government Board in (I think) 1896, and revised again in 1904. In 1930 we had the Road Traffic Act of that year, which repealed the Local Government Act of 1888, the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, and the Motor Car Act, 1903, and made further provisions. Section 30 of that Act provided:
"The Minister may make regulations for any purpose for which regulations may be made under this Part of this Act, and for prescribing anything which may be prescribed under this Part of this Act, and generally as to the use of motor vehicles and trailers on roads, their construction and equipment …"
and so on. The purpose of that is to give the Minister power to make regulations, and it was provided that one of the matters with respect to which he could make regulations included:
"the appliances to be fitted for signalling the approach of a motor vehicle, or enabling the driver of a motor vehicle to become aware of the approach of another vehicle from the rear, or for intimating any intended change of speed or direction of a motor vehicle and the use of any such appliance, and for securing that they shall be efficient and kept in proper working order."
And so it goes on. The Road Traffic Act, 1934, contained a provision for which

1051
I think I was partly responsible. I strongly pressed it upon the Minister, I remember, and he gave us a gracious concession during the passage of the Bill. The provision was one giving the Minister power to amend the regulations made under the Act of 1930 and to impose silence at night.
That is a more or less rough outline of the history of the provisions for audible warning of approach. But there is more to it than that. We have a Highway Code, though it is quite unknown probably to the drivers of many motor vehicles. I am quite certain that there are a great many people driving motor vehicles on the roads to-day who have never seen the Highway Code. I am glad to think that it is going to receive much more publicity in future, and if proper attention is paid to it I think it will do a lot of good. The Highway Code has been revised, but as a matter of fact the revision has not yet been brought into force. The old Highway Code said:
"When you decide to overtake other traffic sound your horn unless you are satisfied that such a precaution is unnecessary."
Later on the Code says:
"Remember that your horn is intended to be used as a warning and an indication, if needed, of your presence on the road; it should not be used as a threat.
"Sound your horn when approaching a danger point or when about to overtake, unless you are satisfied that such a precaution is unnecessary. Do not take it for granted that your warning has been heard: in no circumstances can the sounding of a horn excuse a driver from taking every other precaution to avoid an accident.
"Motor horns should not be used unnecessarily, and always with consideration for others, and especially for those in charge of animals. They should never be used to show annoyance or impatience."
Those are more or less the provisions in the legislation which govern the use of motor horns.
Yesterday in another place a number of questions were put to the Minister of Transport upon his proposed ban on the use of motor horns. It appears from Column 333 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in another place that a question was put to the Minister as to why he had not consulted the motoring organisations, and he said:
"There is therefore a very large volume of other opinion to be considered."
Everybody quite agrees with that.
1052
"I can only repeat that if any responsible local authority makes an application on behalf of its citizens as a whole for an experimental extension of the silence zone or for the trial of any other experimental safety measure it cannot but receive my favourable consideration."
In a further question, Sir William Brass asked:
"Is it a fact not only that the Minister did not ask any motoring organisation but that he did not ask the Road Traffic Advisory Committee or the Committee which was set up to advise him, and that he has acted entirely on his own?"
The Minister then said that he did not understand the position in which his honourable and gallant friend was desirous of placing him, but he went on to answer by saying:
"I fail to see why I should consult anybody before saying that I will favourably consider it."
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Will my noble friend forgive me if I interrupt him? He will observe that my right honourable friend the Minister had had two days' notice of the question.
EARL HOWE: I do not quite see the relevance of that particular point, because, after all, the Minister had answered a question in the House of Commons upon the matter some considerable time before. It was on February 13 that the Minister answered the first question put to him about it. Further questions appeared on the Order Paper of the House of Commons, and those questions must be on the paper for forty-eight hours. All he was asked was why he did not consult the Road Traffic Advisory Committee. I was going to explain to your Lordships that working at the Ministry of Transport there is a statutory body called the Transport Advisory Council, which works under the Minister. It was set up with the idea that the Minister should collect advice from that body when proposing to take any action with regard, I suppose, to highway conditions generally. The Minister said in answer to a question in the House of Commons:
"I fail to see why I should consult anybody before saying that I will favourably consider it."
If that is the position, it seems to me that the sooner the Transport Advisory Council packs up the better.
There is also another body working at the Ministry of Transport, the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and in the

1053
course of the original questions and answers in the House of Commons, a member of the House—not for a London constituency, I need hardly say—invited the Minister to extend this proposed experiment to the London area. The Minister said that he would favourably consider that, but we have it on the authority of the Minister himself, in the House of Commons yesterday, that he has not consulted the Transport Advisory Council, and he has apparently not consulted the London Traffic Advisory Committee. There is also another Committee which sits at the Ministry of Transport, called the Transport Safety Advisory Committee, of which a distinguished member of your Lordships' House, Lord Goschen, is Chairman. I happen to be a member of this Committee myself, and I do not think I am disclosing any State secret when I say that this matter has never been before us at all. Furthermore, I am authorised to say here this afternoon, quite definitely on behalf of the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association and the British Road Federation, which covers the entire commercial motor industry, that they entirely oppose the Minister's action, and I believe the Motor Legislation Committee have begged him to think again and not take action. I believe that the cyclists are just as much concerned as the motoring community about this matter. I have no information about the view of the pedestrians, but we have a distinguished member of the Pedestrians' Association here this afternoon, and we shall no doubt hear what their view is.
I have tried to show that this question is bound by an Act of Parliament, and I submit to your Lordships that the action which the Minister proposes to take is entirely unnecessary. I do not gather that there has been any great public clamour about the sounding of motor horns, or any large complaint. There is, it is true, an Anti-Noise League, presided over by a distinguished member of your Lordships' House, but I do not gather that the League has taken this matter up and urged the Minister in regard to daylight hours to interfere with the discretion of drivers. I understand that this plan has been tried previously in two places, Rome and Helsingfors. I do not know anything about Helsingfors. I do not claim to an extensive knowledge of Rome comparable with that of many members of
1054
your Lordships' House, but I have been there and have motored through the City. I submit that the conditions which obtain in those two places are not necessarily at all analagous to the conditions which obtain in this country. First of all, in Rome at any rate, the people generally, both drivers and pedestrians, have a much stronger traffic sense than the drivers and pedestrians in this country. Furthermore, the pedestrian population of Rome, at any rate, is regimented to a far greater extent than the pedestrian population in this country. As your Lordships perhaps know, they are only allowed to walk one way along the side of the street, and if they try to walk in another direction, a gentleman comes up and tells them that they must not. If they persist in doing so, I suppose they have to take the consequences. The position in Rome is very different from that which obtains here.
I submit, my Lords, that for forty years, since motors first appeared on the roads in this country, the population of this country generally, whether on foot or in vehicles, has been more or less educated up to the use of the motor horn, and I suppose that if a motor car is about the population, unconsciously, expects to hear a motor horn being used. It is very frequently remarked, if an accident happens; "Why did not you sound your horn?" And if a case comes into Court, the first question which a motor driver is invariably asked is: "Did you sound your horn?" If he says he did not, then the fact is counted as being against him.
I should like also to submit another point. I have here a Return of accidents which was collected during the year 1933, and I have been examining this Return with some care. It is a very complete Return. I am not going to give your Lordships more figures than I can possibly help, but I crave your indulgence to be allowed to give a few figures. There is a table showing the number of accidents which occurred each hour of the day during the whole of the week. Five of the days are shown separately. I have collected the whole lot. As your Lordships know, horn blowing is at present prohibited between 11.30 at night and 7 o'clock in the morning. My figures are from 7 o'clock in the morning to 11 o'clock at night, although there is another half-hour when horns van be used. In built-up areas in the year in question, there were 3,967 fatal accidents between the hours of

1055
7 in the morning and 11 at night. You will see from that that the additional ban which the Minister proposes to apply upon the use of motor horns covers the period of maximum traffic capacity. 92.7 per cent. of the total fatal accidents in 1933 occurred during those particular hours. There is a further table which shows the number of pedestrians killed, analysed in age groups and indicating the physical condition of the pedestrian at the time of the accident. It deals with people who are ill, people who are deaf, who are not affected by the ban, and people with bad sight. These last totalled 96 killed in built-up areas, and 16 in other areas, making a total of 112 altogether. If a motor driver is not allowed to have discretion when he shall sound his horn in built-up areas, people with bad sight are going to be the first people to suffer.
Another table shows the number of pedestrians killed, analysed in age groups, and indicating the movement of pedestrians, such as, passing behind or in front of a stationary vehicle other than a tramcar at the side of road or in the centre of road, and passing behind or in front of a stationary tramcar. No fewer than 405 people lost their lives through doing that in built-up areas and, if you take those killed in other areas, the figure rises to 503. I should like to submit to your Lordships that if you are driving along a road those are the very people who must have the warning of a motor horn being blown if you are going to prevent them from running into danger. In the same table, lower down, we find the number of killed while walking in the direction of traffic although a footpath was available, or where no footpath was available. Fifty-five pedestrians lost their lives doing that. Those also are people who must be warned by the use of horns. They are contravening the Highway Code, but they must be warned. 4 further table refers, of course, to drivers, excluding pedal cyclists. There were forty-seven deaths due to pulling out suddenly to overtake or from the kerb in built-up areas, and sixty-two people lost their lives as a result of motor cars failing to give audible notice of approach in built-up areas. These figures are for the year 1933, and I am certain the figures are not less to-day. Taking the country as a whole 103 lives were lost owing to failure of motor cars
1056
to give audible warning of approach. What is going to be the position when the driver is not allowed to have discretion as to whether or not to use his horn? There are many other fatalities to which I could have referred, but I will refrain from doing so and hope your Lordships will forgive me for quoting all these figures, which must be considered if we are to appreciate the gravity of this problem.
There is a table showing fatal accidents in Great Britain in 1933, the causes of which are attributed to pedestrians. The figures relate only to. built-up areas; if other areas were included they would, of course, be a good deal worse. Through running into the roadway from the footpath 608 persons lost their lives. Are not they the people who should be warned by the use of the horn? Through walking or running from behind a vehicle without due care 445 people were killed. Surely the driver ought to have a horn to try and warn those people. Through stepping from a kerb or refuge without looking 335 people were killed. Those are the most important headings, but there is also "walking in the roadway apparently inattentive to traffic," forty-six deaths, and "playing in the roadway"—obviously little children—forty-nine. It is not a question of one class of traffic, it is not a question of something to facilitate the ruthless progress of the road-hog, it is really a question of urgent public importance; it is a question of public safety and nothing else.
I feel that it is a terrible thing that the Minister should have gone so far as to decide, so far as I can make out entirely "on his own"—he almost admits it in his statement in the House of Commons—without consulting anybody, to go in for an experiment which I cannot help feeling is reckless beyond words. What is a driver to do? He sees a small child playing in front of him, or a person walking into the roadway without paying attention—why, the position is intolerable. You would have to break the law in order to give him an adequate warning. I submit that this House ought to insist that the Minister should at any rate think again. At any rate, let him take counsel with the various bodies which have been appointed to assist him. Many members, not only of your Lordships' House but of another place, many representatives of the Pedestrians' Association, cyclists and

1057
other road interests are all members of these committees or public bodies. It is fantastic that the Minister should have done such a thing without, apparently, consulting any of these bodies. I beg to move.
LORD BEDESDALE: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl, and although I know that your Lordships do not like personalities, I think you may possibly forgive me if I begin by explaining to you that my reason for speaking at all on the subject is that I have some experience. In the case of the noble Earl it is quite unnecessary for him to make such an explanation. But I have been driving a car now for over thirty years. I go everywhere by car, and I have never had any trouble of any sort with any of the authorities, nor have I ever made a claim against an insurance company. You cannot drive for thirty years in those circumstances in a reckless way and have that record, I say that not to take any credit for it, but just to show your Lordships that I do know something about driving. I think that probably nobody is more annoyed by the abuse of the horn than I am. I find it most maddening when driving along to hear the way some people use their horns. In some cases it is an intolerable nuisance. But if you abolished the horn altogether I really do not know how you are to use a car at all.
For instance, suppose you are going along a road and there is a high wind blowing. The motor cars of to-day do not announce their presence in the way that the motor cars did twenty years ago, because you could hear them coming then; now you cannot hear them. Two cyclists riding abreast cannot be aware of the presence of a car unless the driver is to be allowed to warn them, which is in fact his duty under the existing law. Another case where you frequently avoid an accident by use of a horn is in drawing up at the side of a road behind a stationary car; otherwise the occupant of that stationary car may not observe that you have come there and may suddenly start backing into you. Your only way of letting him know is to touch your horn.
Even in London you can drive all day and perhaps not touch your horn once, but there are times when it is essential. It is imperative that you should have the horn and be allowed to use it. Then there are a lot of "twisty" lanes in the
1058
country and in villages where, if a man were not allowed to use a horn, it would not be safe to go at all at any speed, because the corners are extremely abrupt and very often hidden by foliage. Another case is the case where you find yourself behind a hay-cart. If you are not allowed to say you are there I do not know how you are to pass the hay-cart; you would stay there for the rest of the day. It seems to me absolutely essential that you should be allowed to have a horn and use it when necessary. But of course if the abuse in unnecessary cases could be checked in any way, I should be the first to support that.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I think the House is indebted to the noble Earl who introduced this debate for raising a subject which is of great importance. I have not had any opportunity of consulting the Minister of Transport and I do not quite know what the position exactly is. All we have got to go upon is the answer that he has given in the House of Commons. As far as I understand that answer, which I read this morning, what he said was that if the local authority representing the population of a district asks him to suppress the use of horns within their district he will favourably consider that request. I cannot myself see how a democratic Minister could possibly say less than that. These are the people who represent the population in their district. Surely the Minister must answer: "Of course I shall consider favourably what a body of that kind says."
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Do I understand that my noble friend favours a system which gives you a non-horn area here and a horn area there—a sort of chessboard all over the country? That would be absolute Bedlam.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I think my noble friend had better wait until he hears what I am going to say, instead of trying to anticipate it. I was, so far, only trying to ascertain the position in which the question really is at this moment. It is said that before giving that answer the Minister ought to have consulted the Advisory Committees. I confess I was rather terrified by the list of Advisory Committees which, as I understood my noble friend to say, it would be the duty of the Minister of Transport to consult, even before he

1059
began to consider the question. I should have thought that that consultation should take place, if at all, before he takes action, and not before he begins to consider the subject. As to his failure to consult a variety of motoring interests, I am forced to say that whenever the motoring interests have been consulted they have always been against any reform of any sort, and nobody knows that better than my noble friend Lord Howe, because he has often appeared in this House having to explain that he is not in accord with the motoring societies. Therefore I do not think there is very much to be said against the Minister of Transport on those grounds.
My noble friend made a great deal of the history of the use of the horn, and of course it is unquestionable that it was regarded as one of the precautions which ought to be imposed on motorists. The only thing that can be said is that that precaution has so far not been successful. Speaking broadly, we all deplore the extreme dangers of the road. The mere existence of this duty to sound a horn does not appear to be capable of preventing any considerable number of accidents—at any rate, it leaves a very large number which it does not prevent. And that is really the case, it seems to me the efficient case, for this action on the part of the Minister. He has said that he is not prepared to rule out a a priori and straight off any proposal made by a responsible body which aims at increasing the safety of the roads. We ought to be very grateful to the Minister of Transport for taking this attitude. We have got a long way beyond the time when Ministers of Transport used to get up and say they did not attach very much importance to the precautions that could be taken because, after all, the only thing was to cultivate "road-sense" and consideration as between one user of the highway and another. That has been said in my hearing over and over again and was indeed the whole foundation on which the Act of 1930 was built—namely, that it was only to encourage that excellent but, I fear, impracticable ideal.
I feel we have got to make tremendous efforts to get rid of this scandal and outrage. My noble friend said we must be afraid of going too fast. I do not feel that at all. I am much more afraid of doing too little, and I personally feel a great debt of gratitude to the Minister
1060
of Transport, as indeed the noble Earl does, for the energy and vigour which he has shown since he came into office, in trying experiment after experiment, even if, so far, he has not succeeded in finding a solution of the serious difficulty in which we find ourselves. I would do nothing to discourage experiment even if it turned out that in a particular locality where he thought it well to allow an experiment to be tried it produced greater inconvenience or even greater danger. It can always be abolished immediately; and if he thinks on consideration that there is a reasonable chance of its doing good, I hope very much that he will proceed on his own judgment in this matter and take that step if it is necessary.
I cannot conceal from myself that sounding a motor horn is a very great danger on many occasions. There is a type of motorist—we all know him—who thinks that as soon as he has sounded his horn it is the business of whoever is in his way to get out of the way, and he goes on without any regard to the danger he may be running, expecting the other people to scurry to one side of the road or the other so that they may not interfere with the speed at which he is going. We have all known that kind of motorist—I am sure my noble friend must have known him. I have seen his type on the roads constantly. I have heard him on the roads constantly, and that is a very great danger. I remember talking to a young motorist not long ago and saying there was a great deal to be said for the view that horns really produced more risks than they cured, and the motorist replied: "Oh well, of course when you are coming to a corner you sound your horn. If you hear nothing in return, then there is nothing there and you can go on." That is the kind of attitude of mind that produces disaster, and that is the kind of attitude, not common with the great mass of motorists I agree, which is common to the small section who are responsible for these fearful disasters on the road.
I do not think it is true to say that the practice of sounding a horn is always a measure of precaution. It is very often merely a kind of permission to act recklessly, and you have got to weigh that

1061
consideration against the possible use of the horn for safety purposes. I do not deny that it may on occasions promote safety, but I do not think it always does so. It may promote danger more often than safety. It seems to me that that can only be ascertained by trying an experiment in this and other ways. My noble friend Lord Howe and my noble friend who has just spoken gave a number of instances in which, if the horn is not used, the danger would he very much increased. I venture to think that in a number of these cases the alternative is to reduce speed. The alternative it to travel at a speed at which you are able to stop if an unexpected danger arises, not to sound the horn and go on as fast as ever. As to the numbers which my noble friend gave of the different types of accidents, they seem to me to be open to this observation, that they only show that sounding horns was of very little value from the point of view given of avoiding danger.
For these reasons, and without expressing my personal opinion as to whether it would be desirable or not to abolish horns in any particular district, I think the Minister of Transport, if I may say so, was perfectly right when he said that if the local authority in any district comes to him with a proposal that in that particular district, for the reasons which they might give, it would be desirable to abolish the use of motor horns, he would consider that proposal, and consider it favourably, since it comes from the responsible authority. If, after considering it and receiving proper advice on the subject, he decides to carry out an experiment in that direction, I personally should only congratulate him on his courage and decision and public spirit.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while I sympathise with every attempt the Minister of Transport is making to reduce the number of accidents on the road, I look upon this particular proposal as one of extreme danger. When the Minister brought in the ban on hooting at night, I was never particularly against it, because at night you have lights which you can switch on and off to attract the attention of pedestrians and other motorists who may happen to be in the way. No doubt the sounding of motor horns is very annoying at night time to many people, but
1062
it is a totally different thing during the day. It is not only a question of getting pedestrians to clear out of the way. Only to-day, when I was corning down to the House, a pedestrian stepped off the kerb without looking. I was travelling at only about ten miles an hour; but if I had not blown my horn and given the pedestrian time to step back, he would have walked right into my path and I should have had to stop dead or knock him down.
What would happen, for instance, in Regent Street? There you have got these strolling taximeter cabs waiting for a fare, very frequently in the middle of the road. The noble Earl said you must not blow your horn in annoyance or impatience—I think that was the word he used. It is not a question of being annoyed, it is not a question altogether of impatience. It may mean holding up the rest of the traffic behind you if you do not blow your horn and make such a vehicle get out of the way. The whole street may be blocked, and this may affect traffic in the streets behind you. I was told by one traffic expert not long ago that a hold-up of this kind in the Strand for a few moments had an effect on traffic at Watford! The noble Earl will agree with me that France was one of the first places to abolish hooting during the night, but they have gone no further in the matter. I should think their decision was brought about by the extremely tiresome horn which they use and which gives a peculiar note that annoys everybody.
If it were possible for the Minister to standardise horns in this country, I think it would be a very good thing. The klaxon is a nerve-racking horn, and some of the new cars to-day have a very piercing note which makes people jump when the horn is pressed. On the other hand, a short time ago I drove a car with a horn that had quite a pleasant note. I suggest for the Minister's consideration that, instead of trying to abolish horns altogether, it might be a very good thing to standardise some form of horn that does not get on people's nerves. If you abolish the use of the horn altogether during the day-time, how are you to let children playing in the road know that you are coming? Are you to stop until they notice you? It seems to me, if that is going to be the case, that we had better abolish motor cars altogether and

1063
go back to horse traffic. Finally, I would like to refer to an incident that happened to me this morning. A dog was crossing the road and when I blew the horn it took notice. Every motorist knows that if you sound your horn a dog takes notice in the same way as pedestrians do. Very often, however, motorists have to cut across to the sides of the road in order to avoid animals or pedestrians, and this swerve may easily cause the motorist, especially if the road is wet, to collide with something else, to knock down and perhaps kill a pedestrian, or go on to the pavement. I look upon the proposal as a dangerous one and hope I shall hear something from the noble Earl who will reply for the Government to the effect that the Ministry is not going to impose the abolition of horns.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I am certainly not in a position to be able to urge the universal abolition of the use of the horn, but I do want very strongly to support the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood) when he urges that the Minister of Transport should give careful consideration to this proposal if it comes to him from some special local authority which believes that, in its own area, this may prevent sonic of the appalling loss of life which goes on day by day. There is one reason, and one reason only, why I want to see an experiment of this kind tried. We are confronted with the appalling problem that 7,000 people are killed every year through motor traffic and over 200,000 are injured, and that the various efforts which have been made of late, and the various appeals which have been made, have so far hardly reduced at all the sum total of these heavy losses. If that is the case, it is surely worth while trying almost any experiment which holds out any hope, however faint it may be, of reducing this appalling figure of casualties. I do not know whether this particular proposal would be ultimately successful, but it is far better to try it than to acquiesce quietly in these terrible casualties on the roads.
I was perplexed as I listened to the speech of the noble Earl who introduced this subject. He quoted a large number of casualties which the horn so far has failed to prevent. He put to us the problem: What is to be done if the
1064
motorist sees a child in the road? I think the answer to that is a perfectly simple one. The car should stop until the child has been warned to move away. What is the objection to these proposals? The real objection, I believe, is not so much that danger may be increased, but that speeds may be lessened. I have been struck by the fact that the best motorists use their horns least of all, and that those who use the horn most frequently are the motorists who tear along our roads, regardless and reckless of their own lives and the lives and safety of others. Some of the most capable motorists I know tell me they have driven hundreds of miles without sounding their horns and without any danger. I think facts like these should make us anxious to see that consideration, at any rate, is given to an experiment of this kind.
After all, if speed is reduced, if it takes us sixty minutes instead of fifty minutes to reach our destination, what is that compared to the increased safety of the road? We shall be travelling very much faster than we were travelling twenty-five years ago. I do not for a moment think even if the plan is carried out, that by itself it will solve this problem. The problem must be attacked from various directions, and I hope that the Government will, at the earliest possible moment, check ribbon development, which, I think, is one of the main causes leading to casualties. The roads which were meant for safety have become real death traps. We have roads running out of London which at first were safe, but which have now become so dangerous that it is much simpler and easier and safer to use the old roads. Every day that we delay in dealing with this problem at ribbon development will make the problem more difficult and intricate to solve.
There is just one further observation I should like to make. I believe that one of the very best ways of reducing the mortality of the roads will be heavier sentences upon those who drive so swiftly and recklessly, the two things combined creating the danger. The majority of motorists are most considerate. The majority are skilful and careful drivers. The nightmare of the roads is due to a small minority who think only of themselves, who are filled with the lust of

1065
speed, and who care nothing about the safety and comfort of others. They cut round corners, they tear on where they ought to exercise caution, they drive swiftly where they ought to drive slowly, they are deaf to the appeals of reason which are made to them, they are too selfish to care for the interests of others, and they are a real menace to the life and safety of the people who use our roads. Very often, when they are sentenced, the sentence is a trifling one compared to the penalty which is imposed on someone who has committed an offence of another kind. Yet these reckless people are a greater danger to the community than the pickpocket or the housebreaker. I hope we shall give the Minister of Transport every support in any experiment which is likely to have some shadow of hope of reducing the fatalities on the roads.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, the noble Earl who opened this discussion spoke, if I may say so, with all his usual persuasiveness and showed us ranged behind him, in embattled ranks, apparently unanimous motorist opinion. Some of us who take a different view from the noble Earl may perhaps console ourselves by remembering, as the Minister of Transport reminded another place, I think yesterday, that the motoring organisations, with one exception, unanimously resisted the recent proposal to impose a ban on horns at night, and that they now unanimously approve that practice. I hope that one of the results of this experiment, if it takes place—not the most fruitful result, but at any rate one agreeable result—will be that in this respect, too, the motoring organisations' experiences may bring about a similar belated conversion. The noble Earl has sought to show, an in fact it was necessary for him to show if he was going to make out his case, that the imposition of such a ban throughout the twenty-four hours would not only fail to reduce the appalling casualities on the roads, but would actually increase them.
We are all aware, and we cannot too frequently remind ourselves, of the present position—250,000 casualties on the road every year! This is a problem equal in urgency to the problem of unemployment, or the problem of the slums, both of which receive so much more political attention. In face of that situation the
1066
Minister of Transport, as I understand him, says merely that he is prepared to consider proposals from local authorities for the introduction of a practice which would not only—and this is a point which I think has not been touched upon today—noticeably increase the amenities of the streets, but would also, in the opinion of many, very considerably increase their safety. Surely no one can object to such an experiment as that unless he is in a position to show, not merely that it will not have any very spectacular results, but that it will actually increase the danger. The noble Earl, if he saw a responsible and experienced fireman trying to put out a terrific blaze with a novel extinguisher, would not rush off with cries of horror and alarm unless he felt convinced from information in his possession that the new extinguisher was actually going to cause an explosion. That, in effect, is what the noble Earl has attempted to show.
Is he justified in asking us to ignore so completely the experience of foreign countries Your Lordships are no doubt aware that in Rome an experiment has been tried for a number of weeks of banning the use of the motor horn throughout the twenty-four hours, and Signor Mussolini is so well content with the result of that experiment that he has invited local authorities to extend it throughout the length and breadth of the country. In Finland, where the experiment has gone on for four years, the Government have actually stated that the result has been a reduction of 50 per cent. in the number of fatal accidents. Is there any reason why an experiment which has been attended by such success in countries so distant, with such different climates and inhabited by such different types of people, as Italy and Finland, should inevitably lead to disaster if introduced in Great Britain? Is there any obvious reason why an experiment which has halved the number of road fatalities in Finland should double them in Great Britain?
The noble Earl will no doubt reply that these are examples from foreign countries; but let us come nearer home. I think the noble Viscount has dealt sufficiently with the statistics which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, quoted of what has happened in England, and therefore I think we are perhaps forced back very

1067
largely upon the authoritative opinion of persons who have had experience of motoring in this country, who have considered these problems and have studied our statistics. I would suggest to the noble Earl that the opinion of such persons is by no means so unanimous as he seems to suppose. I will take first the Pedestrians' Association, the object of which is to promote safety on the road. The secretary of that Association has given it as his opinion that:
"The effect of driving on the horn has been to transfer the onus from the motorist to keep his vehicle under control on to the potential victim to get out of the way. My own opinion is that driving by sight rather than by sound will make for safety."
He personally, I am authorised to say, would warmly welcome this experiment.
Then may I draw your Lordships' attention to a very remarkable broadcast made last September, which some of your Lordships may have heard? It was made by a Mr. Hales who, I think, is a member in another place, and in the course of his broadcast he used these words:
"I have had no less than thirty-seven years' experience of motor driving, and during the whole of that time I have never sounded a horn and never met with an accident. I have been actively engaged all this time in the motor trade, driving cars every week from London to the Midlands, and taking part in numerous non-stop runs and hill-climbing competitions. So I hope this entitles me to an opinion, and my opinion is that the only real cure for the steadily increasing number of road accidents is the absolute restriction of the use of the horn."
I think that is a very remarkable opinion from a person who obviously is entitled to give that opinion. Your Lordships will doubtless have observed that both these people, the secretary of the Pedestrians' Association and Mr. Hales, welcome this experiment for precisely the same reason, that it would end the practice commonly described as "driving on the horn"—that is, scattering as far around and ahead of you as possible so much noise that you feel able to drive at a much greater speed than you would otherwise dare to indulge in.
May I now quote from a leading article in The Times? The Times said:
"The motor horn is regarded as an instrument of safety. It is safety's greatest enemy. It is the possession of a penetrating horn which encourages the bad driver to go full speed into danger."
That practice of driving on the horn is, of course, fed by the motor horn industry.
1068
I wonder whether your Lordships have ever noticed the remarkable language of some of the advertisements of motor horns. One is described as "a necessity for fast touring." Another is described as "the loudest on the market with a very impressive sound carrying over an immense distance." And in the more staccato style of America a manufacturer there simply describes the horn he sells as "a sure road clearer." I think it is this practice of driving on the horn, for which the motor horn industry is obviously catering, which is responsible for an extremely large proportion of our accidents. Undoubtedly it not only produces careless driving but careless walking. The practice of driving on the road with "a sure road clearer" undoubtedly produces the jay walker as well as the jay driver.
If I may revert to another argument which the noble Earl used, I should like to say that I do not think it is fair or quite correct at this stage of our experience, to use the familiar argument that the first question always asked in a police court or by a coroner or by an insurance company is: "Did you use your horn?" The noble Earl will probably remember that Sir Henry Maybury's Committee on Road Traffic Noises in 1929 went out of their way to refer to the deplorable results of that practice. I think it would be much truer to say to-day that coroners and justices who know their business do not ask that question, and it is to be hoped that the others will soon be taught their business and cease to ask that question with anything like the implication which the noble Earl attaches to it.
As to the universal and unanimous opinion of the motor organisations of the inevitable disaster of introducing this experment, I cannot help remembering that several times during the last few months the Automobile Association has, with legitimate pride, drawn attention to the fact that it has itself placed hoards outside hospitals urging motorists not to hoot, and has thereby very greatly reduced the amount of hooting. But either hooting is essential to avert accidents or it is not. If it is essential, then it is equally essential outside hospitals, and if it is not essential, as one must assume from the fact that the Automobile Association has publicly encouraged motorists not to indulge in hooting by day, then I think

1069
to some extent their opinion of the proposed ban on horns may be discounted. I would therefore venture to remind your Lordships that on one aspect at any rate of this proposed experiment—that it would greatly increase the amenity of City life wherever it was carried out—there has so far been no argument; and on the other, as regards an increase in safety, I would at any rate venture to submit that all foreign example and authoritative argument based upon a considerable degree of our own experience do combine to point to the conclusion that we should also gain very greatly in that respect.
I do not for a moment suggest, and no noble Lord who has addressed the House has suggested, that it is going to lead to anything like spectacular results. For myself I entirely agree with what has fallen from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, that we are not going to get anything approaching a spectacular reduction in this appalling tragedy until our Courts have better learnt their responsibility to the public, and are prepared to deal more severely with deadly driving; but I do believe that this experiment, if it is taken advantage of, will be a step in the right direction. I venture to assure the Minister that there are at any rate large sections of the public which will very warmly welcome it.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, this has been a very interesting discussion, and in my opinion two points emerge from the speeches made by noble Lords. The first is: Has the Minister come to the conclusion at which he has arrived in the best way? The second is, whether this experiment, if carried out, will do more good than harm. As to the first point, as to whether the Minister has been well advised to arrive at his decision in the way in which he has arrived at it, I think he has been very ill advised. May I give my reason? When I had the honour of being Minister of Transport, I welcomed these Committees; I cherished these Committees. I regarded them as the safeguard of the Minister against unjust criticism, because if you go to these Committees and get their advice, then if what you decree is a success you will take the credit, and if it is not a success, then that is the fault of the advice officially given you by the Statutory Committees. Therefore it
1070
seems to me that it is unwise—not unconstitutional, of course, but unwise—on his part not to have taken the obvious precautions to guard himself and his office against that criticism. So far as I recollect, no Minister is obliged to consult these Committees; he can do it entirely on his own initiative. I am not suggesting in any way that the Minister has done anything illegal, but I certainly think that from his own point of view, and from the point of view of the general public, who think, "If these Committees are in existence we ought to know what they think," he has been ill advised in the course which he has taken.
As to whether the prohibition of the use of the horn would do more good than evil, it is really very hard to say. Personally I think that the danger would be very appreciably increased. I take myself as an example. The week before last, I was walking along the pavement and came to a cross road, and very stupidly I walked on to the road without looking round. A car came round the corner, not unduly fast, and unless the driver of that car had been able to blow his horn I should have been severely injured or killed. It was not the driver's fault, it was entirely my own fault. Therefore I cannot conceive that you can with safety entirely prohibit the use of the horn by the driver of a motor car. If you cannot do that without increasing the danger to the pedestrian, to children suddenly running across the road or to stupid men like myself suddenly stepping off the pavement, it is obvious, at any rate to me, that administratively you cannot do anything at all, because if you say that a driver may in emergencies use his horn, nobody would ever be convicted for using a horn. The driver will always be able to say: "There was an emergency; I saw that a man was going to step off the kerb," or that this or that happened. Therefore convictions would be very few and far between.
Do remember, my Lords, that the roads of this country are at the present moment congested, and unless there is some audible way of telling one of those great railway trains which drive in front of you, or a hay cart, that you want to pass, as the noble Lord who spoke second in the debate said you will stay behind it the whole of the afternoon. I do not see how the prohibition of the blowing

1071
of horns is going to diminish the danger. Why should the non-blowing of a horn diminish the danger to a pedestrian, to the rider of a bicycle or to the driver of another motor car? That it will increase amenities is, I think, obvious, but that has not been put forward as the reason for the prohibition. It is simply put forward as a step towards decreasing the terrible toll of the roads, which we all deplore. In my considered opinion it will not do good so far as casualties are concerned; it will only increase the dangers.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to this debate before the Government reply is made. It would be a mistake to suppose for a moment that we are not all of us united in the same object, and I think that those who are inclined to regard the speeches of the noble Earl who introduced this Motion as speeches on behalf of motorists and of greater speed on the part of motorists, are doing him an injustice. I think that he strongly feels that the introduction of complete zones of silence for twenty-four hours per day in any districts might add to instead of diminishing the accidents. It seems that we have the word of the Minister of Transport saying that he will favourably consider any such proposal from any local authority. I think the first question that arises is: Does that mean that he will give unqualified consent straight away; or does it mean that he will consult his advisers and come to the best conclusion that he can? Further, does it mean that where he considers that silence should be imposed, he will allow a certain discretion to Police officers in certain provocative circumstances? Otherwise it might be said that in those localities where there is to be a twenty-four hour zone of silence motor horns should be removed from the cars.
The very idea of that makes one feel that there would be considerable danger. I once found that my horn was completely out of order and would not respond, and I do not think that I have ever in my life had a more uncomfortable and apprehensive drive. If everybody on the road behaved with perfect care and courtesy, of course there would be no danger, but one has to be perpetually on the lookout for the little lapses which all three classes of users of the road, pedal cyclists,
1072
pedestrians and motorists, are liable to make. Coming down to the House this afternoon in my capacity as a pedestrian I was thinking, as pedestrians do, of interesting and important things, and I left the pavement not at right angles but diagonally. I am very, very thankful to the driver of the car behind me for having given that little cautious bleat which made me go back to the pavement and behave as I ought to have behaved. We are all liable to these mistakes, and rigidly to condemn all horn blowing is, I think, likely to lead to further accidents. Of course, nobody defends for one single moment what the noble Lord who spoke just now described as "driving on the horn." We are all in entire agreement with what he said, that so far as possible there ought to be driving by sight and not on the horn. There are frequent occasions where a reminder from a horn can save a difficulty, an accident, an error of judgment, and an absolute ban may therefore lead to some further dangers.
I should like to add how much I agree with what fell from the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Winchester, with regard to heavier sentences on the part of magistrates. They are still far too lenient, and I think the withdrawal of a licence for a period is not often enough imposed on some of these extremely careless motorists. There is a form of penalty which I have advocated before, and which I should like to bring again to the notice of the Minister of Transport. And may I say that I for one appreciate the way in which the Minister has been ready to listen to any suggestion, and has been experimenting right and left to deal with this terrible problem. The suggestion is one which I think has the support of the noble Earl who introduced the Motion. It is that where there is an accident, however slight that accident may be, and where the intervention of the Police is necessary, the driver of the car should have his car confiscated for the time being, and he should be told that as an accident has happened he must leave his car there and walk to the nearest railway, or get a taxicab. I believe that that would be a very great deterrent, because I think there are a number of these offending motorists who desire, through thick and thin, to get to their destination as quickly as possible. If they thought they were

1073
running any risk of being delayed in their passage, they would drive with very much inure care than at present.
I do not myself think that these horns are responsible for the worst noise on the road to-clay. I think the open exhausts and other noises of these very heavy lorries with loose iron in them are very much worse. While I think horn blowing has been abused, I do not think it is as offensive as it used to be. I agree with Lord Elton that the advertisements which he has read out ought to be brought to the notice of the Minister of Transport, with a view of checking advertisements of tint kind. I hope that the Government will say that this is not going to be a hard and fast ban in certain districts, which, in the opinion of many of those who have spoken this afternoon, might add to, rather than diminish, the number of accidents.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I would wish to congratulate the noble Earl on the fact that he has raised this issue this afternoon. I believe that a great many people, motorists and pedestrians, in the country have been very startled indeed at the entirely novel idea in this country that there should be zones laid down in which no horns are to be blown. Like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who said so in the earlier part of his speech, I believe that the Minister for Transport has done his very best to meet a very serious situation, and the fact that he has tried experiments, whether successful or not, is in my opinion to his credit, and not to his discredit. Other noble Lords who have spoken are entirely of that view also. But this afternoon we are discussing an experiment which goes far beyond any experiment which has been suggested hitherto, and I must confess that I view that experiment with considerable anxiety. At the same time, we have been told that this experiment has been tried in foreign countries with success, and that therefore we ought not to say that that experiment, if tried in this country, must necessarily fail. I feel, however, that the whole of this question is based on what I may call a hypothetical case.
What I should like to know from the noble Earl, Lord Munster, who is going to reply, is whether any local authority has been so bold as to ask the Minister of Transport to create a silence zone within its district. All we have heard is
1074
that, if a local authority should make such a suggestion, the Minister of Transport would be prepared favourably to consider it. If there is any authority that is prepared to make such a proposal, I have little doubt that the local authority has thought out very carefully all the effects of taking that action, but I am very doubtful, in spite of the fact that this question has been raised, and the Minister of Transport has stated that he would favourably consider such a proposal, whether there is any local authority which would dare make such a suggestion. If there is such a local authority, then I for one cannot blame the Minister of Transport if he is prepared to try this out in that particular area; but I would suggest to the Minister of Transport, if he is going to do such a thing, that he confines the experiment to one area to begin with, in order to see whether this new experiment is likely to be successful or not. I hope the noble Earl, when he replies for the Government, will tell your Lordships whether there is any local authority which is prepared to make this suggestion to the Minister of Transport for his consideration.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, at the beginning of my few observations I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by other noble Lords, congratulating the present Minister of Transport on the way in which he has endeavoured to find means of reducing the heavy loss of life which is general, on every day of the year, upon our English roads. I feel that your Lordships will also have appreciated that, although criticisms may have been offered of many of the schemes that have been introduced, they are, at any rate, now serving some purpose and use. The debate to which we have just listened is one of great interest, and I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, if I may for one moment, to the question asked and the answer given in the House of Commons on February 13, when this matter first came to the attention of the public. Sir John Pybus, the late Minister of Transport, asked the present Minister
"whether he would be prepared to consider applications from local authorities for the experimental extension of the silence zones in their own areas to the whole of the twenty-four hours?"

1075
My honourable friend replied:
"Yes, Sir. I am prepared to give favourable considerations"—
I ask your Lordships to note those words—
"to any applications from local authorities for the experimental extension of the silence zones in their own areas to the whole of the twenty-four hours."
There was a supplementary question with which I need not trouble your Lordships.
From the answer which my honourable friend gave I think it will be apparent to your Lordships that he was prepared to examine the whole question if a, local authority submitted such a scheme to him, and to go into the merits of that one scheme. And, indeed, it will be obvious to the House, I think, that I cannot at present give any answer to the questions that have been addressed to me by the noble Lord who leads the Opposition, who asked whether, in the event of an application being made, the Minister would immediately give unqualified assent. As I have said, my honourable friend would have to examine the whole of the scheme on its merits, and see whether the scheme and the district where it was proposed to put it into effect were such that the experiment could properly be tried.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I ask whether the Minister would also consult the appropriate Committee and take their advice?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am coming to that later on. I wish now to refer to the quotations which were made by my noble friend who moved the Motion, who, if he will permit me to say so, slightly misrepresented the views of the Minister. I think it is necessary to read the answer to one of the questions put in another place yesterday. The Minister was asked
"whether he has consulted any motoring organisations as to the advisability or not of experimenting with silence zones over the whole twenty-four hours before he came to his decision to give favourable consideration to applications from local authorities on this matter?"
My honourable friend the Minister of Transport replied:
"It is not my practice to consult motoring organisations before answering questions in the House of Commons, although I am always glad to have their suggestions and
1076
observations. I would point out that of the 250,000 persons killed and injured on the roads in the course of a year only a very small percentage of the victims are motor drivers."
A supplementary question was asked, which my noble friend Lord Howe quoted, and my honourable friend, in reply, said:
"I do not understand the position in which my honourable and gallant friend is desirous of placing me. I was asked a question by an honourable friend of mine in this House, and given two days' notice, whether I would favourably consider an application by a local authority. I fail to see why I should consult anybody before saying that I will favourably consider it."
I have not yet held the responsible position of a Minister, but I had always understood that the duty of a Minister was to accept the responsibility. And indeed I cannot see why my honourable friend should have to go and consult a committee within two days to find out whether they are in agreement with him, or whether the committee are in violent disagreement among themselves, as is so frequently the case. I really think my noble friend must not expect the Minister, when replying to a question in another place, to do so on any but his own authority.
The question was raised during the course of the debate about various places which are at the moment experimenting with silence zones, and I should like to refer to them. I think it is too soon yet to say definitely to what extent a restriction of the use of warning instruments has contributed to public safety by encouraging drivers to rely entirely upon their own powers and their own alertness for the avoidance of accidents, but experiments are in operation in a number of European countries. In Paris all hooting is prohibited between 10 o'clock at night and 7 in the morning, and it is understood that the extension of the prohibition has recently been considered. There has been in the case of Paris a very notable reduction in street accidents. In Germany regulations were brought into force in October last, enabling the authorities to prohibit hooting in any part of the country. Experiments in the prohibition of hooting are being tried in Berlin and elsewhere, and hooting has been forbidden at all hours of the day and night in Stuttgart, except in cases of urgent necessity, and it is claimed by the German authorities that the prohibition has so far worked with great success.

1077
With regard to Italy, which was quoted by my noble friend, a complete ban on the use of motor horns by day and by night is now imposed throughout Rome, and the Italian authorities have stated that the experiment in Rome has resulted in a large reduction in the number of accidents. Similar experiments have been tried in Spain, while at Helsingfors in Finland severe restrictions on hooting during the whole of the twenty-four hours have been in force for the last four years, during which time the number of street accidents involving personal injury has been reduced by 50 per cent. I agree that that is an extraordinary reduction, but I am advised that there is not the slightest doubt that the prohibition of hooting in that City has had the most astounding effect. The system of silence zones is in operation also in Belgium, and I believe in other countries as well.
I think your Lordships should sympathise with the view that it is absolutely necessary nowadays to consider every possible means for reducing the heavy loss of life on the road. I firmly believe that any experiment, whatever it may be, should be tried, and will be tried, to see whether the results would justify the adoption of such means to prevent accidents. I think that all the new regulations which are made from time to time are purely experiments, and no doubt we are bound to get very violent differences of opinion as to whether those experiments are right or wrong. I should remind your Lordships that, when hooting was first prohibited at night, every single motoring organisation and organisation connected with the trade was opposed to that ban, with the exception of one, single company. Now I am told that the whole of the motoring authorities and organisations in this country are in universal agreement with what the Minister has done.
I should only repeat, in conclusion, in answer to the question of my noble friend, that any application from a local authority—and up till now there has been no such application—will be considered entirely on its merits. I hope that my noble friend will not go to a Division on the Motion that he has placed on the Paper. It appears to me that with his knowledge and experience not only of the motor industry but equally of driving, he should be the first to welcome any
1078
suggestion or any experiment that would do something to reduce the terrible human slaughter on the roads. I was surprised that my noble friend should take such a violent opposition to the Minister's proposal when, as I have endeavoured to point out, in other countries of the world the scheme is working with outstanding success. My noble friend Lord Elton, who gave your Lordships some indications of advertisements for motor horns, has raised a question which is of some interest, and I shall certainly, as the noble Lord who leads the Opposition has suggested, bring the whole of that matter to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister of Transport. I hope I have answered the questions that have been addressed me, and I trust the noble Earl will see his way to withdraw his Motion.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I trust your Lordships will bear with me for just a minute while I endeavour to reply to one or two of the points which have been made in reference to my Motion. First of all I should like to thank the noble Earl who has replied on behalf of the Government for the courteous way in which he has dealt with the whole question; but I may say at once that the whole question to my mind hinges upon the expression "favourable consideration." I am all for consideration. I am all for any experiment being considered, and carefully considered, any experiment that may offer a change of saving life; but what frightened and alarmed a great many people in this country was the expression "favourable consideration," which seemed to me to mean that almost automatic approval would be given to any application made to the Minister in this respect.
There is a further point which I should have mentioned to your Lordships before in connection with this matter. Within the course of questions and answers in the House of Commons, to which the noble Earl has referred, the Minister further stated, in reply to a supplementary question, that he was not going to erect any signs to warn drivers when they were entering an area in which horn-blowing was prohibited. In that case the position would really be impossible from the point of view of drivers coming to a zone the extent of which they do not know. In the case of London, the

1079
Minister suggested the zone should always have the benefit of the doubt, but you never can tell when some sudden emergency is going to arise when the horn becomes absolutely necessary. I should like to make it clear, as it does not seem to be quite clear to some members of your Lordships' House—for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, seemed to imagine that I was one of those drivers who are in the habit of driving on the horn. I hardly ever make use of the horn.
LORD ELTON: I am very sorry if I gave that impression. It was far from my intention to make any reference to the driving of the noble Earl.
EARL HOWE: I accept the correction, but I should like to make it quite clear that I am not one of the drivers who drive on the horn. I very seldom use my horn. I go from day's end to day's end and never use the horn, but to be told I am not to have any discretion as to when to use it, to be told I am not to use it in certain areas if I deem it to be necessary, creates an impossible position. Should such a situation ever arise I know exactly what I shall do, and I shall be quite ready to justify myself. I think it is such a pity, when we have this very important discussion on public safety, that the attitude of people should be misrepresented. Why was it necessary in this terribly important matter for the right reverend Prelate to import, as it seemed to me he did—I hope he will forgive me for saying so—pure prejudice into this important discussion? It is not a question of speed. There is always a minority of people in any community who will offend against their fellows. They are not confined to motor drivers. Pedestrians and cyclists, indeed every section of road users, have a certain number who are of course impossible, and must be dealt with properly; but what we are out to consider is what best to do to deal with the situation.
I mentioned in the course of my remarks that if one found a little child toddling into the road in front of one, the use of the horn might be absolutely necessary to save the child's life. That is not an extravagant assumption, far from it. The right reverend Prelate knows perfectly well that one can be driving at ten or fifteen miles an hour perfectly safely under the conditions pre-
1080
vailing—I dare say he has done it himself before now—when some person, an old person or a little child, or someone who is blind, steps into the road unexpectedly. And never let the Minister forget the difficulties of those who are blind or infirm of sight. They can only depend on the horn to save themselves. A case like that may arise and the horn may be the only way of saving the individual's life. The right reverend Prelate would be the first to sound his horn in such circumstances, and he would not like it suggested, when he did so, that it was merely done to clear the way and make it easier for the speedy motorist.
I mentioned a few figures to which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, referred, and he seemed to think that I thought the motoring organisations should have been consulted in this matter. I did not really advance such a proposition at all. What I did suggest was that you have got statutory bodies like the Transport Advisory Council and the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and I consider that these bodies should be consulted, at any rate, before the ban is imposed. I do not know if the noble Earl has anything to say on that point, whether before an experiment is made in any area the Minister will consult with these two important bodies. The Minister was asked the definite question relating to London in another place, whether if any London borough chose to make application he would give it favourable consideration, and he said so. I do not know what the implication of that is, whether it means automatic agreement—
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I thought I made it clear that it did not mean automatic agreement. When a local authority applies to the Minister to have this ban imposed in its particular area during the whole day, the Minister will take the matter upon its merits and examine it before giving a definite answer. I think that would be answering the question of what is meant by taking the matter into favourable consideration.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: This is really a very important point. The noble Earl is giving a slightly different interpretation to what the Minister of Transport has done. In Ministerial phraseology "I will consider" means he is going to turn it down; "I will carefully consider" means it is in

1081
the balance; "I will consider on its merits" means it is in the balance also; and lastly "I will favourably consider" has always been accepted as meaning acquiescence. The noble Earl says that this favourable consideration by the Minister of Transport is really consideration on its merits. That is all we ask for.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I, before my noble friend replies, ask him if he does not think that the fact that the local authority representing the inhabitants of the district has put it forward is a matter that requires the favourable consideration of any Minister?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Hear, hear.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, take the point just advanced by the noble Viscount. In the London areas there is a statutory body charged with the duty of looking after London transport—the London Traffic Advisory Committee. Surely the noble Viscount would not urge that the Minister should take an application from one portion of the London area and go right over the head of the London Traffic Advisory Committee? Observe that the London Traffic Advisory Committee and the Transport Advisory Council are both composed of the greatest experts that the Minister has been able to gather together to advise him in such matters as these. They include the Police and representatives of the local authorities themselves and of all the great traffic interests. Every body pretty well is represented on these two Committees who could possibly be of assistance. Surely the noble Viscount would not urge that the Minister should go over the heads of important bodies such as these?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, the noble Earl has been good enough to put a question to me. I have never urged anything of the kind he suggests. I said I was a little frightened by the list of the Committees which my noble friend thinks the Minister must consult before he comes to any decision. Personally, as long as he is Minister, I am content that he should exercise his discretion as to what inquiries he should make before he arrives at a final decision.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I do not want to add to the discussion which, I am sure, has gone on too long already. I would like again to thank the noble Earl for his reply. I realise that the importance which I attached to the expression "favourable" was perhaps overdone. It appears now, from what the noble Earl has told us, that it meant "consideration on its merits." With that I am perfectly satisfied. I would again urge, with all the emphasis I can command, that before the Minister goes in for any experiment such as this it should be most carefully thought out both as to its extent and as to the locality where it is tried out. I personally am extremely nervous of interfering with the discretion of the driver. That is the only point in my mind. With regard to other questions raised in the debate, such as ribbon development, I agree they are of vital importance, but, as they were not included in the Question on the Order Paper, I did not refer to them. I thank the Minister very much indeed, and I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at two minutes past six o'clock.