Sitting of 3 March 1938

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Scarborough) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES (RETURNS).

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour what is the reason for the small percentage of Returns furnished by employers in certain industries and published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I assume that the hon. Member refers to the monthly returns which are voluntarily supplied by employers in certain industries, giving particulars as to the numbers of workpeople in their employment and as to the number of days worked or amount of wages paid. Comprehensive statistics of unemployment in these and other industries are already published in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," and the object of the returns referred to is to supplement these statistics by particulars indicating the changes in the state of employment at a number of representative works from which comparable information can regularly be obtained. It is not necessary for this purpose that returns should be obtained from
    1252
    all employers, and application is accordingly made by the Department only to a selection of employers who have been supplying returns over a long period.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not a fact that if a larger number of employers provided the Minister with these returns, a far more accurate picture could be obtained of the general industrial position?
    Mr. Brown: We think that, on the whole, we have a representative survey. There are one or two cases which require looking into, but I cannot ask the statistics department of my own Ministry, or indeed business organisations, to undertake this work on the scale suggested.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Minister of Labour the average increase paid to applicants by the Unemployment Assistance Board since the circular was issued giving the board's officers discretion to take into consideration the increased cost of living; and the average increase allowed in the Stoke area of the Hanley administrative district?
    Mr. E. Brown: On 17th January last the average addition to current assessments on account of the special circumstances dealt with in the board's circular, in cases in which such additions were made, was about 2s. both in the country generally and in the board's administrative area of Stoke.
    Mr. T. Smith: Can the Minister assure us that this 2s. is not the maximum?
    Mr. Brown: Is is an average over the whole country.
    Mr. Lawson: The average for each applicant?
    Mr. Brown: The average per applicant.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men with four children who received the 5s. a week bonus for babies recently given to workers at Pilkington's glass manufactory, St. Helens, Lancashire, and who are working part time at that factory, have had the whole of their 12s. children allowance deducted from their unemployment pay; under what authority this deduction was made; and what action he proposes to take about the matter?
    Mr. Brown: I have made inquiry and find that in two such cases payment of the benefit allowance for children was suspended for a few days pending consideration of its legality. Payment has now been made.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not the first or second case of this kind; does he not remember the case which I brought to his notice about a fortnight ago, and why is it that the responsible officials in cases of this character do not make themselves acquainted with the legal position?
    Mr. Brown: I think there were only two or three cases.
    Mr. A. Jenkins: Are we to understand that in all such cases instructions are now issued to Employment Exchange officials asking them to make no reductions in cases where employers make grants of this kind?
    Mr. Brown: That was done.
    Mr. George Hallasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in the Aberdare area who, owing to the operation of the means test, are not entitled to any allowance but who are receiving a grant such as dignity money under paragraph 39 of the Unemployment Assistance Board's Explanatory Memorandum, 1936?
    Mr. Brown: I regret that this information is not available. I would remind the hon. Member that the Board cannot grant allowances to persons who are not entitled to them, and that in granting allowances in the circumstances indicated in paragraph 39 of the White Paper they do so by a proper exercise of their discretion under the Regulations.
    Mr. Hall: Cannot the Minister get this information, and has he made any representations to the Board about giving a more generous interpretation to this paragraph of the regulations, especially in view of the statement which he made when introducing the regulations?
    Mr. Brown: I understand that the Board could get this information only by a special investigation. I will call their attention to the point.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Labour whether the whole of the rebate of rent for children allowed by local
    1254
    authorities is taken into account when assessing for transitional unemployment benefit?
    Mr. Brown: Unemployment allowances are normally adjusted for rent, by reference to the actual rent paid, in the light of recommendations of local advisory committees. Under these recommendations there is frequently a margin within which rent rebates may be granted without affecting the amount of the allowance payable. The rebate schemes, however, vary greatly in character and where necessary the Board's officers discuss their detailed application in any area with the local authority concerned. If the hon. Member has any special case in mind, perhaps he will let me have further particulars.
    Mr. Bateyasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in December, 1937, there were 22,853 able-bodied unemployed persons receiving Poor Law relief in England and Wales; and whether he will take steps to transfer these persons to the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    Mr. Brown: I am not prepared to introduce the legislation which would be necessary for this purpose.
    Mr. Batey: Does the Minister consider it fair that so many unemployed people should come under the Poor Law, and was not the House given to understand that they would be taken over by the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    Mr. Brown: This is merely keeping within the law.
    Mr. Bateyasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the reduction in the estimate of expenditure for the Unemployment Assistance Board, he will take steps to abolish the means test?
    Mr. Brown: No, Sir.
    Mr. Batey: Seeing that the expenditure of the Unemployment Assistance Board has been reduced so much, does the Minister not consider that the time has come when this abominable system should be abolished?
    Mr. Brown: I do not agree. It seems to work very well.

    HORNCHURCH (EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE).
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the hardship

    1255
    and delay caused to unemployed persons in the Hornchurch district of Essex by the fact that they are obliged to report at the Romford Employment Exchange, he will take steps to establish an Employment Exchange for the rapidly increasing population in Hornchurch?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have this matter under consideration.

    EXPECTANT MOTHERS.
    Mr. Dingle Footasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the position of women who are within a few weeks of childbirth and who, being unemployed, are under the necessity of attending at the Employment Exchange to draw standard benefit or unemployment allowances; whether he is aware that, although such women are usually held to be capable of work, their chances of obtaining employment are very small; and whether he will consider, in collaboration with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, the advisability of so amending the law that women within a month of childbirth shall be maintained from National Health Insurance funds?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have received representations from time to time upon this subject but the proposal which the hon. Member makes is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland rather than for me.
    Mr. Foot: Is not the question directed to whether the right hon. Gentleman should consult with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the responsibility for any new proposals would be theirs, and that representations must be made, first of all, to them.
    Sir Percy Harris: Is not the point at issue the necessity for these women attending the Employment Exchanges?
    Mr. Brown: The issue really is whether these women can be maintained from National Health Insurance funds.
    Mr. T. Johnston: In view of the importance of this matter to large numbers of pregnant women in the industrial areas, will the right hon. Gentleman not consult
    1256
    with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the best way of dealing with it?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who put down the question will, first of all, approach my right hon. Friends, and if so I shall be quite willing to enter into any discussions that there may be on the matter.
    Mr. Foot: May we take it that we shall have the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy and assistance in any representations which we make to the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Brown: I must first know what they are.

    LANCASHIRE.
    Mr. Parkinsonasked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to relieve unemployment in South-west Lancashire and in other Lancashire districts where unemployment is heavy?
    Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to Sections 5 and 6 of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, and to the answers given to the hon. Members for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 10th and 17th February respectively. I would also remind the hon. Member that Lancashire is sharing to a very considerable extent in the employment afforded by the Defence programme, and that three Government factories, together with four agency factories, have been or are being erected in the county. This is in addition to the large number of contracts which have been placed direct with Lancashire firms.

    EX-SERVICE MEN.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. John Gowley, an ex-service man, of 29, Long Row, Shiney Row, county Durham, who, having been unemployed for 5½ years, obtained work at a colliery on 30th January, worked a full week, and was then dismissed without notice, not because his work was unsatisfactory, but because he had been wounded in the right hand for which he was in receipt of a pension; and whether the manager of the local Employment Exchange has made, or will make, further inquiries into this case, with a view to getting this ex-service man work suitable for his condition?
    Mr. E. Brown: Inquiries are being made, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing a scheme with the object of providing work for ex-service men suffering from slight disabilities, as employers of labour will not have these men unless they are 100 per cent. fit?
    Mr. Brown: We do give attention to these cases, and I am having this case specially looked into.

    MONMOUTHSHIRE.
    Mr. Daggarasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons transferred from the Employment Exchanges at Crumlin, Abertillery, and Blaina, and the number of unemployed persons who have secured employment outside the area covered by these Exchanges, for each year 1926 to 1937?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am having the available figures extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

    STATUTORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet received the report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee upon the financial condition of the Unemployment Fund; when the report will be published; and whether he can make a statement upon the action which he proposes to take upon any recommendations in the report?
    Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. The Committee's reports on the General and Agricultural Accounts of the Unemployment Fund have been laid and copies will be available to members at seven o'clock to-day. As regards the General Account, the Committee recommend by a majority that there should be an increase from 9s. to 10s. in the weekly rate of benefit in respect of wives and other adult dependants, and an increase in the maximum period of benefit to which contributors with good insurance records are entitled. The cost is estimated at £1,500,000 per annum, and is to be covered in part through repayment of £20,000,000 of debt out of reserves.
    1258
    As regards the Agricultural Account, the Committee recommend that the waiting period should be reduced from six to three days, that the joint weekly rate of contributions in respect of contributors aged 18 and upwards should be reduced by ½d. for each party, that the weekly rate of benefit for young men between the ages of 18 and 21 should be increased from 10s. 6d. to 12s., and that the condition requiring payment of ten contributions as a requalification for benefit should be abolished except where the applicant has drawn the maximum period of 300 days of benefit in the year. The cost is estimated at £222,500 per annum. I propose, subject to Parliamentary approval, to give effect to these recommendations.
    Mr. Lawson: While appreciating the advance, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the total amount of the balance now in the fund at his disposal and what is the amount that it has been decided to pay off the debt? Will not the balance allow of a larger rise?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the report. The amount to be applied to repayment of debt is £20,000,000. The remainder of the balance is a prudent reserve against any bad times that may come. There is also a surplus of about £7,500,000 which will help to finance these and other improvements over a cycle of eight years.
    Mr. Lawson: Are we to take it that it has actually been decided to take £20,000,000 in repayment of debt?
    Mr. Brown: That is so.
    Mr. Lawson: Would not that make it possible to give higher advances?
    Mr. Brown: No; £20,000,000 means £500,000 a year.

    COTTON INDUSTRY WORKERS.
    Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state whether he can do anything to assist the workers in the manufacturing section of the cotton industry in Lancashire who are suffering from underemployment as distinct from unemployment?
    Mr. E. Brown: As I told the hon. Member last week, I should like to know what is in his mind. Perhaps he will have a talk with me.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the representations made to him on this subject two years ago? He knows quite well what is in my mind in asking this question.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member knows as well as I do that this question may mean half a dozen different things. I should very much like to have a serious talk with him about it.

    SEASONAL WORKERS, GLASGOW.
    Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons defined as seasonal workers who failed to qualify for unemployment benefit in Glasgow for the years 1936 and 1937, respectively?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am having the available figures extracted, and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point of view that these seasonal workers, by undertaking employment, show a desire for permanent employment, and will he consider a revision of the regulations with a view to modifying them?
    Mr. Brown: We have already reviewed them and modified them since I have been Minister of Labour, and I know of no reason for going further at the moment.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point that many of these people, by undertaking seasonal employment, show their desire for work?
    Mr. Brown: Since the Anomalies Act was passed in 1931 there are a large number of seasonal workers who have never even been back to the exchange to register

    MINISTER'S TOUR.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour whether, as a result of his recent tour of various unemployed centres, he has formulated new schemes to deal with unemployment; and has he any statement to make?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have at present nothing to add to the answer which I gave on 17th February to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
    Mr. Davidson: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest when we can place a question on the Paper and receive an adequate answer?
    Mr. Brown: That is a matter for discussion on the Estimates, and that remains with the hon. Gentleman's Leader.

  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
  Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken by the Governments who were parties to the Washington Hours Convention Act to ratify the same; and will he give particulars of the present position and the conditions specified by the various Governments?
  Mr. E. Brown: I assume the hon. Member refers to the Convention on Hours of Work in Industry which was adopted by the first International Labour Conference at Washington in 1919. This Convention has been ratified by 18 countries and conditionally ratified by four countries. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list showing the names of these countries and the conditions, if any, which they have specified.
  Mr. Day: Will the Minister ascertain what are the conditions on which Germany will agree to ratification?
  Following is the list:
  Ratified: Argentine, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominica, Greece, India, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Nicaragua, Portugal, Rumania, Spain, Uruguay.
  Conditionally Ratified: Austria (only to be put into force when it has also been ratified by the European States of chief industrial importance which are Members of the International Labour Organisation and also by the States bordering on Austria with which Austria has economic relations); France (only to have effect when also ratified by Germany and by Great Britain); Italy (to date from the day when the Convention has also been ratified by Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain and Switzerland); Latvia (to come into force when also ratified by three of the States of chief industrial importance within the meaning of Article 393 of the Treaty of Versailles).

  CATERING TRADE (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
  Mr. Leslieasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the low wages and long hours of labour prevalent in the catering trade, the Minister will consider the advisability of setting up a trade board to regulate the conditions of employment in that trade?
  Mr. E. Brown: I have no recent information concerning conditions in this trade. If the hon. Member will furnish me with any information in his possession I shall be glad to give it consideration.
  Mr. Leslie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the report of the special committee which was set up to consider the case and the recommendation which was made then for the establishment of a trade board?
  Mr. Brown: That was in 1913, and I have not any recent information.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with conditions of employment in the retail distributive trades, and also that he has been good enough to promise an inquiry into the conditions of employment in the licensed trade, will he not consider making some inquiry into the catering trade at the same time?
  Mr. Brown: These things keep me fairly busy, and the hon. Member must not seek to place too many burdens on my shoulders.

  SHOP WORKERS (CONDITIONS).
  Captain Pluggeasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered a report on wages, hours, and conditions of shop workers submitted to him from a joint committee of employers' organisations and trades' unions; whether he is satisfied that this report also represents the views of small individual shopkeepers; and, if not, whether he will do his best to obtain them?
  Mr. E. Brown: I received the report only a few days ago and, therefore, I am not yet in a position to make any observations upon it. According to my information the employers' organisations concerned are representative of all classes of employers.
  Captain Plugge: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman which organisations are considered representative of the views of the "one-assistant" shopkeeper?
  Mr. Brown: When I had my first discussion nearly two years ago on this matter there was a very large and representative gathering, and every point of view has been represented on the committee which has been engaged on this subject for 18 months.
  Mr. Mabane: Is it not a fact that every organisation representative of the small shopkeepers of the type described in the question was fully represented at that conference?

  GLASGOW EXHIBITION (MINISTRY OF LABOUR PAVILION).
  Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour whether his Department will be represented at the Glasgow Empire Exhibition; and, if so, in what manner?
  Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. A small pavilion is being set up in the grounds of the exhibition at which various aspects of the Ministry's work will be illustrated and facilities for giving information to inquirers will be available. It is hoped, also, that certain films of the Ministry's work will be shown in the exhibition's film theatre.
  Mr. Davidson: Does this mean that within this Pavilion there will be a model of an employment exchange with notices of the regulations, penalties and scales of benefit, and will the lectures include instruction to foreigners on how to keep and feed a child on 3s. a week?
  Mr. Brown: The work of the Ministry will be illustrated there. The hon. Gentleman is doing his constituents no good service by pretending that we have not the finest service in the world.
  Mr. Maxton: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department represented at the strike of workers that is now taking place at the Exhibition?
  Mr. Brown: We are always in touch.
  Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman made an assertion that in my question I was trying to injure my constituents, and I want to ask whether his assertion is proved

  1263
  by the recruiting figures and the number of physical defectives?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

  RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that since the establishment of the Racecourse Betting Control Board £220,627 has been allotted by the Board to purposes connected with the sport of horse-racing, and only £19,650 to purposes conducive to improvements of the breeds of horses; and on what grounds such a small allocation to horse-breeding is justified?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am assured by the Board that they have made every effort to allocate the available funds to the various objects specified in the Act in the manner which in their judgment is most advantageous. The amount of money which can advantageously be allocated in the form of direct grants for improving the breed of horses is limited, but it must be remembered that sums allotted for the improvement of horse racing do operate, either directly or indirectly, for the benefit of horse breeding. In particular, some 35 per cent. of the grants made by the Board for purposes connected with horse racing have been allotted to the provision of increased stake money, and this is a direct encouragement to thoroughbred horse breeding, on which the maintenance of the standard of other horse breeding largely depends.

  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  Dr. Haden Guestasked the Home Secretary whether he will arrange for statutory rules and orders, circulars, handbooks, and other printed documents issued by his Department in connection with air-raid precautions to be available in the Vote Office for Members of this House?
  Mr. Lloyd: A complete set of all documents published by the Stationery Office in connection with air-raid precautions has been placed in the Library of the House for the convenience of Members.
  1264
  Copies of the handbook which is being issued shortly to the air-raid personnel of local authorities will be supplied specially to the Vote Office. Further documents will be added as they are published and Members requiring such publications may obtain them in accordance with the usual practice on application to the Controller of the Stationery Office, through the Vote Office.
  Mr. Thorne: Will they be obtainable with the pink form?
  Mr. Lloyd: With the green demand.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mervyn Manningham-Bullerasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the proved value in Barcelona of underground air-raid shelters, he has considered the feasibility of constructing such shelters under the squares and open spaces in London and elsewhere, and reducing the cost of such shelters by utilising them normally for parking motor cars?
  Mr. Lloyd: Under the Act the duty of making arrangements for the provision of such shelters for the protection of the public as may be necessary rests upon the local authorities. Air-raid shelters specially constructed for this purpose would not necessarily be suitable as garages, though underground garages could, in certain circumstances, afford protection in air raids, and in considering any proposals for the construction of underground garages local authorities will doubtless keep in mind the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Mr. Herbert Morrison: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the Home Office have formed any opinion as to the desirability of the construction of shelters for the public?
  Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be issuing a circular in regard to that as affecting local authorities very shortly.
  Major Millsasked the Home Secretary whether he considers the declaration made by special constables under the Special Constables Acts, 1831, 1914, and 1932, is appropriate for members of the observers corps whose duties involve watching for hostile aircraft; and whether he has ascertained, or will ascertain, the views of the chief constables of counties and county

  1265
  boroughs as to the desirability of transferring all responsibility for this corps to the Royal Air Force under whom they come for operational purposes?
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): As was stated in a reply to a similar question given by the Under-Secretary of State for Air on 9th February, experience over a number of years has shown that the status of special constables provides a satisfactory method of meeting the requirements of the Observer Corps. Having regard to the great national importance of the duties of these men, I do not consider that this status, or the declaration which the men are required to make, is inappropriate. I have recently obtained the views of representative chief constables on the matter, and though there was some divergence of opinion, my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air and I are satisfied that there is no ground for altering the present arrangements.
  Major Mills: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that the vast majority of the members of this corps would much prefer such a transfer?
  Sir S. Hoare: My information does not confirm that view.
  Mr. Priceasked the Home Secretary the number of local authorities who are in process of training air-raid wardens in their duties?
  Mr. Lloyd: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware the organisation of services of air-raid wardens is one of the duties put upon local authorities by the Act. While some authorities have made more progress than others, I am informed that generally the organisation of this work is in hand in practically all areas.
  Mr. Price: Has the hon. Member any information as to the number of those who are in training as air wardens?
  Mr. Lloyd: We shall have more information when the schemes are submitted by the local authorities.
  Mr. George Griffithsasked the Home Secretary what preparations the West Riding County Council have made in connection with the burning pit stacks in the event of an air raid?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am not aware of any preparations by the West Riding County Council, but as my right hon. Friend stated in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) last Monday, the problems involved by these burning heaps in time of war are under examination.
  Mr. Griffiths: Up to now, has the Home Secretary had no information whether they will decide either to cover or to put out these pit stacks? Is the Under-Secretary aware that there are stacks burning to-day which are as big as this Chamber and that at night they can be seen for 200 miles? An aeroplane in Germany can almost see them. Will the Home Office do something to get them put out?
  Mr. Lloyd: It will be for the West Riding County Council, when they submit their scheme, to consider whether any provision ought to be included in it for dealing with this matter. I will ask our regional inspector to be specially ready to assist them with technical information.

  SHOPS ACTS.
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider some amendment to the Shops Act, 1934, in view of the present anomalies whereby it is possible on the half-day closing to purchase from chemists a tooth brush and tooth paste, but not a shaving brush and safety razor, and in view of the fact that many retailers are unable to interpret the Act in numerous instances similar to the one given?
  Sir S. Hoare: Under the Shops Act, 1912, shops are required to close for a weekly half-holiday, but various exemptions are provided including an exemption for the sale of medicines and medical and surgical appliances. My hon. Friend will appreciate that in legislation of this character some special exceptions must of necessity be provided, and that where there are exceptions there must always be border-line cases. I do not see how such cases are to be avoided by any amendment of the law, short of abolishing the exemptions altogether.
  Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is impossible to interpret this Act, and that the numerous

  1267
  cases throughout the country surely demand a good deal more common sense in the Act?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am afraid that I cannot admit my hon. Friend's assumptions.
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Home Secretary whether as, since the passing of the Shops Act, 1912, the banks in the city now close on Saturdays at 12 noon instead of at 1 p.m., and as the city shops need not therefore remain open until 1.30 p.m. in order to allow bank clerks to do their shopping, he will consider amending the Act to enable these shops to close at 1 p.m.?
  Sir S. Hoare: The Shops Act, 1912, requires all shops to close not later than one o'clock on one day in every week, but a local authority may in certain circumstances by order exempt any class of shops from this requirement, either altogether or by fixing a later hour not later than two o'clock. I understand that in the City of London one or two classes of shops have been exempted up to 1.30 p.m., but that most shops have been exempted altogether from this requirement, though in practice they mostly close at 1.30 p.m. on Saturdays. If action is to be taken in the direction desired by my hon. Friend, this can be done under the existing law, either by voluntary arrangement on the part of the occupiers of the shops concerned, or alternatively by revocation of the orders of exemption now in force if a majority of the occupiers are in favour of that course.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Could not these bank clerks do their shopping on some other day than Saturday?

  BOYS ON PROBATION.
  Mr. James Hallasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of terminating the system of employing on nightwork boys of 16 years of age who have been placed on probation with a condition of residence in a hostel?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am not aware of any system of placing boys from probation hostels in employment involving night-work, and I believe much care is taken to find suitabe work for probationers. If the hon. Member has in mind some particular case and will send me particulars, I will consider them.
  Mr. Hall: I shall be pleased to supply particulars to the right hon. Gentleman of night work being given to boys under those conditions.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTORISTS (MANSLAUGHTER SENTENCES).
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Home Secretary whether, in connection with the proposals for penal reform, he will consider the amendment of the existing law as it applies to motor car drivers and other drivers convicted of manslaughter whereby sentence of imprisonment may be imposed on such offenders, with a view to substituting for such sentence the penalty of a heavy fine and permanent loss of driving licence, bearing in mind that the offenders, though admittedly a danger to the public, are not criminally-minded and should not be classed as, and with, criminals?
    Sir S. Hoare: Any amendment of the law on the lines suggested would be more appropriate in a Bill amending the Road Traffic Acts, but it must not be taken that I assent to the premises contained in my hon. Friend's question.

    PROPOSED SEVERN BRIDGE.
    Mr. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make a statement with reference to the construction of a bridge over the Severn River?
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this matter. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to communicate with him when I am able to do so.
    Mr. Jenkins: Can the Minister say when he will be in a position to make a statement on this matter, which is of such great importance to South Wales?
    Mr. Burgin: I am aware of the importance of the matter, and I am doing what I can to expedite a decision.

    CANALS.
    Commander Marsdenasked the Minister of Transport whether anything has yet been done to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Transport of 1931, that he should take steps to set up public trusts which would

    1269
    acquire such canals as he considers it would be in the national interest to preserve and improve?
    Mr. Burgin: No, Sir. I have no powers under which I could take the action proposed. My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that since 1930 considerable improvements have been made in certain of the more important waterways.

    BIRMINGHAM-WOLVERHAMPTON ROAD (REPAIR).
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Transport what steps are now being taken for the repair of the Birmingham-Wolverhampton new road; how many local authorities are involved in the placing of contracts; and whether he will endeavour to arrange for the more effective method of one contract being placed for the whole road?
    Mr. Burgin: The county councils of Stafford and Worcester, as my agents, are maintaining these lengths of trunk road. They are employing direct labour so that the question of contracts does not arise. The sections within the three county boroughs are not trunk roads, and I have no power to make grants for their maintenance, which is covered by the block grants to those authorities.
    Mr. Mander: In view of the importance of encouraging transport, and, indeed, the flow of ideas, between Wolverhampton and Birmingham, will the right horn. Gentleman give this matter the most rapid attention he can?

  POLICE AND COUNTY COURTS.
  Sir William Jenkinsasked the Home Secretary the amounts received in fines from police court proceedings in 1936 and 1937, respectively, indicating the amounts received by the Treasury and the amounts received by the police authority, and giving separately the amount the Treasury receives from road fines, and the amount allowed to the police authority for England and Wales, respectively?
  Sir S. Hoare: As the answer includes a number of figures I will, with the hon. Members's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The amounts of the fines imposed by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction received by the Exchequer in the years 1936 and
  1270
  1937 were £367,879 15s. 1d. and £379,190 10s. 4d., respectively. These sums include £356,636 19s. 4d. and £367,750 14s. 7d., respectively, in respect of fines imposed under the Roads and Road Traffic Acts. I regret I have no information as to the amount of the fines received by the local or police authorities
  Sir W. Jenkinsasked the Home Secretary what grant is made to police authorities in England and Wales towards the salaries paid to clerks to justices and their staff; what grants are paid for the upkeep of the police courts; and what grant is given towards county courts?
  Sir S. Hoare: No Exchequer grant is payable in respect of the salaries of clerks to justices. As regards the second and third parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to his question on 28th February.
  Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Home Secretary whether he will include in the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee on conditions of service of clerks to justices the question of establishing a uniform procedure of issuing receipts for moneys paid into court?
  Sir S. Hoare: The failure of some clerks to adopt proper systems of giving receipts is one amongst several questionable economies which have resulted from the statutory provision that the clerk shall be paid an inclusive sum to cover both his expenses and his personal remuneration, with the consequence that the more he spends on clerical assistance, postage, etc., the less may be his personal remuneration. To review this system of payment will be one of the functions of the proposed committee.

  YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT).
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Home Secretary (1) whether he will publish the results of his inquiries from local elementary education authorities as to the present amount and nature of the employment of school children in their areas;
  (2) whether he will publish the results of his questionnaire to councils of counties and county boroughs as to the number of young persons engaged or employed in street trading and the nature of the employment?
  Sir S. Hoare: When all the returns are received and summarised I shall certainly consider the best method of making the information available to the public.

  JURY SERVICE.
  Captain Pluggeasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider exempting from jury service small business men working on their own account, since such men have to suspend work during their jury service and thus receive no payment of any kind?
  Sir S. Hoare: Legislation would be required to give effect to this suggestion, and I am not in a position to give any promise of legislation on this subject.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE.

    CRIME INQUIRIES, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
    Mr. Dayasked the Home Secretary particulars of the number of Metropolitan officers who have been actively engaged during the previous weeks on inquiries into the murder of Captain Butt; and upon which authority will fall the cost for the use of the police officers so engaged?
    Sir S. Hoare: Chief Constables of the county and borough police forces are entitled to enlist the aid of Scotland Yard detectives in the investigation of serious alleged crimes. One chief inspector of the Criminal Investigation Department and one sergeant of the Metropolitan Police Force have been engaged in assisting the Gloucestershire Constabulary in the case referred to, and the cost of their services will be borne by the Metropolitan Police Fund.
    Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that those two officers were also engaged in dragging operations?
    Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, not without notice.

    TRAINING.
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Home Secretary the number of men who have been trained in the Metropolitan police schools and colleges during the five years ended 31st March, 1937; and how many of these are now serving in the Metropolitan Police Force?
    Sir S. Hoare: During the five years ended on 31st March, 1937, 3,628 candidates were trained in the Metropolitan Police Training School, of whom 2,883 are now serving in the Metropolitan Police Force. Up to the same date, 122 men had completed their training in the Metropolitan Police College, which opened in May, 1934. One hundred and twelve of these men are now serving in the Metropolitan Police Force.
    Mr. Strauss: Would the Home Secretary explain why so many of the people who are trained in this college are not serving in the Metropolitan Police, and whether they have left in dissatisfaction?
    Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member had better put that question down, when I will give him the information.

  LEICESTER PRISON (ELECTRIC LIGHT).
  Mr. Everardasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that electric light has been installed in the chapel of Leicester prison by the generosity of the visiting justices, he will now arrange for the remainder of the prison premises to be lighted with electric light forthwith?
  Sir S. Hoare: Electric light is being installed in His Majesty's prisons in accordance with a general programme, and it is hoped that the necessary work will be started at Leicester prison towards the end of the coming financial year.
  Mr. Thurtle: Can the Home Secretary say why the chapel was the first place chosen for electric lighting?

  PENTONVILLE PRISON (STOKERS' WAGES).
  Mr. Montagueasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider revising the scale of wages for stokers at Pentonville prison in view of the fact that in some cases the wives of these men have to go out to work to supplement the wage of £2 8s. weekly so that high rents may be paid?
  Sir S. Hoare: The present rate of wages for these employés is 53s. 6d. a week, less statutory deductions of 1s. 7d. a week. The Prison Commissioners have

  1273
  under consideration representations regarding the rates of pay of stokers, but they propose to defer any decision on this question until the claim of prison officers for a revised scale of pay, which is about to be submitted to arbitration, has been disposed of.

  LIFT ACCIDENT, FOLKESTONE.
  Mr. Thorneasked the Home Secretary the cause of the lift accident at the Grand Hotel, Folkestone, on Saturday, when a boy, aged 17, was found dead in the well of the lift where he was employed?
  Sir S. Hoare: I have obtained a report on the inquest. The verdict was accidental death; there was no direct evidence as to the cause of the accident and in the circumstances I should prefer not to express any opinion.

  FASCIST MEETING, STRATFORD.
  Mr. Grovesasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the protests and petitions from the residents of and around Rosher Road, Stratford, a meeting of Fascists was there held on Sunday morning, 27th February, and that, as a result of the consequent disorder, four onlookers were arrested; whether he is informed through the uniformed policeman, who took shorthand notes of the proceedings, that two Fascist speakers repeatedly used insulting language to the audience; whether he will take the necessary steps to prosecute the speakers for action calculated to cause a breach of the peace; and whether, in view of the fact that the area is a thickly populated industrial area, and many workers engaged on nightly duty need daytime rest, he will ensure that no more such meetings are held there?
  Sir S. Hoare: I have made inquiries and am informed that four persons who were hostile to this meeting were arrested and charged with using insulting words and behaviour, but so far as the police were able to hear the speakers amid much interruption they heard nothing to warrant the institution of proceedings against them. As the hon. Member knows, the police have no power to prohibit lawful meetings, and the fact that a meeting in a particular district may be
  1274
  unwelcome to the inhabitants of that district does not make it unlawful.
  Mr. Groves: Can the Home Secretary say why the chief inspector of the neighbourhood climbed on to the back of the van from which these speakers were addressing the audience and warned one of them in respect of his conduct? Why did the inspector take such action if he heard nothing to warrant interference? In view of the fact that I was there, may I further ask whether it is not a fact that a policeman took a full shorthand note, and whether, following a warning from the inspector, one of the Fascists referred to the audience as "scum" and another referred to them as "hook-nosed unmentionables"? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] It may be a speech, but this is a very serious matter, and I want to know whether the Home Secretary will have the shorthand notes presented to him in longhand and let me, as the Member for the division, peruse them with him, as I was present and know that insulting behaviour took place?
  Sir S. Hoare: I have given the House the information at my disposal, and if the hon. Member has any further information I hope he will communicate it to me.

  PRISONERS ("CAT" SENTENCES).
  Mr. Pearsonasked the Home Secretary whether the men sentenced for the Mayfair jewel robbery have undergone any part of the sentence of a varying number of strokes of the cat?
  Sir S. Hoare: I am informed that the full sentences of the court were carried out on the 1st instant.
  Sir Gifford Fox: Does not my right hon. Friend think this would be a good punishment for all those convicted of sabotage or giving away official secrets?
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the sadistic effect of these sentences on a section of the public, and in view of that and the grave consequences to all men who are sentenced to this form of punishment, will he seriously consider bringing such form of punishment to an end?
  Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Gentleman has raised a much wider question, and I could not answer it in the form of a supplementary answer.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does not my right hon. Friend deplore the undue publicity given to the execution of these sentences by a section of the Press and by questions in Parliament? Has there been any leakage of information from the prison, and, if so, will he take action?
  Sir S. Hoare: I have answered the question on the Paper, and perhaps my hon. Friend would like to put down another question.

  FOREIGN POLICY.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether the French Government have been consulted by the British Government, and have agreed with their view, that tinder existing conditions the collective system of the League of Nations cannot be considered as operative as regards Article 16 of the Covenant; and whether France has been consulted, and agreed to negotiations between Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, excluding Russia, for a general European settlement?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): If the hon. Member will look at the reports of the statements I made in the House on 21st and 22nd February, he will find a full expression of my views on the subjects to which he refers. I could not accept in all respects the interpretation which he places upon my remarks. As regards the attitude of the French Government, the hon. Member will no doubt have been able to inform himself from the reports of the proceedings of the recent debate in the French Chamber. With regard to the second part of the question, there is no proposal at present, so far as I am aware, of the kind to which the hon. Member refers. But I need hardly repeat what has already been made plain on more than one occasion that His Majesty's Government intend, as in the past, to remain in close consultation with the French Government on all matters of common concern to the two Governments.

  CASUAL WARDS GLAMORGAN.
  Mr. Hopkinasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the
  1276
  distances between casual wards in the rural parts of Wales are unreasonably long, and whether he will take steps to see that, in any new arrangements in Glamorgan, the distances between wards will be reduced?
  The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am aware that some of the distances between casual wards in Wales are rather long, and in considering any-new arrangements which may be submitted to me for Glamorgan, I shall certainly have regard to the distances between the wards.

  EDUCATION.

    NECESSITOUS SCHOOLCHILDREN (FOOTWEAR).
    Mr. Jenkinsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board will authorise expenditure by local education authorities for the purchase of children's footwear in needy cases; and, if so, whether the expenditure will rank for grant?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Under the existing law, the Board have no power to authorise expenditure by local education authorities on the purchase of footwear for necessitous schoolchildren, or to pay grant in respect of such expenditure.
    Sir P. Harris: Does the Board pay grant for gymnasium shoes for physical exercises and training?
    Mr. Lindsay: I think so.

    TEACHERS (PARIS COURSE).
    Captain Cobbasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that 200 English and Welsh teachers will visit Paris at Easter as the guests of the French Government; and what arrangements have been made for this visit?
    Mr. Lindsay: Yes, Sir. The Board, in co-operation with the British Institute in Paris, have arranged a course for teachers of French in secondary schools in England and Wales. The proposal to hold the course has produced a gratifying expression of interest from the authorities of the University of Paris, who, acting in

    1277
    agreement with the French Ministry of National Education, have undertaken to meet the whole of the expenses of the organisation of the course and of the provision of the necessary lecturers. In addition the University of Paris have placed the amenities of the Sorbonne at the disposal of the members of the course. My Noble Friend would like to take this opportunity of expressing his great appreciation of the generous help and co-operation of the French Government, which he has already conveyed to the French authorities.
    Sir P. Harris: Will the Board consider giving a similar invitation to French teachers to visit England, in order to encourage these desirable exchanges?
    Mr. Lindsay: I hope that that will take place next year.
    Mr. Davidson: Does not the Board think that the Italian language will be more necessary to the school children in the future?

  HOUSING.

    WEARDALE AND BARNARD CASTLE.
    Mr. Sextonasked the Minister of Health the number of houses necessary to re-house people under overcrowding proposals in the Weardale Rural District, Barnard Castle Urban District, and Barnard Castle Rural District, respectively; and how many such houses have been completed in each district?
    Sir K. Wood: The number of houses found to be overcrowded in the three districts to which the hon. Member refers was 136, 28, and 147. I am as yet unable to give precise information as to the number of new houses which will be required to abate this overcrowding. No houses for this purpose have yet been completed.
    Mr. Sexton: Is the Minister satisfied with the progress that has been made in these districts?
    Sir K. Wood: I would like to see more progress made.
    Mr. Sextonasked the Minister of Health the number of houses scheduled for slum clearance in the Weardale Rural District, Barnard Castle Urban District, and Barnard Castle Rural District, respectively; and the number of new
    1278
    houses completed under slum clearance schemes in each district?
    Sir K. Wood: The slum clearance programme of the local authorities for the three districts mentioned comprise 75, 140, and 128 houses, respectively. The numbers of replacement houses completed are 14, 50, and 4.

    SUBSIDY.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the resolutions from the Stoke-on-Trent City Council and the Bridlington Borough Council urging him to revise his proposals so as to provide that such new Exchequer contributions shall be payable in respect of all houses erected for overcrowding, including those in construction at the present time, completed after 31st March, instead of 31st December, 1938; and what action is it proposed to take on this matter?
    Sir K. Wood: An amendment dealing with this point is on the Order Paper in relation to the Committee stage of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill.

    CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITIONS.
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Minister of Health whether, taking the number of houses built since 1918 and the number demolished since that date, he can state the approximate net increase?
    Sir K. Wood: I regret that I have no complete information in regard to the number of houses demolished since 1918, as the figures of demolitions furnished to my Department relate only to slum clearance operations. At 30th September, 1937, 151,844 houses had been demolished in connection with those operations. The Ridley Committee on the Rent Restrictions Acts estimated that the total number of houses demolished in England and Wales since 1914 for all purposes other than slum clearance is about 60,000. On the basis of these figures the net increase in the number of houses between 1918 and 30th September, 1937, in England and Wales was in round figures 3,300,000.
    Mr. Maxton: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we were to have a great war on the slums, and will he say whether this is it?
    Sir K. Wood: The figures I have given show that great progress has been made. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman thinks about it.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Do not the Census returns show that between 1921 and 1931 some 200,000 houses were demolished?
    Mr. Maxton: That was before the war on the slums.

    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING.
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability, before approving a resolution to prepare a scheme under the Town Planning Act, of satisfying himself that the planning authority is possessed of an adequate and qualified staff or adviser for the purpose of preparing the scheme, and that competent architectural advice will be made use of by the interim development authority in the consideration of proposals submitted during the interim period?
    Sir K. Wood: Parliament has entrusted local authorities with the responsibility of preparing planning schemes, and I have no jurisdiction to prescribe the number or qualifications of their staff in this connection. I may, however, say that having regard to the active part now taken by county councils in the preparation of schemes, and to the extension of the joint committee system, the general standard of administration under the Act of 1932 is steadily improving. As regards interim development applications, the hon. Member is aware that the voluntary panels of architects are now widely called into consultation by authorities, and I am ready to bring this system further to the notice of the authority in any area where I have reason to think that it is desirable to do so.
    Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many cases a competent architectural adviser has been available in connection with the scheme?
    Sir K. Wood: I will inquire and will let the hon. Gentleman know.

  RANELAGH CLUB GROUNDS.
  Commander Marsdenasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to institute an inquiry into the conduct of members of the Barnes Corporation in connection with the sale of the Ranelagh Club grounds?
  Sir K. Wood: I understand that the corporation have entered into an agreement with the directors of the club to
  1280
  which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, under Section 34 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, with regard to the development of the grounds, and that the validity of this agreement is shortly to be tested in the courts. In the circumstances I can express no opinion on, nor direct any investigation into, the propriety of the council's action.

  BIRTH RATE.
  Sir John Birchallasked the Minister of Health the latest figures of the birth rate in the following cases: schoolmasters, clergymen, professional men, and skilled and unskilled wage earners?
  Sir K. Wood: The Registrar-General's report upon occupational birth rates in 1931 is not yet complete; and certain advance figures only can be given. As they involve a tabular statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Jenkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for Cabinet Ministers?
  Following is the statement:

  ENGLAND AND WALES.

  Occupational Birth Rates, 1931.

  Crude live birth rate per 1,000 Married Males under 55 years of age.

  All Married Males (including unoccupied) under 55 years of age.

  95.9

  Clergymen (Anglican Church).

  70.5

  Teachers (not Music Teachers).

  59.9

  Professional Occupations (excluding clerical staff).

  73.5

  Social Class III, Skilled Workers.

  95.3

  Social Class V, Unskilled Workers.

  122.2

  INCOME TAX.
  Mr. Parkerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that certain aged Income Tax commissioners insist on attending meetings for duties which they are unable to perform in a proper manner, and that the Income Tax Codification Committee did not deal with

  1281
  this matter as they deemed it to be outside their terms of reference; and whether he will take steps to secure that in future these duties are performed by persons fully able to perform them?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): Any proposal of this character would require legislation, and, on the information at present available, I do not consider that any action in that direction is called for.
  Mr. Dayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of discount allowed on the last financial year in respect of prepayment of Income Tax under Schedule D assessment according to Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1918; and the number of persons who availed themselves of this allowance during this period?
  Sir J. Simon: The total amount of discount allowed in the year to 31st March, 1937. was £69,397, and the number of cases was 2,240.
  Mr. Day: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if greater publicity were given to the fact that people can obtain a substantial discount by the prompt payment of Income Tax, many more would avail themselves of it?
  Sir J. Simon: The hon. Member may recall that, as a result of some remarks made in the course of the Debates on the Finance Bill last year, a new arrangement was made; and, as far as I understand, arrangements are being made to state in very plain terms on the notice of assessment how discount can be obtained.
  Mr. Day: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing, with the notice of assessment, a special notice calling attention to that arrangement?

  ITALY (CREDIT FACILITIES).
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrenceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that there will be no British loan to the Italian Government?
  Sir J. Simon: No such loan is contemplated.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Can the Chancellor give an assurance that no such loan will be made?
  Sir J. Simon: No such loan has been asked for, and I have no reason to suppose that it will be asked for.
  Mr. Thorne: Is not the embargo on foreign loans being lifted for the purpose of assisting the man in question?
  Sir J. Simon: If the hon. Member will read the notice dealing with the modifications in the foreign loans procedure, he will see that it refers to quite a different purpose.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrenceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that no guarantee at the expense of the British taxpayer will be given for the promotion of additional imports into Italy?
  Sir J. Simon: Export credit guarantees are given for the benefit of United Kingdom exporters, and not for the benefit of foreign importers. In the case of Italy, as in the case of any other country, applications will continue, as at present, to be dealt with by the Export Credits Advisory Committee solely on business grounds with a view to assisting United Kingdom export trade.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Is not the right hon. Gentleman fully aware that the Treasury exercise considerable influence, on general grounds, on these export credits; and, in view of the particular conditions of Italian credit at the present time, can he give a more explicit answer to my question?
  Sir J. Simon: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that there is an Export Credits Guarantee Department, which, as, he knows, is run as a business concern, with an advisory committee of business men. It deals with all foreign countries, and I do not doubt that the question of credit is one of the questions which are taken into consideration.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Can we take it that no political influence will be brought to bear by the Government on this organisation to give more generous credit to Italy than has been given in the past?
  Sir J. Simon: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at my original answer, he will see that I said that applications will continue, in the case of Italy as in the case of other countries, to be dealt with by the Export Credits Advisory Committee on business grounds.
  Sir T. Moore: Will the Chancellor bear in mind the fact that the coal trade of Ayrshire is largely dependent on the Italian market?
  Sir P. Harris: Have export credits been given recently in the ordinary way of business to Italy?
  Sir J. Simon: That question would have to be put down.
  Mr. H. G. Williams: Does the answer cover the original dictatorship—that of Russia?
  Mr. Johnston: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what at the moment is the rate of interest charged on these export credits?
  Sir J. Simon: I should think that it varies, but I do not know.

  FOREIGN DEPOSITS (INTEREST).
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the payment of unnecessarily high interest rates on the substantial foreign deposits held in London increases the amount of invisible imports represented by earnings on foreign capital invested in Great Britain; and whether, in view of the growing adverse trade balance, he will take steps to prevent this payment of excessive interest?
  Sir J. Simon: I do not regard the particular considerations referred to in the first part of the question as a decisive factor in our balance of payments. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The complicated questions involved are rather a matter for study by the city authorities.
  Mr. Strauss: Even if this factor is not a decisive one, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the policy of the banks is directly contrary to the national interest at the moment?
  Sir J. Simon: I do not think that that is a matter of deliberate policy with the banks. The question arises in connection with a large number of different kinds of institutions in the city. It is, as I have said, a complicated matter which seems to me to be one that is suitable for study by the city authorities.
  Mr. Strauss: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  TOBACCO LICENCES.
  Mr. Liddallasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the conditions upon which licences to sell tobacco are granted to private householders?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): Any person, whether a private householder or not, may take out a licence to sell tobacco at any premises on payment of the proper duty. There are no special conditions attached to the grant of a licence to private householders.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. Hopkinasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mrs. Elizabeth James, Broncairo, Llanarthney, Carmarthen, who is over 70 years of age, was awarded an old age pension of 10s. weekly on 9th October, 1937, and that the decision was reversed on 12th November, 1937, on an appeal by the pensions officer; that she is an invalid and a grown-up daughter remains at home, therefore, to act as housekeeper; that the household income is 48s. weekly; that her husband, aged 63, has for many years been a pensions contributor under the National Health Insurance Acts; and whether, having regard to the anomalies existing, he will consider the introduction of amending legislation to meet this and like cases of hardship in old age among the working classes?
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the question. I am afraid I cannot undertake to introduce amending legislation on the lines the hon. Member suggests, since any attempt, when calculating means for pensions purposes, to allow deductions in cases of incapacity or infirmity in respect of the cost of domestic help would give rise to many difficulties and create many anomalies.
  Mr. Hopkin: If the amount came from dividends on investments, would not this person, at the age of 70, be entitled to claim a 10s. pension?

  INLAND REVENUE STAMPING DEPARTMENT.
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the intended transfer to the

  1285
  Stationery Office printing works at Harrow of the bulk revenue stamping now carried out at Somerset House by the stamping department of the Board of Inland Revenue, he will consider, before the transfer is carried out, the question of the resulting inconvenience to commercial interests situate in central London?
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes, Sir. Any representations which the interests concerned may desire to make on this important aspect of the transfer will receive the most careful consideration.
  Mr. D. Adamsasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, after a delay of two and a half years, the Board of Inland Revenue has finally rejected a claim for the establishment of the class of unestablished women tellers employed in the office of the director of stamping and is now delaying the reference to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal of a claim by the appropriate staff association for a compensatory increase in pay for this class; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the position of members of this class is not prejudiced by the delay on the part of the Board of Inland Revenue in agreeing to terms of reference for the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal?
  Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I am aware that the Board of Inland Revenue have rejected the claim for establishment of the grade of unestablished women tellers in the office of their Director of Stamping, and that the appropriate staff association has submitted a claim for a compensatory increase in pay. I cannot agree that the board are delaying their consideration of this claim. The claim was received on 2nd February, and the board replied on 11th February asking for certain information, which was furnished on 16th February. The matter is now under active consideration, and will continue to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. I see no reason to suppose in these circumstances that the position of the officers concerned is likely to be prejudiced.

  AGRICULTURE.

    CATTLE GRADING, MALTON.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the resentment that has been aroused in Yorkshire at the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the Malton graders on 11th
    1286
    January; whether any complaint at their methods of grading had been made except as a result of visits to the market made by Mr. D. W. Wright, the late inspector supervising the grading at Malton; whether it has been alleged that at any time any of the graders did not act in good faith; and whether the Livestock Commission will either reinstate the three graders or afford them the opportunity of presenting their case at a public inquiry or of appealing against their dismissal?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am aware that the dismissal of the certifying authority at Malton has given rise to representations. As regards the second part of the question, reports on the unsatisfactory grading at Malton had been made by two other officers, and also by a firm of wholesale butchers. As regards the third part, the grounds on which the appointments were terminated by the Livestock Commission were stated in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 21st February, to which I have nothing to add. As regards the last part, I understand that the Livestock Commission see no justification for adopting any of the courses mentioned.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that in this period the number of rejections at Malton was one in every five animals, while at another centre looked after by Mr. Wright it was one in every 500; and will he recommend to the Livestock Commission that they should take steps to remove the feeling of injustice that is current throughout the whole of the North of England?
    Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the state of things which my hon. Friend mentions; but I am aware that complaints against grading have been going on since the beginning of 1935, and I think the House will agree with me that the Livestock Commission, which has been charged by this House with the administration of the subsidy, should be supported in enforcing proper grading.
    Mr. Turton: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    LAND DRAINAGE.
    Viscount Elmleyasked the Minister of Agriculture when he will consult with representatives of catchment and internal drainage boards regarding the

    1287
    working of the Land Drainage Act, 1930?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: If my Noble Friend is referring to the amendment of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, I have already asked the Catchment Boards Association to let me have their views on the subject, and I have also expressed my willingness to consider a memorandum on the same subject which, I understand, the recently formed Association of Drainage Authorities proposes to submit to me.

    GRASSLAND.
    Major Whiteleyasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that sufficient technical knowledge and equipment is available satisfactorily to carry out the ploughing-out of grassland which would be necessary in the event of war?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The technical problems that would arise, and the provision of any additional equipment that might be required in the event of a ploughing-up campaign, have received and are receiving the fullest consideration.

    MILK (QUALITY BONUSES).
    Mr. Pearsonasked the Minister of Agriculture what was the total amount of quality bonuses paid for accredited and tuberculin-tested milk and the estimated gallonage on which quality bonuses were paid in Glamorganshire for the years 1936 and 1937?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    I regret that the information desired is not readily available, as the records of the Milk Marketing Board relating to sales of milk and payments to producers are not kept by counties, but on a regional basis. In 1936, the amount of accredited milk sold through the Board in the South Wales region, which includes Glamorgan, was 6,164,000 gallons, and the quality bonuses paid from pool funds totalled approximately £25,000. In 1937, the amount was 8,622,000 gallons and the total quality bonus paid was approximately £36,000. The quality bonus on
    1288
    tuberculin tested milk was not paid prior to 1st October, 1937, when sales of this milk were first brought within the Milk Marketing Scheme. In the last three months of 1937, 508,000 gallons of tuberculin tested milk were sold through the Board in the South Wales region, the total quality bonus paid amounting to some £4,000.

    PIG INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the Government's policy towards the pig industry?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 1st February, to which I have, at present, nothing to add.
    Mr. Turton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this delay is causing great unsettlement in the industry; and will he do something as soon as he can?
    Mr. De la Bère: When are to know something?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    ANTHRACITE (EXPORTS TO CANADA).
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has had further consultations with the representatives of the Dominion of Canada with a view to recovering our export trade in anthracite coal with the Dominion during the forthcoming season; and whether he can indicate the result of his consultations?
    The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): No, Sir. The decline in exports of United Kingdom anthracite to Canada is due to purely commercial factors outside Governmental control, and has occurred despite the fact that United Kingdom anthracite enjoys a preference of 50 cents per ton over its foreign competitors.
    Mr. Griffiths: In view of the fact that the Minister says he is taking no action, I should like to ask whether he realises the importance of this market, and whether he is aware that it was built up largely as a result of the efforts of the late Labour Government, and whether the message he wants to give the South Wales miners is that he cannot keep the trade that the Labour party got for them?
    Captain Crookshank: I should be very sorry to have it thought that I said that.
    Mr. Griffiths: That is what it sounded like.

    DISPUTE, POLMAISE PITS, STIRLINGSHIRE.
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now in possession of the full information as to the cause of the stoppage of work at Polmaise Nos. 1 and 2 pits, Stirlingshire; can he state the cause of the stoppage; and what action he proposes with a view to bringing both parties together with a view to effecting a settlement?
    Captain Crookshank: I have made further inquiries into this matter, but, as the hon. Member will be aware, it is not the practice of my Department to intervene in local disputes except when such intervention is desired by both sides.
    Mr. Westwood: Is the Minister aware that there is a charge being made by the men that they are being asked to break the Coal Mines (Regulation) Act, and, that being so, will he be prepared to meet the representatives of the men at the earliest possible moment in order to see that the law is administered properly by his Department?
    Captain Crookshank: Any allegation of breaking the law is quite a different matter. I was dealing with the question of intervening in a dispute.
    Mr. Westwood: Will the Minister be prepared to meet representatives of the men in order to discuss this point?
    Captain Crookshank: If the allegation is made that the law is being broken, I shall look into it, but, when it is a question of intervening in a dispute, I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that the normal practice of not intervening on either side is most likely to be helpful.
    Mr. Westwood: Is the Minister aware that his Department has already communicated with the men, with a view to discussion, and will he be prepared to meet the deputation with me?
    Captain Crookshank: I have already-said that I will look into any allegation of breaking the law. Perhaps the hon. Member will have a word with me after, because it is very desirable not to exacerbate feeling.

  MEXICAN OIL (CENTRALAMER, LIMITED).
  Mr. Johnstonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the attempted purchase of £3,000,000 worth of oil from the Mexican Government by a British-owned firm called Centralamer, Limited; whether the company in question is in receipt of any British Government subventions or subsidies for tramp shipping; and whether he can say where is its registered office?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): Reports, some of which have mentioned Centralamer, Limited, have appeared in the Press of purchases of oil by a British company from the Mexican Government, but I have no official information of the transaction. No payment of tramp shipping subsidy has been made to Centralamer, Limited, whose registered office is at 49, Leadenhall Street, E.C.3.
  Mr. Johnston: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when that company was registered, as it has not appeared in the ordinary list?
  Captain Wallace: If the right hon. Gentleman will put that question down, I will find out.
  Mr. Johnston: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether this oil is really designed for Japanese aggression in China?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for next week?
The Prime Minister: Monday: Defence Debate.
Tuesday: Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates, beginning with Colonial and Middle Eastern Services; Broadcasting; and Ministry of Labour.
Wednesday: Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates for Diplomatic and Consular Services; Foreign Office; League of Nations; and consideration of any outstanding Supplementary Estimates.
Thursday: Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Army Estimates and consideration of Votes A 1,

1291
2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, Ordnance Factories Vote, 1938, and Army Supplementary Estimate, 1937, in Committee.
Friday: Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.
The order in which Supplementary Estimates are to be taken on Tuesday and Wednesday has been arranged through the usual channels.
Mr. Attlee: What form will the Defence Debate take? Will the Government put a Motion on the Paper?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I will put a Motion down to-night.
Mr. Attlee: As to broadcasting, in view of that being a new service and very important, I hope that it will not be taken at a late hour at night.
The Prime Minister: I cannot give a guarantee, but I hope that it will not. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that we have to get through these Supplementary Estimates.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask what it is proposed to take to-day in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?
The Prime Minister: The suspension of the Rule is being moved in order that we may take the Committee stage of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, and I hope we shall be able to finish this stage. I do not propose to ask the House to sit beyond midnight.
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, 263; Noes, 126.

Division No. 114.]

AYES.

[3.48 p.m.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)

Fleming, E. L.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Albery, Sir Irving

Colfox, Major W. P.

Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

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

Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Assheton, R.

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Grant-Ferris, R.

Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

Critchley, A.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Grimston, R. V.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Crooke, Sir J. S.

Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

Beechman, N. A.

Cross, R. H.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Crossley, A. C.

Harbord, A.

Bernays, R. H.

Cruddas, Col. B.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Culverwell, C. T.

Hartington, Marquess of

Bird, Sir R. B.

Dawson, Sir P.

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

Blair, Sir R.

De Chair, S. S.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Bossom, A. C.

De la Bère, R.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Boulton, W. W.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Doland, G. F.

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Hepworth, J.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

Duggan, H. J.

Higgs, W. F.

Bull, B. B.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Dunglass, Lord

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Eastwood, J. F.

Holdsworth, H.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Eckersley, P. T.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Butler, R. A.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Hulbert, N. J.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Ellis, Sir G.

Keeling, E. H.

Carver, Major W. H.

Elmley, Viscount

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Cary, R. A.

Emery, J. F.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Errington, E.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Channon, H.

Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Leech, Sir J. W.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Everard, W. L.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Christie, J A.

Fildes, Sir H.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Findlay, Sir E.

Levy, T.

Liddall, W. S.

Petherick, M.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Lindsay, K. M.

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Lipson, D. L.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Storey, S.

Lloyd, G. W.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Procter, Major H. A.

Strauss, E. A. (Southward, N.)

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

M'Connell, Sir J.

Ramsbotham, H.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Ramsden, Sir E.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Suater, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Sutcliffe, H.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Tate, Mavis C.

McKie, J. H.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Titchfield, Marquess of

Magnay, T.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Touche, G. C.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Mander, G. le M.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

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

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Turton, R. H.

Markham, S. F.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Wakefield, W. W.

Marsden, Commander A.

Rowlands, G.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

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

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Russell, Sir Alexander

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Warrender, Sir V.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

Salmon, Sir I.

Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

Moreing, A. C.

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Wayland, Sir W. A

Morgan, R. H.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Sandys, E. D.

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

Munro, P.

Savery, Sir Servington

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

Nail, Sir J.

Scott, Lord William

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Withers, Sir J. J.

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Selley, H. R.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Patrick, C. M.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Peal, C. U.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Perkins, W. R. D.

Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Captain Hope and Mr. Furness.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Messer, F.

Adamson, W. M.

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Milner, Major J.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

Montague, F.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

Banfield, J. W.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

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

Batey, J.

Hardie, Agnes

Muff, G.

Bellenger, F. J.

Hayday, A.

Naylor, T. E.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Paling, W.

Benson, G.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Parker, J.

Bromfield, W.

Henderson, T. (Tradesten)

Parkinson, J. A.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Pearson, A.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

Hollins, A.

Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Buchanan, G.

Hopkin, D.

Price, M. P.

Burke, W. A.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Pritt, D. N.

Cape, T.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Cassells, T.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Charleton, H. C.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Ridley, G.

Chater, D.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Riley, B.

Cluse, W. S.

Kelly, W. T.

Ritson, J.

Cocks, F. S.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Robinson. W. A. (St. Helens)

Cove, W. G.

Kirby, B. V.

Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

Daggar, G.

Kirkwood, D.

Sexton, T. M.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Shinwell, E.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Lathan, G.

Silkin, L.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lawson, J. J.

Silverman, S. S.

Day, H.

Leach, W.

Simpson, F. B.

Dobbie, W.

Lee, F.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Leslie, J. R.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Ede, J. C.

Logan, D. G.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Lunn, W.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Stephen, C.

Frankel, D.

McEntee, V. La T.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Gallacher, W.

McGhee, H. G.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Gardner, B. W.

MacLaren, A.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Maclean, N.

Thorne, W.

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Thurtle, E.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Marshall, F.

Tinker, J. J.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Mathers, G.

Tomlinson, G.

Grenfell, D. R.

Maxton, J.

Viant, S. P.

1294

1295

Walker, J.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Watson, W. McL.

Williams, T. (Den Valley)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Westwood, J.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

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

STREET PLAYGROUNDS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 72.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Hutchinson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. H. G. Williams.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That Sir John Anderson, being a Member representing a Scottish constituency, is added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills under Standing Order No. 47 (2).
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law of Scotland with regard to divorce and nullity and dissolution of marriage." [Divorce and Nullity of Marriage (Scotland) [Lords.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

    CLAUSE I.—(General provision for contributions in respect of housing accommodation provided by local authorities.)
    4.0 p.m.
    The Chairman: The first two Amendments, which stand in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills)—in page 1, line 9, after "completed," insert
    "as regards housing accommodation mentioned in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (4) of this Section"
    and in page 1, line 10, after "thirty-nine," insert
    "and as regards other housing accommodation after the second day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight"
    appear to be one, and in that event they are out of order. The first Amendment by itself would be in order.
    Major Hills: Under Sub-section (2) of Clause 10 the Minister has power to treat a house completed before a certain date as if it were a house completed after the beginning of the year 1939 notwithstanding that it was completed before the beginning of that year. Some local authorities have pushed forward with their housing schemes and may have signed contracts. I ask that those houses should not be excluded from the subsidy. Would not that subject be within the terms of the Financial Resolution?
    The Chairman: The point of the proposal is that it would bring in more houses to earn the subsidy and would thus increase the charge. That is why it is out of order. The next two Amendments, in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) are outside the scope of this Bill.
    4.2 p.m.
    Sir Percy Hurd: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out "urban," and to insert "county."
    1310
    The Committee will realise the purpose of this Amendment. In Sub-section (3) of the Clause provision is made for an additional Exchequer contribution of £1 per house to be payable annually for 40 years for accommodation provided by non-county borough local authorities or urban district councils, where the Ministry is satisfied that because of certain exceptional circumstances the provision of the new accommodation would impose an undue burden on the borough or district. I want to put to the Minister the consideration that it is not alone in the two categories mentioned in the Clause, but also in rural districts, that there are exceptional circumstances and where there is an undue burden. We claim that it is only right and fair that this extra £1 should be allotted to them as well as to the two other categories. The right hon. Gentleman knows well how impoverished many rural districts are. We cannot see why the rural districts should be put in any worse position than the urban districts and non-county boroughs. We ask the Minister to give us a fair level of treatment in these exceptional circumstances and under this undue burden. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is taking this course because the urban districts are more insistent or the rural districts more complacent. I believe that my right hon. Friend does desire to give us fair treatment and I ask him to look at the matter in that way.
    We warmly appreciate in the rural districts what the Minister has done and is doing to aid us in filling the housing needs of these areas. I can say that he on his part warmly appreciates what is being done by local authorities. Last year he came down to the Rural District Councils' annual conference at Scarborough, a remarkable gathering of 600 to 700 delegates, two out of three of them non-official, performing perfectly voluntary service to the cause of the rural areas. My right hon. Friend then paid a warm tribute to the way in which the rural councils have come forward and assisted in meeting the housing needs of their areas. We ask him to remember that tribute and to give the rural district councils a fair chance of continuing to earn his good word.
    There is a new keenness in the local government of rural areas, a new desire to meet the new needs arising on every hand. I know there are hon. Members

    1311
    who will say: "But look how laggard some of the rural councils are." I have heard of county councils being laggard; I could point to one or two who are very laggard, and to urban district councils, too. The rural district councils are making a serious and successful effort to meet the new needs of the time in a spirit of keenness. We ask that that spirit should not be damped down. In the main rents in the rural districts are substantially lower than those in the urban districts and non-county boroughs. In his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister made a remark which I cannot understand. He was talking of the exceptional cases, and said:
    "Lastly, in connection with the exceptional cases which we are endeavouring to meet as regards the non-agricultural population in the rural districts, I am advised that under the financial arangements set out in Clause 1 it will be possible to provide cottages (A.3.) at a rent of 5s., with only the statutory rate contribution by the local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1938; col. 1737. Vol. 331.]
    I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the information which reaches me. If this extra contribution, because of exceptional circumstances and the undue burden, is not made, the houses will not be made available, except by placing a very undue strain on the local authorities. Why should the ordinary rural worker in a village be thrust on one side because he does not happen to be labelled as an agricultural labourer? We know how essential to the life of a village these rural workers are, and we feel that they should not be put in a worse position than the agricultural worker. If we turn to the report of the sub-committee of the Ministry which dealt with rural housing, on page 6 we find that the purpose that that sub-committee had in view was to meet a serious shortage and to cancel the unfortunate effect of that shortage on the well-being and contentment of the rural population. The subcommittee was thinking of the whole rural population. On page 8 it is noted that when industrial workers come into a village from the towns where they have earned town wages, they need not come under these exceptional terms; but those for whom I am speaking are not industrial workers of that sort; they are village workers and are subject to the wage conditions which apply to agricultural
    1312
    labourers. The weekly minimum wage of the agricultural worker is 32s. These village workers are in much the same wage position.
    On page 10 of the report to which I have referred the sub-committee consider that there should be a new subsidy which could conveniently take the form of making available for houses to meet general agricultural needs whatever contribution may be payable. In these circumstances I ask whether my right hon. Friend cannot reconsider this point. The rural district councils feel very strongly upon it. Forty-four of their branches have passed resolutions pointing out that if the extra contribution is not made they will be seriously harassed in their housing work. We ask for equity of treatment as between them and other local authorities.
    4.10 p.m.
    The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): My hon. Friend has put his case with strength and clarity, and I want at once to say that so far as the authorities of which he has spoken are concerned I do recognise the importance of their work. I was very glad indeed to go down to Scarborough to their annual conference, and if they have a conference next year at a suitable place I shall do my best to be there also. I have no doubt that these authorities are doing good work. I desire to support them in it, and the object of my visit to Scarborough was to encourage them to still further efforts, which I know they are keen to make. In this matter there is no reflection in any way upon the work of these local authorities, but the distinction which is being made in the Bill was due to my anxiety specially to assist what I described on the Second Reading of the Bill as a limited number of small urban districts where exceptional circumstances prevail, and I have suggested a special supplementary provision for such areas.
    The conditions which I indicated were two—a general level of working-class rents substantially below those applicable to the working class in urban areas generally, and the very limited financial resources of these districts. I stated that in my judgment the number of districts that would satisfy these conditions was not large, and I gave as an instance of the cases I had in mind some small boroughs and urban districts in rural Wales, where new houses could not be

    1313
    provided at suitable rents without an undue burden being placed on the district. My hon. Friend has now suggested that that particular provision, which was intended for those few limited cases, should be further extended. My answer is that already a generous measure of financial assistance is being given by this Bill towards houses for the agricultural population, which of course may be expected to form a substantial proportion of the population of rural districts. In the case of those houses the measure of assistance afforded to rural district councils, in relation to the contribution made to the rates by the district council, is in no less a proportion than ten to one, compared with a normal contribution of two to one. That is not only a considerable assistance to a great majority of the persons for whom my hon. Friend is speaking, but it should be observed that this amount and proportion of the Exchequer contribution will be paid into the housing revenue account of the rural district council, and in that respect therefore the housing revenue account in fact will be substantially greater than that of other districts.
    Sir P. Hurd: The councils say that it will be impossible to do what the right hon. Gentleman wishes without this extra contribution.
    Sir K. Wood: Experience tells us that there are differences of opinion on this matter, and I hope that they will be cleared up quickly when the Bill is passed and it is seen what the exact financial implications are. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has been through the same experience as myself, and will agree with me that most careful consideration and investigation is given to these figures. The figures which I have presented to the Committee have been carefully examined and are generally on the cautious side. The contention of the hon. Member cannot be maintained, having regard to the considerable proportion of Exchequer contribution which is paid into the housing revenue account of the rural districts. For the reasons that I have given, I regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment.
    Sir P. Hurd: In spite of the circumstances mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, these houses are not being provided at rents which the village workers can pay.
    Sir K. Wood: I think that, as a result of the exceptional financial contributions that will be made, the hon. Member will see a considerable improvement in that direction.
    4.17 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I am bound to say, with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that he has hardly answered the case put up by the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd), who always is a stalwart defender of the rural district councils. The point that he made has not been answered by the right hon. Gentleman. The talk about the agricultural workers and housing revenue does not meet the point. The hon. Member's argument is that under the general arrangement provided in the Clause, county districts other than urban districts are excluded. County districts even in rural areas are not populated wholly by agricultural workers. There is no agricultural parish in this country where the agricultural workers are in a vast majority. Who are the people living in these areas? It is not merely the farm workers who are living there but the lorry driver, the garage hand, the roadman, the railway worker, the employés of the little village factory, the local brewery, the local laundry, the local cement works, the local tannery and, it may be, the local jam factory. These workers have urbanised the area. There are rural district councils whose name is a misnomer, because they are predominantly industrial.
    The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to deal with particular categories, but to say that when he has made provision for the agricultural worker he has provided all the housing revenue for the rural population, is entirely false. The right hon. Gentleman might have made a better attempt to deal with the hon. Member's case. I do not see eye to eye with the hon. Member on most matters, but here is a case for putting the rural district council on precisely the same footing as the urban authorities in Clause 1. If it is a case of rents, what areas are there more impoverished from that point of view than the rural areas? Agricultural workers are the most ill-paid workers. The second condition which the right hon. Gentleman emphasises is that of the undue burden on the districts. What poorer local authorities are there than the rural district councils, where sometimes a penny rate brings in only a

    1315
    few pounds? Surely, if there ever was a case it is the case made by the hon. Member, that this special assistance should not be provided only for non-county boroughs and urban districts, but for the rural district councils also. If the hon. Member carries the matter to a Division he will find me in the Lobby with himself.
    4.20 p.m.
    Mr. Ridley: A serious anomaly will arise if Clause 1 is allowed to go through without the Amendment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has said, it is too readily assumed that rural district councils are really rural councils and cater exclusively for rural populations. While that may be true in general, it is far from being true in particular, and I would join in the appeal to the Minister that he should reconsider the matter. I would ask him to consider the circumstances of my own constituency which is covered almost entirely by two rural district councils, having within them only one urban authority. I do not know what proportion of the population in those areas would be regarded as being an agricultural community, but it would be a very small proportion. As to about nine or 10 to one the population covered by those two councils is a mining population. That being the case, within the provisions of the Bill as it stands both those rural district councils will be denied the advantage of the extra subsidy provided in Clause 1. They would be entitled if they were classed as urban district councils or as non-county boroughs, but they are denied it because they are rural district councils although they cover a similar population than that covered normally by an urban council.
    Within the area covered by one of these rural district councils there is an urban authority, with a population of 8,000. They, presumably, will get the advantage of the provisions of this Clause. In the area round about that which is covered by the rural district councils, there is a small town with a population of 11,000, governed by a parish council, but the housing authority is the rural district council. Under the provisions of the Clause they will be denied the advantage of the extended subsidy. There we have the position of one small urban authority getting the benefit of the Clause and a
    1316
    larger rural district authority, with extended responsibility, being denied the benefit. The extension of the subsidy from £5 to £6 10s. would be within the discretion of the Minister even if the Amendment were accepted. There would be no danger of extravagance in accepting the Amendment but there would be a certainty that it would avoid the gross anomaly which will otherwise be created.
    4.24 p.m.
    Mr. Turton: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage. The points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) merit full consideration. It cannot be said that all rural districts are of a similar character. The difference between a rural district council in the North Riding and a rural district council in the West Riding of Yorkshire is greater than the difference between a non-county borough and an urban district council in Sussex. Within the area of a rural district council it often happens that there are non-agricultural workers, such as miners or low-paid industrial employés, who five in bad houses, and where overcrowding conditions exist. These people will not be helped by the Clause as it stands.
    I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is doing a good deal in Clause 2 for the rural district councils whose areas are really agricultural, and I am deeply grateful to him for that, but we cannot overlook the fact that many rural district councils have to administer areas which are not strictly rural. In my own division there is a rural district council within whose area there are comparatively few agricultural labourers. Many other hon. Members must have in their areas rural district councils the majority of which have very few agricultural labourers in their areas. Those districts will not need to put up houses purely for the agricultural population, as defined by Clause 2, but they have their problems of overcrowding and slum clearance. I do not ask my right hon. Friend to take any hurried action but I do ask him to give an undertaking that between now and the Report stage he will consider the matter further, especially in view of an Amendment down to Clause 2, which if accepted may cause a further problem under Clause 1.
    4.28 p.m.
    Mr. R. Acland: I support what has been said from the point of view of the purely rural area. There are areas which are rural in fact as well as in name where there are large numbers of people of the economic standing of the agricultural labourer. I have particularly in mind the man who works on the county roads and whose pay is only 1s. or so higher than that of the agricultural labourer, and I am wondering how the rural councils are to house these men. I support the appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter.
    4.29 p.m.
    Mr. James Griffiths: I support the Amendment, and if it goes to a Division I shall be glad to vote for it. The Minister said that he was guided by the representations made to him and the experience he had gathered from various parts of the country, including Wales. The counties which the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) and I represent present one of the gravest housing problems in the whole of Wales, and unless the Clause can be altered, the Minister will find that he will not be able to deal with the housing problems in those districts. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) is now conducted an investigation into the tuberculosis problem in South Wales, where the housing conditions in what are described as rural but what are often urban and semi-urban districts are such as to make us feel ashamed of them. Most of these areas are semi-urban. In my own constituency there are Llanelly and Llandilo rural districts, where the bulk of the inhabitants are miners and tinplate workers, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said, the name "rural" is a misnomer, because they are really urban districts. Therefore, I urge that to deny to these rural authorities which are really urban the advantages which urban authorities will get is not good for housing and is not equitable as between one authority and another.
    I gather that a small urban authority in Wales will derive the increased subsidy but that a rural authority will not. Take Llanelly. If the urban council can prove that its burden is excessive, it can qualify for the higher subsidy, and we shall then have this anomaly in Wales, of an urban
    1318
    authority qualifying for the subsidy whose real burden will be less than that of the rural authority. Possibly the highest rate burden carried by any authority in Wales is in Llanelly, where the rate is 29s. 10d. in the £ in one parish, but because it is a rural council in name, it will be denied this extra subsidy, and because of the rate burden there it will not be able to get the full advantage of this provision, I therefore press the Minister to reconsider this point, and if he does not, I hope we shall go into the Lobby against him.
    4.32 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Although the Minister has said that he cannot accept this Amendment, I think a strong case has been made out why he should give further consideration to it before the Report stage. Under a subsequent list of Amendments which, it may be, he is going to accept, you will then have a situation where the agricultural worker, in whatever category of administrative area he happens to live, will be specially provided for under this Bill, but unless this Amendment is accepted, or something equivalent to it, you will have one particular category of persons penalised, namely, that class of worker who is not engaged in agriculture but who yet lives in a rural district. I have in my constituency a number of very small industries which are situated in actual rural surroundings. There are tin mines, which are right out in the country, and unless these workers, many of whom are not highly paid, are included in the scope of this provision, they will fare very unfavourably as compared with the agricultural workers who may be living alongside of them in the same village. I therefore hope the Minister will be able to give further consideration to this question.
    4.34 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: As hon. Members have asked me to reconsider this matter before the Report stage, I will, of course, do so. I will give it careful consideration, but I would like to say that it shows the difficulty of meeting situations of this kind. I received a recommendation from my Advisory Committee, which directed my attention to the necessity of improving housing accommodation for agricultural workers, and the great object of the Government's proposal was in that

    1319
    direction. If hon. Members will look at the recommendations of the committee, they will see that they were expressly directed to that end, especially in paragraph 20 of the report, where they recommend that the subsidy should be given for the general needs of the agricultural population. That, I have endeavoured to do. There was no recommendation in the committee's report with regard to these small and difficult districts to which reference has been made this afternoon. I have received representations from other Members of the House, particularly from Wales and elsewhere, and there was no suggestion made in this connection in the report of the Advisory Committee.
    Sir P. Hurd: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the rural worker is not a member of the agricultural population?
    Sir K. Wood: I am endeavouring to follow out what the committee recommended, and I hope hon. Members will observe the fate of anybody who tries to do that. I hope also they will observe that I am put in the position, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has no doubt been put in before now, of receiving claims from all parts of the Committee for the special assistance proposed to be given to particular areas only to be extended in one direction and another. Directly it is proposed, in any particular Bill, to meet special claims, obviously you must expect claims for everybody else to be met. I cannot promise more than that before the Report stage. I will reconsider what has been said, but I do hope the Committee will have regard to the considerations that I have put before them.
    Sir P. Hurd: After what the Minister has said, I will not press the Amendment. I will trust to him.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.38 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, at the beginning, to insert, "Subsection (2) of Section 89."
    This is a purely drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 3, line 34, leave out "of the principal Act."
    In line 35, leave out "that," and insert "the principal."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    4.39 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Gibson: The policy of the Government, as stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health during the Committee stage of the Money Resolution, on 17th February, differs in material respects from the provisions of the Bill. That policy, as stated by him, was "to encourage cottages where possible," and, further that where that was not possible, in respect to land which cost £5,000 or more per acre, for example, in the centre of London, Liverpool, or Manchester, then he said, the Government
    "reluctantly agree that, in the conditions, flats are necessary "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1938; col 2187; Vol. 331.]
    That seemed to state the policy of the Government fairly clearly, that where it was possible to build cottages, cottages should be built, and flats were relegated into an inferior position and were only to be recommended by the Government where cottages were not possible. The facts, as I have endeavoured to discover them by questions addressed to the Minister of Health, do not square with this policy. On Monday of this week I had an answer to a question that desired to elicit how many dwellings built or allocated since 1918, carrying State contributions or subsidies under any of the Housing Acts, were on developed sites costing various sums, those sums corresponding to the sums set out in the Schedule. The lowest group was of developed sites costing £1,500 to £4,000 per acre, rising up to sites costing sums in excess of the extraordinary figure of £30,000 per acre.
    The answer that I received to that question showed that the information was available only for flats as from 1st January, 1936. In the case of flats for the abatement of overcrowding, there were no fewer than 1,589 flats approved where the sites cost from £1,500 to £4,000 per acre; there were no flats approved where the cost of the site was from £4,001 to £5,000; there were 281 flats where the site cost was from £5,001 to £6,000; 200 where the cost was from £6,001 to £8,000; and 139 where the site cost was from £8,001 to £10,000. Then

    1321
    there was a break up to sites costing £16,000 per acre; and only 22 flats were approved where the site cost was from £16,001 to £18,000 per acre, and only four where the cost was from £26,001 to £28,000. Taking these figures, I find that 71 per cent. of the flats for overcrowding were on sites costing from £1,500 to £4,000. That is rather important, because it shows that these flats are built on relatively cheap land, and, according to the present Bill, houses built on that land, that is, land costing from £1,500 to £4,000, would only qualify for a subsidy of £5 10s. per dwelling and not for the £11 which a flat is to receive.
    The policy stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, the policy of cottages in preference to flats, is sound, popular, and inexpensive, for these houses are infinitely to be preferred to flats. They promote health, they are suitable for children, the gardens invite the people out from the houses on good days, to read the newspapers, or for the husband to potter about and look after weeds and so on, and they promote individuality and independence. They encourage child-bearing as well. With regard to the question of popularity, there can be no doubt that a house with a garden is the Englishman's castle, it is the pride of the Englishman and the envy of the Continent. They are now copying this type of dwelling on the Continent. It is certainly the admiration of Scotsmen as they wander south to see these houses with gardens for working people in contradistinction to the great tenements in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Greenock.
    Why promote flats instead of houses? Take the matter of expense. I am informed on excellent technical authority that houses as compared with flats are inexpensive. Where a flat costs £150 per room, a cottage, I am told, costs £100 per room. Since flats are built in blocks the strength of the walls has to be considerably increased and that increases proportionately the cost of the room, whereas in the case of cottages which are low the walls do not require to be so strong and substantial. I ask, why throw money away on flats which are costly and unpopular and at the best are only second best? The general policy in Subsection (1) is a subsidy of £5 10s. for a
    1322
    house or flat, but Sub-section (2) introduces an exception, and the exception is where the cost of the site is expensive, and expensiveness starts where the cost of the site exceeds £1,500 per acre. I am told that just outside the centre of practically all the big towns in England land can be got at between £1,500 and £4,000 per acre for the purpose of building dwelling-houses. I am also told that building flats in blocks does not produce more houses per acre if the houses are built in the shape of tenements. In both cases from 35 to 40 flats or terraced houses can be obtained per acre. There is nothing to be gained so far as numbers are concerned.
    But consider the difference between the subsidy of contribution as between flats and cottages for a site costing £1,500 to £4,000 per acre. If a house is built the subsidy is only £5 10s.; if it is a flat the subsidy is double. I ask what local authority, having regard to its duty to the ratepayers, will choose to build cottages which the Minister recommends so warmly? Surely the Bill ought to show visible evidence of his recommendation, but I find that the Bill gives a material advantage to the one thing which the Minister says he does not want. The monetary inducement to local authorities is to build flats, which the Minister deprecates, instead of houses, which he knows and states are the better. I ask, what defence has the right hon. Gentleman to offer for not giving a subsidy to houses as well as cottages on land up to £4,000 per acre?
    I should like to get some further information on a point I put in a question last Monday. The answer dealt with flats for the abatement of overcrowding. As regards flats for rehousing persons displaced by slum clearance the Minister said that there were about 25,000 on the 1st January, 1936, and that about 22,000 of these were on sites costing £3,000 or more per acre. That hardly met the question I put, because I wanted to know how many flats there were on sites between £1,500 and £4,000 and how many on higher rates. I therefore should like the Minister to tell the Committee how many of these 22,000 houses are on sites costing less than £4,000 per acre, because the £4,000, from the point of view of my argument, is a crucial figure. Up to £4,000 there is this difference in

    1323
    the subsidy between houses and flats which is so material.
    4.51 p.m.
    Sir Percy Harris: This is a matter upon which I feel very strongly. I speak from some practical knowledge of the subject as a member of the London housing authority for 28 years and as the representative of a working-class district with which I have been associated for over 30 years. I can assure hon. Members that the people themselves feel very much on this question. Many people have told me that they prefer their dirty old houses and back gardens where they can keep a rabbit or two and some poultry, to the most lovely flat with a modern bathroom. They may be quite wrong, but that is their point of view, and after all we are a democratic assembly and have to consider the people for whom we are spending the money. I was responsible, I think, for clearing the first slum area in London. We cleared away some of the worst houses in dark courts in London and put up a beautiful new estate of houses with bathrooms. I went down to the place with a good deal of pride, expecting to get praise, but instead my old ladies greeted me with a great deal of abuse and told me to leave their houses alone. We have, of course, to get new ideas into their minds, but at the same time we do not want to make London like continental cities, a place entirely of flat dwellers. When you go into a continental town you see nice broad streets and big buildings and are duly impressed, but when you go inside you do not find the same individuality and independence whch is a characteristic of our English people and our London working man, which I hope will be a characteristic for all time to come.
    It is, of course, more expensive to gut up flat dwellings because the walls have to be thicker, floors of concrete, every thing of strong construction and substantial against fire. On the other hand, the cottage has thinner walls and is much less costly per room to build. The problem is that when you clear away a slum the majority of the people want to live on the same spot, and although you plan your area properly you cannot get all the people back on the site in cottages, and you have to put some in block dwellings. I have seen plans where a certain number of cottages were included in a
    1324
    scheme for rehousing the people on the site, and I think the right hon. Gentleman might introduce more elasticity into the subsidy and satisfy the views of many people who are really concerned about the results of this beneficent housing legislation. I had thought of putting an Amendment on the Order Paper, but thinking it would be out of order I did not do so. I should be glad if the Financial Resolution can be amended—
    The Chairman: I had better tell the hon. Member what the Question before the Committee is. The Question is "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir P. Harris: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet my point, because I do not think it will involve any extra expenditure to make the alteration.
    Sir K. Wood: What alteration?
    Sir P. Harris: To allow cottages on expensive sites in addition to flats. I think it is possible to do this without any extra cost to the taxpayer.
    4.55 p.m.
    Mr. Macquisten: The hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) when he favoured cottages as against flats, struck a very appropriate note. In my opinion flats are an abomination. They are all very well if we were all pigeons, and could fly away, but they were never meant for human beings. That great despot Hitler is trying to abolish flats because he says that flats make Communists while cottages make individuals—and, incidentally, make good Conservatives. A cottage gives a man some personality, and any sensible Briton would sooner live in a little wooden shack of his own with a quarter of an acre than in the finest flat or hotel. Why should we perpetuate flats? Is it because land is a monopoly? How can you break the land monopoly? I will tell you; it is perfectly simple. Restore freedom of transport.
    The Chairman: We are discussing the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill.
    Mr. Macquisten: I am trying to show how to avoid flats and build cottages and I say free road transport. But this House is rotten with railway directors who are strangling road transport.
    The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member could not have understood what I meant. What he is saying is quite irrelevant.
    Mr. Macquisten: I am dealing with the method of getting rid of big tenements. If road transport was free there would be no block tenements or flats, the people and their work would be dispersed all over the countryside. Road transport disperses the population throughout the country, railways condense it. Congestion of population by railways is the great modern evil.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Henderson: I wish to raise a point which is of great interest to many local auhorities in the Midlands. In Clause 1 of the Bill it is provided that subsidies shall be paid only for houses that are constructed after the beginning of 1939. The effect of that will be that those local authorities which have been constructing houses in the years between the passing of the Housing Act, 1935, and the end of 1938, will not be able to obtain any part of the subsidy payable under this Measure. Many local authorities in the Midlands, under the provisions of the Housing Act, 1935, completed their overcrowding survey promptly and expeditiously and proceeded to apply to the Minister for financial assistance to enable them to construct alternative accommodation. In many cases, those local authorities have already completed a number of houses, and more will be completed during this year.
    In my own constituency, in the borough of Rowley Regis, the local authority have completed, or are in course of completing, 465 houses, and in the case of 175 of those houses, they have received, following an application to the Minister, a subsidy of £5 a house for 20 years, as against £5 10s. a house for 40 years, which will be payable under this Bill in respect of a house that is completed next year or thereafter. In the urban district of Brierley Hills, more than 200 houses have been, or are in course of being, erected, which will not count for subsidy under the provisions of this Bill. The consequence is that houses built during 1937 and 1938 will receive a subsidy of £5 a house for 20 years, whereas an identical house built by the same local authority in the year 1939 or thereafter will receive a subsidy of £5 10s. a house
    1326
    for 40 years. I suggest to the Minister that the effect of this will be to penalise those local authorities which have been most active in attempting to deal with overcrowding in their localities.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that he visited Scarborough some years ago and enjoyed himself, and that he had a very warm welcome. I assure him that he would have a very warm welcome if he were to come to the Midlands, especially if between now and the Report stage he found it possible to bring these earlier-constructed houses within the provisions of this Measure. I believe that the Minister has as one of his chief ambitions the building of more houses during his term of office than were built during the terms of office of any of his predecessors. That is a very laudable ambition, but I hope he will remember that if he penalises local authorities which have shown themselves to be so anxious to carry out the reforms contained in various Housing Acts, passed not only by him but by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), he will not be as likely to secure their cooperation as he would be if he were, on reflection, to appreciate the strength of the case brought forward by these local authorities and, in that spirit of compromise and understanding which he has already shown this evening in regard to earlier Amendments, to find it possible between now and the Report stage to meet the local authorities in this matter.
    5.5 p.m.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I had intended to confine myself to asking two questions which I have been requested by several municipalities to put to the Minister of Health, but after hearing the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. Gibson), two Scottish K.C.'s, I should not be representing the people whom I have been sent here to represent if I did not express a different point of view from that of the two hon. Members. Before dealing with their speeches, however, I will put to the Minister those two specific questions. In the first place, if the right hon. Gentleman will look at Sub-section (3) of this Clause, he will see the phrase:
    "If the Minister thinks fit so to determine."
    The point I wish to raise is not a personal

    1327
    one, but one of principle. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it is good policy, in such a Bill, to leave it to the Minister to determine matters in various ways. Ought not the position to be that when the Bill becomes an Act, the local authorities will know definitely where they stand with regard to these matters and not leave them to be determined by an individual as he may think fit. Secondly, at Question Time today, I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, and he replied that the matter referred to would be dealt with in an Amendment which would be called on this Bill. That Amendment, which was in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), was ruled out of order by you, Sir Dennis. Therefore, will the Minister make a statement now in answer to the resolutions which he has received from a number of municipalities in order to encourage the relatively progressive municipalities which have already been building houses, but which will not benefit from this Bill unless some alteration is made?
    With regard to the speeches of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Greenock and the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire, I admit that when I was younger I was very much prejudiced against flats. I had the privilege of going to a country where some blocks of flats were being built, and where opinions were asked with regard to the development that was taking place. I was in a group of 50 men and women most of whom admired the block of flats; but I had the courage to be critical of it. The reply which was made to me was that it was all right for idealists to speak as I had spoken, but that the problem was so serious that the building of blocks of flats was the only way of dealing with it. In spite of that experience, for many years afterwards I remained prejudiced against flats; but since I have been a Member of the House, it has been brought home to me more than ever before how serious the problem is. The problem of working-class housing accommodation, particularly in districts such as that where I was born and that which I represent, is so urgent, and the poor people have waited so long for decent accommodation, that they are now prepared to consider anything, within reason, in order that they may be taken away from the deplorable conditions in which they are living.
    1328
    I have visited flats in the London area. Along the Chelsea Embankment, there are some flats; the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) and other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen live there. Those flats are luxury flats. What is good enough for those people is good enough for our people. When hon. Members talk in the way in which they have done this afternoon, I would remind them that, while it is all very well for people who are relatively well-shod, well-clad and well-housed to talk in that way, the problem of working-class accommodation is so urgent, the conditions in which our people have lived for many years are so deplorable, that flats must be built. I have seen in the Manchester districts reasonable flats which are the admiration of all progressive-minded people and an example of what can be done. I have spoken to the women who live in those flats, and have seen how their eyes have lighted up as the result of their having being taken out of the deplorable conditions in which they lived and put into those flats. I suggest that the Minister should continue with his policy and that what has been done in the Manchester district and other places should now be done in other areas, where suitable, in order that our people may have the benefit of living in modem conditions.
    5.13 p.m.
    Mr. Marshall: I wish to make one or two observations on flats. I welcome the new Schedule of Financial Provisions regarding flats which has been inserted in the Bill. In the past local authorities have been under grave disabilities in the building of flats, and I think this new Schedule will help them considerably. The only thing about which I am sorry is that the Minister has not increased the allowance in cases where the cost per acre of the site as developed is from £1,500 to £4,000, because I think a little more generosity would have been very acceptable and would have opened up possibilities for the local authorities to embark on the building of flats of some magnitude. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) that if people could choose whether they would live in flats or cottages, they would undoubtedly prefer to live in cottages, but that does not meet the problem. My

    1329
    hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) said that flats have to be built. Let me refer to the case of a great industrial town where a considerable area has been cleared as the result of the demolition of slums. The land is not owned by the corporation, and it is impossible for private enterprise to provide flats and to let them at an economic rent. I have in mind an instance where a private company built a block of flats. I do not know how many they built to the acre. They built a huge block of flats and provided certain good amenities such as lifts and central heating, but they could not let the flats for less than 19s. a week and as far as the working man is concerned that is an impossible proposition. He cannot afford it. Unless authorities get substantial subsidies from the Government the flat proposition is impossible, and that is why I welcome these additional financial provisions.
    Then, the question of the density of flats is exceedingly important. I agree with every word that was said by my hon. and learned Friend with regard to the desire of people to live in their own houses and have their own gardens and develop their own individuality. But I do not know how he visualises the building of cottages on expensive sites at 8 or 12 to the acre. That is an impossible economic proposition—of that there is no doubt. I think local authorities to-day are building flats at about 36 to 50 flats to the acre. They are not being allowed to spread out horizontally, so they have to go upwards. If you limit would-be builders to 12 cottages to the acre on expensive sites, no working man can pay an economic rent for a home of that kind. My hon. and learned Friend is inevitably forced into this position, that he would have to build long continuous rows of cottages. In fact he has to fill up the site with cottages, sooner or later, and in that way shall repeat the faults of the past. Therefore we are brought inevitably to this conclusion, that we must build flats in the centres of our cities if we are to have housing accommodation there at all.
    I think there is a case for housing accommodation in the centres of the cities. I know the problem of filling expensive sites. You cannot even get industrialists to occupy them and local authorities sooner or later will have to face the redevelopment of these sites, in
    1330
    many cases with housing accommodation. Personally, I see no alternative to the building of flats and I would like to see them built. I think the ideal way of building flats is for the corporation or authority to clear about five acres and make a unit of that space. They have then to provide the necessary amenities such as a common garden or courtyard, and lifts and, possibly even a laundry and that kind of thing. If they do that, they can make a good job of it. I am not saying that even then the flats would be equal to the ordinary private single cottages but they represent the best that can be done in the circumstances. From a common-sense point of view, the authorities must try to make the best of the centres of our cities where all this demolition has taken place and if the Minister had given them a little more generous assistance on those lines they could have made a good job of it.
    5.19 p.m.
    Mr. Duncan: I support the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) on the question of flats. I am all in favour of flats where it is necessary to build on valuable land. Naturally, I agree, any one would rather live in a cottage if it could be economically built. I rise, however, to give the Committee a concrete instance of how this Clause will work in my own constituency. I think it is a tribute to my right hon. Friend that he has worked out the details of the Schedule in such a way that it will have an effect of giving more money to those who are building flats, enabling them to provide more amenities and to reduce rents. A voluntary housing association in my constituency had prepared plans to build 45 flats but the work was not sufficiently advanced to warrant a subsidy under the 1930 Act. The plans were worked out, however, and the figures show that the subsidy payable from the Exchequer under the 1930 Act would be £917 a year and the rate contribution £168 a year or a total of £1,085 in respect of the 45 flats. Now my borough council is being asked next Tuesday to accept, and the committee concerned has recommended the acceptance of the alteration in the subsidy arrangements which is to take effect under this Clause. The effect is that instead of a contribution from the Exchequer of £917, there will be a contribution of £1,085 and a rate contribution of £540, making a total of £1,625 a year, an

    1331
    increase, compared with the existing Act, of £535 a year which this voluntary housing association will be able to use for increased amenities and also for reduction of rents. I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend for making it possible to help North Kensington in that way.
    5.22 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I think it would be worth while to add a word on the question of flats.
    The Chairman: I am not complaining of the hon. Member, but it has just occurred to me to warn the Committee that I have been rather lax and must now be careful not to allow this to develop into a wide general Debate upon the question of flats. I give that warning to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Silverman: I had no intention of engaging in a wide general debate. On the contrary, I intended to point out that the wide general debate has no application to what the Committee is concerned with, namely the purely technical question of how some local authorities are to deal with their slum clearance and overcrowding problems. The point I desire to make is that in a city like Liverpool if you were to debar the authority—I know it is not suggested—from trying to deal with the problem by building flats, then the City of Liverpool might as well scrap its slum clearance and overcrowding programmes for ever. Here you have in the heart of a great city and on the most valuable land the worst slums in this country. I say that without the slightest qualification or modification of any kind. The Liverpool-housing problem is worse than any other with which I am acquainted. The Liverpool Corporation has for the last quarter of a century been making thousands of pounds a year profit, after paying rates and other charges such as repairs and insurance out of houses that its own medical officer has condemned as not fit for human habitation. The medical officer gave a certificate which would have entitled the Corporation, if those houses belonged to a private landlord to confiscate the property of that landlord with no compensation beyond the site value.
    I do not say that some progress is not being made but the only way progress can
    1332
    be made in these circumstances is by building blocks of flats of the modern type. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-East Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) told the Committee of his experience. He said he had been responsible for building a magnificent block of buildings and where he expected gratitude he got only curses and criticism. It is nice sometimes to know the other side of the question. I remember going to inspect a newly-built block of flats and being shown round by a tenant who had not been there for more than a week or two. She had come from one or two rooms in a broken-down slum house. She showed me from room to room in the flat, wandering about in a dream, quite unable to realise that she was there at all and that this little habitation was actually hers and not a dream of fairyland. She was unable to appreciate it, being almost delirious with happiness. That is different from the experience of the hon. Baronet. In Liverpool on these sites it is necessary to deal with casual dock labourers, most of them unemployed for most of the time. You could not take them to the suburbs and endeavour to give them small houses, because they would have to travel eight or nine miles twice a day to the Employment Exchange in order to sign on. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Twice a day?"] Really the hon. Member must remember I am dealing with my native city. Certainly there would be Employment Exchanges nearer to the outskirts but I am dealing with casual dock labourers who have to sign on at the docks and have to be available there twice a day. If you were to compel them to go to the outskirts the whole of their unemployment benefit would go in fares.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member resisted temptation in one direction, but I am afraid he is now yielding to it in another.
    Mr. Silverman: That is only another instance of how impossible it would be to do anything else in relief of overcrowding. The people have to be rehoused on the existing sites, and if they are overcrowded in their present dwellings, it means that you must have more dwellings at the same place, and the only way you can do that is to go higher into the air.
    Mr. Quibell: It suits the landlords.
    Mr. Silverman: I know, but it suits the people. It does not suit them as well as the cottage and a quarter acre each of which an hon. Member spoke earlier. But you cannot give thousands of people in the centre of Liverpool each a cottage and a quarter acre when some of the land costs £3,000,000 an acre.
    Hon. Members: £3,000,000 an acre?
    The Chairman: Even if it is that price, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we cannot go into a discussion upon it now.
    Mr. Silverman: I will speak to hon. Members privately about it if they like, but I can assure them that my figures are correct. There is considerable force in the argument with regard to an extra subsidy where the land is of greater value, but a warning must go with it. If there is a quicker way than another to enhance the value of land, it is to let the owner know in advance that the more valuable it is the greater the subsidy that will come from the Ministry when the local authority wishes to buy it. The question of the value of land in the centre of cities will have to be tackled. It is no use regarding the housing problem as though houses are built in the air. They are built on the land, and we cannot for ever go on attempting to deal with the problems of overcrowding and slums without addressing our minds to the underlying and fundamental problem of the value of the land on which rehousing is to take place. Neither the method suggested in the Bill nor the Amendment deals with that matter.
    5.32 p.m.
    Mr. David Adams: I oppose this Clause on the ground that it contains no special provision for the Special Areas, which find themselves with a heavy housing problem. I raised the matter when the Measure was before the House on Second Reading, and I was requested to do so by a representative conference in county Durham. I have just received a telegram from the Secretary, in which he points out that the overcrowding problem in Durham is too severe to be met by the reduced subsidy and expresses the hope that it will be possible to move an Amendment—which, I am advised, it is not possible to do—to deal with the special circumstances of county Durham. I will set out the position of that county
    1334
    in order that, if it be possible subsequently, the Minister may make some provision to deal with this almost unique situation. The Minister has been made aware of the position by a strong deputation which attended the Ministry last week, when we were promised sympathetic consideration, of which, so far, there has been no evidence. County Durham is faced with 40,000 overcrowded families and 10,000 families who are living in slum areas. It is a county of small houses, and rates to the extent of 90.5 per cent. are borne by them and the small shopkeepers. Industrial hereditaments bear only 7.6 owing to the operation of the Derating Act, while transport, which in many areas is a substantial asset to local authorities, bears only 1.7 per cent.
    The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member is about to make a speech which I cannot admit to be in order on this Clause. I must ask him to consider carefully what is in the Clause and to realise that it does not deal with the Special Areas but with more general housing problems.
    Mr. Adams: I am giving an illustration why I cannot support the Clause and am trying to point out that it is because of the lack of provision for Special Areas.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member may have very excellent reasons for wishing to vote against the Clause, but it does not necessarily follow that the exposition of his views and ideas is in order in a Debate on it.
    Mr. Adams: I do not know whether I shall be in order in stating the effect of the reduced subsidy upon County Durham. The loss to the county will amount to £270,000 a year for 40 years. That is a situation which the county is unable to face. We are advised that if houses are to be built under this Measure the rentals will have to be increased by 2s. to 2s. 6d. per week. The financial situation in the county is such that at the beginning of this financial year the rates will have to be increased by 1s. 8d. in the £. There is a situation in that Special Area which must have special treatment, and in the name of the conference which represented all the authorities in the administrative county, I say that houses will not be built under this Measure in County Durham unless special financial facilities are granted to meet the remarkable situation in which the county finds itself.
    5.38 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: In regard to the issue of flats as against houses, I would prefer to rest upon the statement which I made on-Second Reading, which I think received general acceptance. It was this:
    "The Government's policy is that we shall continue to encourage the building of cottages where practicable and the building of flats where it is essential to provide rehousing accommodation in such places as the centres of large towns, and where it is impracticable and uneconomical to build cottages. In practice, therefore, the question of whether flats or cottages should be built on a particular site is determined by housing needs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1938; col. 1736, Vol. 331]
    I share the view that generally a cottage is preferable, but there are a number of places, such as Liverpool and London, where obviously flats must be built. Apart from other considerations that have been mentioned, one that occurs to me is that, especially in places like Liverpool, people must live near their work, and that, whatever transport there is, they cannot, owing to the nature of their work, be away for long periods from the places where they work. The Government naturally desire to encourage the wish to build cottages, but there are places, especially in big cities, where flats have to be built as well. I would like to answer a question put to me by one or two members with regard to the financial provision so far as the completion of houses is concerned. I stated on the Second Reading:
    "Under the Act of 1936 financial assistance at the rates now in operation is provided for houses completed by 31st March, 1938, and in order to secure continuity of work I announced some months ago that the proposals to be laid before Parliament would include provision for payment of the present rates of subsidy for houses completed by 31st December, 1938, which was an extension of nine months…. Broadly, the arrangement proposed in the Bill is that houses completed not later than 31st December, 1938, will rank for subsidies fixed by the Acts of 1930 and 1935, and those finished after that date will rank for the subsidies fixed by this Bill. But the House will appreciate that certain transitional provisions are needed because of the change-over from one subsidy to another, and power is taken in Clause 10 to pay the subsidies for houses built in respect of the abatement of overcrowding or the general needs of the agricultural population included in contracts entered into after the introduction of the Bill, notwithstanding that the houses are finished before 31st December, 1938."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1938; cols. 1730–1, Vol. 331.]
    1336
    That is the provision in the Bill, and since then the matter has again been put to me in the case of a number—not a very large number—of authorities who have already proceeded with their overcrowding programme, and naturally they would like to have the extra subsidy which is being given in this Bill. I am afraid, however, that I cannot go beyond the provisions in the Clause. I am not decrying in any way the work that these authorities have done because they are proceeding so well with their overcrowding programmes. But I must remind hon. Members that in the case of nearly all those authorities they have a light slum clearance programme. They have not had to face the very heavy programme which many local authorities have had to face. It is because of their very heavy slum programme that many local authorities have had to concentrate on work under that programme. They have not been able on that account to proceed with their overcrowding programmes.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that an overcrowding programme involving the construction of 465 houses in a borough with a population of less than 50,000 is a light programme?
    Sir K. Wood: I do not say that that is not the case, but I must rest my reply on this main principle. It is a material matter when one has to have regard to financial considerations and the claims of other local authorities. The provision in the Bill already represents a concession to local authorities by allowing an earlier date to operate for that one of the two subsidies where amalgamation represents an increase, because of the Exchequer contribution. The Amendment would admit for the new subsidy houses on which the local authorities commenced work on the basis of the existing Act long before they had any knowledge of a prospective increase in subsidies, and I think that I have gone as far as I can be reasonably expected to go in providing for the higher rate of subsidy to apply to houses for which contracts were signed after 2nd February.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: If that argument is sound, is it not equally sound that the Minister, on the other hand, is doing a wrong thing in cutting the slum clearance grants to local authorities which have been active?
    Sir K. Wood: I think I have endeavoured to hold the balance pretty fairly in this matter. As regards the point of view which the hon. Member put, I think that I have met that in considerable measure by saying that the new subsidy shall apply to houses in respect of overcrowding which were included in contracts signed after the introduction of the Bill, and I regret that I cannot go further. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) drew attention to the words,
    "If the Minister so determines."
    Those are words which are inserted solely with the object of requiring the Minister to see that the conditions in the Bill have been, in fact fulfilled, and I would give him and all the local authorities concerned the undertaking that I shall, without hesitation, put the Clause into operation when the conditions specified have not been complied with. That is a usual form of protection which is put in, and there is no intention on my part, nor would there be, I am sure, on the part of anyone who occupied my office, of interfering on any other grounds.
    As to the conditions in the area which the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) has so much at heart, I think he will find, so far as the overcrowding programme in that area is concerned, that considerable extra financial assistance will be forthcoming, and that in respect of the two programmes which the local authorities contemplate the financial provisions will enable that very important part of the country to proceed with its housing operations. I would remind him that the area will get a considerable measure of assistance from the North Eastern Housing Association, to which many local authorities are looking. I hope that with these two measures of assistance there will be an improvement of housing conditions in the hon. Member's constituency.
    Mr. David Adams: In short, nothing extra is to be done there.
    Sir K. Wood: I do not like to enter into controversy with the hon. Member, who is always so fair, but there is an association there which is prepared to build houses on better terms, I think, than in any other part of the country and without the local authority having to make any demands upon the rates, and
    1338
    as I have so often urged upon him and his friends, both in the House and in the areas concerned, they would do well to turn for assistance to that association.
    5.49 p.m.
    Mr. Greenwood: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has not convinced my hon. Friend that the North Eastern Housing Association will furnish any answer to the problem. What is perfectly clear is that a large number of local authorities, not merely those on the north-east coast, are very much perturbed at the financial prospects which will confront them when this Bill is on the Statute Book. I do not want to enter into an elaborate statement about flats in contrast with houses. The right hon. Gentleman has made provision for both. Whether we like it or not we have to face the fact that if people in the large congested areas must, or prefer to, live near to their work then the provisions made for housing them must run on vertical lines rather than be spread out horizontally. If they prefer to give some of their leisure to travelling, and are prepared to face the transport charges, which I understood the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) wished to see abolished, they will spread out. It is clear, however, that we cannot now find any simple solution of the problem either on the lines of cottages or of flats, and it is the duty of local authorities to provide the type of housing accommodation which, on a balance of advantages, the people prefer. Some would prefer flats and others cottages.
    I should like to return to the question of when the present subsidy for houses comes to an end. If one kind of subsidy is to be dropped in favour of another obviously there must be some fixed date, but in the present situation, with many local authorities in arrears with the programmes to which they are committed, a fair amount of time ought to be allowed them to complete those programmes, which have been approved by the right hon. Gentleman, before the reduced subsidy begins to operate. Seeing that he is cutting the subsidy so very substantially it would be only fair to those local authorities who have been pressing ahead with housing and have got commitments to allow them a longer time than he is prepared to give.
    My last point concerns a subject which was raised on the Amendment moved by

    1339
    the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd). At the end of that discussion the right hon. Gentleman rose with a seraphic smile, but it changed into a look of absolute bewilderment, and one felt there was a touch of emotion about him when he said that he wanted to convince the Committee that he really would look into this problem. I submit that there we have a very serious problem, and I warn the right hon. Gentleman that if he does not look into it a little more favourably his seraphic smile will not save him on Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled, if he chooses, as I did myself, to make provision for people in special categories, but he is not entitled to do this wangle on the housing revenue account by regarding certain of our rural authorities as operating in purely agricultural areas. That is wrong, and hon. Members on all sides of the Committee have expressed that view, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise the justice of the case of putting all authorities on the same footing as regards the additional grant in Sub-section (2). The difficulty will not be met by the provision that he is making, and he is doing grave injustice to those big authorities which suffer from the sort of limitations with which he has tried to deal.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Contributions in respect of agricultural housing accommodation provided by rural district councils.)
    5.55 p.m.
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, to leave out "rural," and to insert "county."
    There are a good many other Amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, not only to this Clause but also to Clauses 3 and 7, which are consequential upon this one, and I hope we shall be enabled to have the discussion now, so that later they may be simply moved. I think the object of the Amendment is clear, and has been very well explained by hon. Members on all sides of the Committee and especially by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte). He explained that while the cottages on one side of a road adjoining an urban area might be drawing agricultural
    1340
    subsidy, cottages on the other side of the road might be more convenient for the agricultural workers, but, being in an urban district, they would not be entitled to the subsidy. It was also argued that in some cases cottages in a borough as well as those in a rural district should be entitled to the rural subsidy of £10 for 14 years, provided they were for agricultural labourers and fulfilled the conditions in the Bill. The Minister saw our various Amendments on the point and suggested that a way out could be found by introducing the word "county" to replace the other designations, and we have joined together in putting our names to these Amendments, and I very much hope that he will be pleased to accept them.
    5.57 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: This Amendment and a large number of other Amendments standing in the name of the same hon. Members are intended to extend the higher rates of subsidy payable for houses provided for the agricultural population to such populations in urban districts and non-county boroughs. It is true that the Bill, as drafted, limited this subsidy to rural districts, on the view that the existence of an agricultural population in such districts was a more permanent characteristic of the district and that with the more limited number of agricultural workers to be found in urban areas there was by no means the same certainty that the houses would continue to be required for such persons during the period of the subsidy. There are, however, certain districts other than rural districts where the agricultural population is a substantial factor in the situation, and after considering the matter I have decided that where that is the case it would be equitable to give urban districts and non-county boroughs the benefit of the higher subsidy for houses for persons engaged in agriculture. For these reasons, I would advise the Committee to accept the Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Consequential Amendments made.
    5.59 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, to leave out from "population" to the end of the Sub-section.
    I do not move this Amendment with the idea of pressing it, but in order to get an explanation from the Minister of what he expects to happen under this

    1341
    part of the Sub-section. It is obvious that if the houses are not required for the agricultural population they must be used by someone else if they are not to be left empty. I should like to know whether such houses can be let to other people; whether postmen or others engaged in other industries in an agricultural area can have these houses, or whether they are to be confined to those who are earning more or less the same wages as men engaged in agricultural operations. Will preference be given to those who are working in trades relating to agriculture, and are the houses to be reserved for people who are earning the same sort of money as the agricultural population earn?
    6.1 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I am glad to give to my hon. and gallant Friend the explanation that he requires. The Clause as drafted follows the course of Section 85 (4) of the Act of 1936. The Amendment seeks to compel rural district councils to reserve for the agricultural population a number of houses equal to that on which agricultural subsidy is paid, for the full 40-year period of that subsidy. The purpose of the words which the Amendment seeks to leave out is to make this reservation of cottages unnecessary in the event of any marked change taking place in the character of the district. You must make some provision for a change of that kind, because it is by no means impossible that some areas which are now predominantly agricultural will become industrial before the period of 40 years is over. I do not expect that there will be many such cases, but it would be unreasonable to reserve cottages for the agricultural population when such a population may have ceased to exist.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made:
    In page 5, line 2, after "and," insert "Sub-section (2) of Section eighty-nine and."
    In line 4, leave out from the second "the," to "to," in line 5, and insert "references in those Sub-sections."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    6.3 p.m.
    Mr. Greenwood: I do not understand the attitude of mind of the right hon. Gentleman towards the Clause. He has accepted a series of Amendments, the result of which will be that other authorities than rural district councils will be able to enjoy the benefits of the grant for agricultural workers' houses. I am not opposed to that, but I object to the inclusion only of the agricultural population. In the Housing Act of 1924 we spoke of the agricultural population, but we were not concerned whether they were working on the land, so long as they were people of that kind of status. The Housing (Rural Authorities) Act, 1931, applied to rural authorities, and did not limit the assistance, which was given there upon special conditions, to people who happened to be land workers. The right hon. Gentleman now stands by the Housing Act, 1936. The agricultural population is defined in Clause 115 as:
    "Persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture or in an industry mainly dependent upon agriculture."
    Sir Francis Fremantle: Those are the words in the right hon. Gentleman's own Housing Act of 1930, Section 34 (2), copied word for word.
    Mr. Greenwood: I am coming to that point—as a matter of fact I have already dealt with it. The right hon. Gentleman has taken that Section, and his special assistance is not to be given to people who are living in rural areas, but to people who follow the industry of agriculture. That will do a great disservice, and will not be an aid, to the housing of the people in the countryside. You could not now find an agricultural parish where the big majority of the workers were actually agricultural workers. Our villages are slowly being industrialised, as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted within the last five minutes. I mentioned—and it is within everybody's knowledge—the kind of people who now populate our rural areas. The cottages of the agricultural workers may be pretty bad, but most of the agricultural workers are housed. One of the difficulties now is the case of the man who works at a garage in the village street. People like that have to live miles away from their work, and the right hon. Gentleman is doing nothing for them. To say, "I am going to be generous in the provision of

    1343
    a grant for the houses of agricultural workers, and that will thereby enable me to deal with the other problem," is either a fraud on the agricultural workers or a fraud on the other people who are not agricultural workers. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Though one cannot vote against Clause 2 standing part of the Bill, I must press the point of view, as was pressed during the discussion of Clause I, that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to make a provision in this way which has no regard for the changing economic circumstances of our time which he has himself admitted.
    6.8 p.m.
    Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has just delivered himself of a very remarkable speech. His party have put themselves forward in certain parts of the country as friendly to the agricultural workers. We are losing the agricultural workers from the countryside at the moment because they have not proper housing conditions, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is trying to put that position right. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield objects. It is an extraordinary position. I would remind him that two out of five agricultural workers are leaving agriculture between the ages of 25 and 40 because they have not proper houses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Proper wages."] If you open Clause 2, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes, to all trades in the rural district, it means that those with better wages will drive the agricultural workers out of their cottages. I hope that my right hon. Friend will retain the position of this Clause.
    I really rose to ask the Minister a question about Clause 2. In the Second Reading Debate, talking about the Clause, he said:
    "I also hope that it will be possible for suitable out-buildings to be provided and that arrangements may be possible to meet the needs of tenants for garden plots and the keeping of poultry and pigs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1938; col. 1739, Vol. 331.]
    In the evidence given before the subcommittee on Rural Housing it was made clear by the rural district councils that their view was that this should not happen. If the Minister will refer to page 22 of the report he will find these words:
    1344
    "Rural district councils generally are opposed to the keeping of chickens by tenants as being a fruitful source of bad feeling and of irritation between neighbours."
    Mr. E. Smith: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Turton: I am surprised that the hon. Member wishes to deprive the agricultural labourer of keeping poultry. I advise him not to utter those words in agricultural districts or he will find himself rather unpopular. I know that he will take great care about that. Many district councils have unfortunately passed by-laws that prohibit the keeping of all poultry, and in some cases of all pigeons. It would be very unfortunate if this Clause operated to stop the tenants of these houses keeping poultry to add to their incomes or a few pigeons to indulge in the sport of either fancying or racing. I hope that the Minister will take some active steps when the Bill becomes law to secure that those by-laws are repealed, and that as long as the keeping of poultry and pigeons does not constitute a legal nuisance under the Public Health Acts tenants will be allowed to keep them. I hope that he will make it clear to rural district councils that the Government and the country generally do not look with favour upon preventing tenants of council houses from keeping poultry and pigeons, or even pigs.
    6.12 p.m.
    Mr. Acland: Is one right in assuming that the effect of the Amendments which the Minister accepted on this Clause is to transfer the whole administration of the Measure from rural district councils to the counties? If people are really anxious that houses should be built and that advantage should be taken of the Bill as quickly as possible in their areas, which authorities have they to go and see? Should they see their county councillors or their rural district councillors? I understand that the answer is that they should see their rural district councillors, in spite of the Amendments in which we have substituted the county for the rural district. I should be pleased if the Minister woiuld tell us how this procedure will work. Are the rural district councils still left in control, and are they still able to take the initiative in spite of the Amendments that we have just made? Who are the houses for? The Minister says that they are for the agricultural

    1345
    population. I am sorry to find that we are not able to move Amendments on the question of who is the agricultural population, which was defined, I believe, in the Financial Resolution. I hope that that definition was not in contravention of the undertaking that Financial Resolutions would be drafted as clearly as possible. I understand that the definition is:
    "Persons who are engaged in agriculture or in an industry mainly dependent upon agriculture."
    Will the Minister give us his view as to whether the definition will include roadmen working on rural district council roads at wages almost identical with those of agricultural workers? If it will not, it is a great pity. I wonder whether the Minister will look into this aspect of the matter to see wheher there is any way, in spite of the Financial Resolution, of extending the definition to cover the class of person mentioned by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), earning wages on or about the agricultural rate.
    My last point is that the Minister should make clear how Sub-section (2) will work. What is meant by the words "shall secure"? I appreciate that the words are part of some other Act and that I ought to know how they are working in that Act, but I do not know. Suppose three houses are built in a village and, for one reason or another, you cannot get more than three houses. In accordance with the intention of this Measure, there are put into those houses three agricultural labourers. Suppose the demand for accommodation for agricultural labourers is still unmet and that, none the less, there cannot be any more houses. What will happen if those three agricultural labourers next week get jobs on the road, in a garage or in some shop? What is the process by which the county council will secure that the intention of the Sub-section is carried out? It seems to me to be important to know how it is to be done. If it is not to be done by turning out those people if they should cease to be agricultural labourers, how is it going to be done? Perhaps, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot give an answer at once, he will consider the matter between now and Report.
    6.16 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: With regard to the question of poultry keeping and matters of that kind, I will endeavour to influence the local authorities in the direction suggested, and I am not unhopeful that they will accept the advice of the Minister, as they have often done in the past. I can quite understand that disputes arise from time to time between neighbours with regard to these matters, and that, no doubt, is what has induced a good many local authorities to make by-laws for the purpose of keeping peace among people living together; but I think there are considerable advantages in encouraging people in this direction if it does not involve annoyance to their neighbours. I shall, no doubt, be consulted by the associations of local authorities concerned on matters of this kind arising out of the Bill, and will take an opportunity of taking the matter up with them, as I shall in the case of other matters as soon as the Act is on the Statute Book.
    As to the question of definition, the special assistance which is now proposed is really to be given because of the real need for new houses at rents within the means of agricultural workers, and I think it will be generally agreed that, as regards both overcrowding and the rehousing of slum tenants, it is better that the definition should be based on the occupation of the person for whom the house is provided than upon wages. I do not want to criticise what has been done in the past, because everyone has done his best, but I think it can fairly be said that the basis previously taken in connection with the housing of agricultural workers has not been a good one, and that, although in some cases considerable and expensive Exchequer assistance has been given, a relatively small proportion of the houses concerned are in fact occupied by agricultural workers. It is in view of these facts that we have followed the definition laid down in the Act of 1930, and also in the Act of 1935. The whole object of this Bill is really to assist directly the agricultural labourer, not only from the point of view of housing, but from the point of view of helping the agricultural industry generally.
    As to the questions put to me by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland), I should like, if he will allow me, to look into his third question a little

    1347
    more closely, as it is a rather technical matter of administration, but, as regards the first two, this Amendment which I am accepting does not in any way interfere with the administration of the Act by a particular local authority; it is simply an extension of the Measure to other local authorities, and does not mean that the administration will be taken out of the hands of the rural district council. As to whether roadmen would come within the definition, I am informed that they would not. I think it might be fair to say that the wages of many roadmen are higher than those of people working on the land. I think I have dealt with all the questions that have been put to me, and I hope that the Committee will now feel able to agree to the Clause.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Contributions in respect of agricultural housing accommodation provided by private enterprise.)
    Amendment made: In page 5, line 7, leave out "rural," and insert "county."—[Brigadier-General Clifton Brown.]
    6.21 p.m.
    Mr. Price: I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, to leave out "are satisfied," and to insert "prove to the satisfaction of the Minister."
    The object of this Amendment is to make the Clause somewhat less objectionable than it otherwise would be. Under the Clause, the rural district council may abrogate their powers to private persons; that is to say, private persons may become eligible to get the subsidy which otherwise would go to the district council. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that, if we retain this principle, to which personally I object, there should at least be satisfactory control by the Minister of Health himself. Under the Clause, the Minister is empowered to impose certain very desirable conditions—for instance, that the cottages shall be reserved for members of the agricultural population; that the rent shall not exceed a certain figure; and that the house shall be suitable in size and construction. My object is to widen this control so that a private person shall not be allowed to receive a subsidy under the Bill unless the Minister is satisfied that the rural
    1348
    district council is not in a position to provide the houses required. A great objection to the Clause is that certain district councils who are not enterprising in this matter might be inclined to leave the construction of houses to private persons, who would receive the subsidy. I wish to stop this gap, and, if the principle is to be allowed, to provide that the Minister himself shall decide that the district council is not in a position to provide the houses, and that, therefore, private persons should be allowed to get the subsidy. In other words, I desire to tighten up the provisions of the Clause, which in all other respects I find exceedingly objectionable.
    6.26 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): In the view of my right hon. Friend, this Amendment would make the whole procedure more complicated. Under the Clause as drafted, local authorities have to satisfy themselves, in the light of their own knowledge of local conditions, that there are special circumstances in which the building of houses by the method suggested is advisable, and my right hon. Friend thinks that this is eminently a case in which the proposal ought to be considered in the light of the knowledge which the local authorities themselves possess. If the Minister had to satisfy himself on these points, it would be likely to involve a measure of inquiry, which could only result in delay and expense incommensurate, in our judgment, with the fact that such proposals would in the majority of cases relate to a single house. The hon. Member has himself pointed out that conditions are to be imposed on a number of important issues. The reservation of the houses for the agricultural population, the level of the rents, and suitability of size and structure. My right hon. Friend is of opinion that, when these conditions have been satisfied, the decision on the individual proposal ought to be left to the local authority, in accordance with the practice adopted when grants were made available to private persons building houses under the Acts of 1923 and 1924. The proposal of the present Amendment seems to indicate a certain distrust of local authorities, which my right hon. Friend certainly does not share. For these reasons he is unable to accept the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 136.

    Division No. 115.]

    AYES.

    [6.28 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Pilkington, R.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Errington, E.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Apsley, Lord

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Asks, Sir R. W.

    Fleming, E. L.

    Ramsden, Sir E.

    Assheton, R.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Furness, S. N.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Barrie, Sir C. C.

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Rowlands, G.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Guinness, T. L. E. B

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Bernays, R. H.

    Harbord, A.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Birchall, Sir J. D.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Bird, Sir R. B.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hepworth, J.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Savery, Sir Servington

    Boulton, W. W.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Selley, H. R.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Holdsworth, H.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

    Holmes, J. S.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Bull, B. B.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Keeling, E. H.

    Spens, W. P.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Storey, S.

    Channon, H.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Christie, J. A.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Levy, T.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J,

    Lewis, O.

    Touche, G. C.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

    Lipson, D. L.

    Turton, R. H.

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

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

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Critchley, A.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    McKie, J. H.

    Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

    Crooks, Sir J. S.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Magnay, T.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Cross, R. H.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

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

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Markham, S. F.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Withers, Sir J. J.

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    De Chair, S. S.

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

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Morgan, R. H.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Doland, G. F.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Wragg, H.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Munro, P.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Nail, Sir J.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J,

    Captain Dugdale and Mr.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Grimston.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Palmar, G. E. H.

    NOES.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Banfield, J. W.

    Bevan, A.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Barr, J.

    Bromfield, W.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Batey, J.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Burke, W. A.

    Hollins, A.

    Ridley, G.

    Cape, T.

    Hopkin, D.

    Riley, B.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Ritson, J.

    Chater, D.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Cove, W. G.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Kirby, B. V.

    Shinwell, E.

    Daggar, G.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Silkin, L.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lathan, G.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Day, H.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

    Dobbie, W.

    Leach, W.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Lee, F.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees, (K'ly)

    Ede, J. C.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Logan, D. G.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Stephen, C.

    Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Foot, D. M.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Frankel, D.

    MacLaren, A.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Maclean, N.

    Thorne, W.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Tinker, J. J.

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Marshall, F.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Mathers, G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A

    Maxton, J.

    Walker, J.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Messer, F.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Montague, F.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

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

    Westwood, J.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Muff, G.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Parker, J.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Hayday, A.

    Pearson, A.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Price, M. P.

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

    6.37 p.m.
    Major Mills: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, to leave out "owing to special circumstances," and to insert "in any particular case."
    My hon. Friends and I put this Amendment down because we think that the words in the Clause "special circumstances" add nothing to the safeguards contained later, but might be held to be intentionally limiting words and might incline an over-exact and over-scrupulous council to argue and haggle over what exactly constitutes "special circumstances," and decline an application because they failed to agree. Suppose, for instance, such a council got a request to build a single cottage on an isolated farm and they thought that they could not build there themselves, yet if they were asked to let the owner build there and receive the subsidy, they might say, "It is true that this is the only case we have before us now, but our district is large and we might get 20 or 30 other applications; we cannot, therefore, say that there are special circumstances." Through their desire to be scrupulous in carrying out the Act, they might refuse, and so defeat the intentions of the Clause. This is almost a drafting Amendment.
    1352
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are plenty of safeguards in the Clause. The council must first be satisfied that accommodation can be more conveniently provided by someone other than themselves, and then,
    "subject to any conditions imposed by the Minister"—
    and I want to lay emphasis on that word "imposed"—they may, of their own free will, make such arrangements as seem good to them with the person who is going to provide the accommodation. Finally, the Minister has to be satisfied that arrangements made will carry out the intentions of the Clause.
    We have already proved that similar words in a Statute can give rise to confusion. In the Section of the Road Traffic Act which deals with penalties for careless driving the words "special reasons" have been differently interpreted by different benches of magistrates; so much so, that, if my memory serves me rightly, the Home Office had to issue a special circular to magistrates dealing with that. My hon. Friends and I desire to insert "in any particular case," in order to make it clear that each case must be dealt with separately and on its merits.

    1353
    There is no question of passing or refusing to pass a general resolution that the council is satisfied; but when the council is satisfied in a particular case that private enterprise can more conveniently—and, indeed, more cheaply, as far as they are concerned—provide the required accommodation, all the safeguards set out in the Clause come into play, to carry out the intentions of the Government, which are: to provide good and suitable houses for the agricultural worker at a rent which he can afford to pay—and houses which will be kept in good repair. I think that this Amendment gets us back very close to the very practical views expressed in paragraph 24 of the second report of the Rural Housing Sub-Committee. Finally, I think that the wording we suggest will make it still more certain that those small commoners in the New Forest and the Forest of Dean, to whom my right hon. Friend referred in his Second Reading speech as possibly desiring to build for themselves, will, with the help of the subsidy, get the chance to fulfil their ambition.
    Sir K. Wood: I am prepared to accept this Amendment.
    6.42 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I do not think the Committee can let the Minister get away with it like that. Are we to understand that he accepts all the arguments put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman? It is usual, when the Minister accepts an Amendment on which a reasoned speech has been made, to indicate on which of the reasons he bases his acceptance. On this side, we regard the whole of the Clause with the greatest misgivings, and our misgivings are increased by the alteration the Minister now proposes to accept. I do not envisage the kind of council meeting that the hon. and gallant Member has mentioned to us. I am thinking of the kind of rural district council which consists very largely of landowners: where these proposals for the building of cottages will not be brought forward after the rural council have considered the matter and decided that they cannot build, but where they are put up by the landowners straight away. The rural council will say: "If the landowner is prepared to do it, why should we trouble?" To put in the words "owing to special circumstances" seems to strengthen that point of view considerably.
    1354
    There must be some reason which makes the Minister so ready to accept the Amendment and I should like to know why he has preferred the form of words put forward by this simple soldier, instead of the form of words that the Government draftsmen have originally suggested. It is not usual to prefer military to civil wording in a housing Bill.
    This Clause may lead, unless especial care is exercised, to a considerable increase in what we on this side regard as the evil of the tied cottage in various parts of England. The Minister, in his Second Reading speech, suggested that this was intended to deal with the case of stockmen and people of that kind, who it was desired should be housed on or near the farms where they work. That kind of case will be well covered by the phrase "owing to special circumstances." The alteration which has been made this afternoon seems to get as far away from the idea that it is only the stockmen for whom cottages are required, and we are entitled to a more expanded explanation on the part of the right hon. Gentleman before we allow this Amendment to pass.
    6.46 p.m.
    Mr. W. Roberts: I would like the Minister to explain a little more fully the intention of these words. He originally referred to the matter in his Second Reading speech, and we were to understand that it was only to be in exceptional circumstances that this Clause was to be used. I fear that the Amendment may weaken the Clause by opening the door in some areas where the rural district council, for many possible reasons, might prefer not to carry out its duties. It will be possible for it to put upon the landlord the whole duty of housing the rural population under this Measure. That would turn the provisions of the Bill not into provisions for providing for the district councils to house the rural population, but for giving the subsidy to landowners in the district. I should very much regret that. The Clause is vague enough as it is, and some of us would have liked to have found means of expanding and strengthening the phrase "special circumstances" rather than to sweep it away.
    There is another Amendment on the Paper showing the tendency of certain hon. Members to remove that part of the Clause which makes it subject to cond-

    1355
    itions imposed by the Minister. If that Amendment were to be called and passed it would entirely change what we have been informed was the intention of this Clause. The Minister informed us in his Second Reading speech that this was to be an exceptional case. We are entitled, if the Minister accepts this Amendment, to ask him to consider the question of whether, and in what way, he would be able to prevent the district council from passing on the whole of the liability for carrying out this Measure. There are district councils which have been very slow indeed in carrying out their duties under the various Housing Acts, and if they can respond to any application made by local landowners merely by passing on the subsidy, I fear that the whole intention of this Clause will be misused.
    6.49 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: If the hon. Gentleman will read the Clause with the Amendment suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend he will see that his apprehensions are not justified. It is a matter of interpretation, and I think that the insertion of the suggested phrase will prevent any such general determination as he has indicated. The Clause, as amended, will read:
    "Where the council of a rural district are satisfied that in any particular case housing accommodation required for members of the agricultural population of the district"—
    and these are the operating words—
    "could more conveniently be provided by some person other than the council, they may, subject to any conditions imposed by the Minister, make arrangements for the provision of such accommodation by that person."
    I pause there for a moment to observe that the insertion of these words will occasion no such apprehension either on one side or the other. My hon. and gallant Friend apprehended that there might be some general resolution passed by a local authority which would say that it would have nothing whatever to do with private enterprise. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken apprehended a resolution being passed to hand it over to the private owner. Both these objections are removed by this Amendment because it lays the necessity upon the council to consider each case on its merits and not to deal with the matter in the general terms suggested in the Bill. There need be no apprehension
    1356
    either on the part of my hon. and gallant Friend, on the one hand, or of the hon. Gentleman on the other. The Amendment, for what it is worth, is to provide that each case shall be considered separately by the local authority.
    6.51 p.m.
    Mr. Greenwood: It is just what I expected. This really does not mean anything—for what it is worth. It is a matter of no importance. I do not think that it is a matter of very much importance, but, on the whole, I prefer the words in the Bill rather than those of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is giving nothing away in this Amendment, but our objections still remain. If we are to have this method of dealing with the problem of rural housing, I would rather have it carried out where there were special circumstances, and I should like to see those circumstances defined. The right hon. Gentleman does not define them, and now he says, "in any particular case," without any special circumstances of any kind.
    Captain Heilgers: Would the right hon. Gentleman define the special circumstances which are in his mind?
    Mr. Greenwood: I do not want this Clause at all. I cannot conceive the special circumstances which would warrant the local authority farming out its responsibility to private enterprise. I am only saying that, if this method is to be chosen, there should be special circumstances which ought to be defined in the Bill. My argument is, that the words in the Bill, though not very acceptable to me, are more acceptable than the words "in any particular case" irrespective of circumstances, where the rural district council likes to farm out the provision of its cottages. The right hon. Gentleman either ought to make a real concession or stand by the terms of the Bill. He has been working on this Bill for weeks, perhaps for months, and has had the help of his legal advisers, and then, half a dozen hon. and gallant Members of this House, whose legal knowledge is unknown to me, put down an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman considers to be better than the terms of his Bill. I hope that Members of the Committee will still prefer the words as originally drafted by the right hon. Gentleman rather than the words of the amateur draftsmen who-move the Amendment.
    Mr. Turton: Surely, this is purely a drafting Amendment, and I ask the Committee to accept it on that ground. If we had a general resolution saying that all houses should be built by private enterprise, no one would be more unhappy than the right hon. Gentleman
    the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood).
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 208.

    Division No. 116.]

    AYES.

    [6.57 p.m.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Pritt, D. N.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hayday, A,

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Ammon, C. G.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Ridley, G.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Ritson, J.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Barr, J.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Benson, G.

    Hollins, A.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Bevan, A.

    Hopkin, D.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bromfield, W.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Shinwell, E.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Silkin, L.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

    Burke, W. A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Cape, T.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

    Chater, D.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Lathan, G.

    Stephen, C.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Cove, W. G.

    Leach, W.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Lee, F.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Daggar, G.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Thorne, W.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Logan, D. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Tomlinson, G.

    Day, H.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dobbie, W.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Walker, J.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    MacLaren, A.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Ede, J. C.

    Maclean, N.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

    Marshall, F.

    Westwood, J.

    Foot, D. M.

    Maxton, J.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Frankel, D.

    Messer, F.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Gardner, B. W.

    Montague, F.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

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

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Muff, G.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Parker, J

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Pearson, A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Price, M. P.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Bull, B. B.

    Critchley, A.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen, Sir H. Page

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Butler, R. A.

    Crooke, Sir J. S.

    Apsley, Lord

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Cross, R. H.

    Assheton, R.

    Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

    Channon, H.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

    De Chair, S. S.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Christie, J. A.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)

    Doland, G. F.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Birchall, Sir J. D.

    Clany, Sir Reginald

    Dugdate, Captain T. L.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E

    Boulton, W. W.

    Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)

    Entwistle, Sir C F.

    Errington, E.

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Rots)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A

    Fildes, Sir H.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Findlay, Sir E.

    McKie, J. H.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Fleming, E. L.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Magnay, T.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Furness, S. N.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

    Spens, W. P.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Markham, S. F.

    Storey, S.

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Marsden, Commander A.

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Harbord, A.

    Morgan, R. H.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Munro, P.

    Touche, G. C.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Nail, Sir J.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Hepworth, J.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Turton, R. H.

    Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Higgs, W. F.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

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

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Pilkington, R.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

    Keeling, E. H.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Rosa Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Withers, Sir J. J.

    Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

    Rowlands, G.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Wragg, H.

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Lavy, T.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Lewis, O.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Liddall, W. S.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Mr. Grimston and Major Sir

    Lipson, D. L.

    Savery, Sir Servington

    James Edmondson.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Selley, H. R.

    Proposed words there inserted.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): The next two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart)—in page 5, line 10, leave out "of the district," and in line 11, after "person," insert "or body"—are both outside the scope of the Financial Resolution.
    Amendment made: In page 5, line 30, leave out "district council," and insert "council of the county district."— [Brigadier-General Brown.]
    Consequential Amendments made:
    7.6 p.m.
    Mr. W. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, at the end, to add:
    "(2) Where a house provided under arrangements made in pursuance of this Section is let together with other land at a single rent, such proportion of that rent as the council of the county district may determine shall be deemed, for the purpose of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section, to be the rent at which the house is let."
    1360
    This Amendment deals with a small point raised in the report of the advisory sub-committee. I do not suggest that it may have wide implications, but it may affect some people. Under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act there have been cases in which a house was improved and then let along with land, and the rent of the land and the house together were really a means of avoiding the restriction of the net rent laid down by the Council, that is to say, the joint rents were in exercise of what they should have been. The Amendment suggests that, where that may occur again, it shall be within the power of the district council to make a fair distribution of the rent as between the land and the house and so prevent the owner from allocating to the land an amount that is unreasonable, thereby disguising the increased rent of the house. I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for some advice I was given and, if he could explain a little further where a garden ends and a piece of land

    1361
    begins, I should be grateful. I understand that the definition of a house includes the garden, and in urban circumstances that does not raise difficulties, but in the country district, where gardens may be larger and may very easily become piece of land, I wonder just where the distinction is drawn. My Amendment will not affect a garden in any way. If I understand aright, the rent that is going to be fixed will include the garden, whatever that means. The Amendment is intended to deal only with land which is something more than a garden.
    Mr. Bernays: In regard to the hon. Member's question, I must ask his indulgence and say that I will investigate and let him know. I hope that before the Report stage he will have had a satisfactory answer. With regard to the general Amendment, I am glad to be in a position to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    7.11 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: We made it quite clear on the Second Reading that we very much object to this possible extension of the tied cottage system and this method of subsidising wages and continuing very unsatisfactory conditions in rural areas. Our objections to the Clause have not been reduced by the Amendment that was made to the first line, whereby this will now be applicable not merely to rural districts but to cottages for the agricultural population in non-county boroughs and urban districts. The proposals, as we see them, invite rural district councils, especially in those areas where they have not been hitherto very diligent in their work, to neglect their duty and to push it off on to the shoulders of landowners and others.
    Brigadier-General Brown: It will provide houses.
    Mr. Ede: I very much doubt if it will provide as many houses as would have been provided had the duty been left simply on the shoulders of the rural district councils. The only thing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can really mean is that there are rural district councils which do not intend to carry out the Bill.
    Brigadier-General Brown: Many rural district councils have not the money to do these things. If they can get landowners to give them something for nothing it seems absurd to prevent it.
    Mr. Ede: I never expect anyone to give me something for nothing, least of all do I expect a landowner to give a rural or any other council something for nothing.
    Brigadier-General Brown: My point is that the ratepayers get something for nothing.
    Mr. Ede: I very much doubt whether they will. In any event, I share the views held by the Members of my party that the fewer people living in houses that go with their job the better. That is the chief reason why we oppose the Clause. We believe it would be a very great deal better for the rural economy of the country if fewer people lived in tied cottages, and to extend the principle as the result of a subsidy from Imperial funds in our view is very wrong. I hope the Committee will not accept the Clause. The views against it were explained very fully on the Second Reading by my right hon. Friend and others, and we intend to proceed to a Division to mark our disapproval of the methods proposed.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. De Chair: The remarks of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) may be very illuminating, but they do not confirm the Minister's idea of the operation of the Clause as expressed by him in answer to an interjection on the Financial Resolution. I asked:
    "Why is it necessary to make the grant conditional upon the council's sanction, since the council will not contribute anything to it? It is conceivable that because of sheer prejudice against private enterprise, some member of a council might try to obstruct the building of houses in this way. Would it not be possible to make it a question purely for the Ministry?"
    The Minister replied:
    "That can be considered when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. One of the reasons which has actuated us in including the provision concerning the sanction of the council is that the local authorities are responsible for the housing conditions in their areas, and therefore they should be in a position to survey the needs of their areas and to see what is required. Hon. Members opposite will perhaps be able to tell us whether local authorities will adopt an attitude of that kind and simply because they object to private enterprise, ignore the needs of the people. If they did so, it would be

    1363
    very unfair. The question whether, Parliament having passed this proposal, local authorities might endeavour to avoid the law and say that because they do not like private enterprise they will not give active co-operation, is one that I shall have to consider, but it can be dealt with when we reach the Committee stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1938; col. 2125, Vol. 331.]
    Unfortunately, owing to the drafting of the Financial Resolution, I understand that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), which would have provided for an appeal to the Minister, is not in order.
    The Deputy-Chairman: On the Motion, "That the Clause stand part," the hon. Member cannot discuss an Amendment which was not selected because it was out of order.
    Mr. De Chair: What I am pointing out is that in consequence of that Amendment being ruled out of order, the Minister has not been able to fulfil the pledge that he gave in the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution. If the Financial Resolution has been drafted so badly that the Minister cannot go back on it, it is very unfortunate, and I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to explain the position and tell us whether or not the Government stand by the promise made in answer to my interjection.
    7.18 p.m.
    Mr. Price: I do not think that hon. Members opposite realise the very strong feeling that there is on these benches in regard to this Clause. We feel that where private enterprise has failed to provide the necessary houses for the rural population, it is clearly a case where the public authority should intervene and provide them. Hon. Members opposite seem to want to have the best of both worlds. They want to allow private enterprise to remain in possession of the new houses and at the same time to get assistance out of taxpayers' money. That is an extraordinarily dangerous principle, and one which the Committee ought to reject. We on these benches take the greatest exception to it.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier - General Brown) seems to think that this Clause is necessary in order to assist local authorities who are very poor and who, if they attempted to build houses under Clause 2, Would bring about a considerable rise
    1364
    in the rates. That, surely, is an argument in favour of even better and more generous provision from the State for those local authorities which are not able to provide houses, rather than handing over assistance to private enterprise so that they can do what they like with public money. It is an argument for going back to the Housing Act, 1931, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) which was slaughtered in the general economy campaign.
    Coming to the Clause itself, the Minister said on the Second Reading that he hoped no one would desire to vote against the Bill on the ground that the new subsidy would be available for agricultural labourers to erect their own houses. He instanced certain districts and mentioned the New Forest, and my own constituency, the Forest of Dean. I am sorry to have to disillusion the Minister, if he thinks that by this means he is going to make a contribution towards rural houses so far as my constituency is concerned. It is true that a large number of persons in the Forest of Dean own their own houses and a very few may be assisted by this Clause, but from my knowledge of those persons they are not agricultural labourers, but miners and other persons engaged in industry. Therefore, this Clause, which is supposed to deal with the rural housing problem, will not deal with it at all so far as my constituency is concerned.
    There are in my constituency rural district councils who have reconditioned houses with considerable success, but that is a very different think from saying that under this Clause you are going to provide houses for the countryside. In the rural part of my constituency I do not know of any agricultural labourer receiving from 34s. to 40s. a week who owns his own house. There are some smallholders who own their own houses, and they may possibly benefit, but they are very few. The only way in which the agricultural labourer on his present wages would be able to strike out and build his own house would be if he was lucky enough to win the Irish sweepstake. Therefore, the Government cannot claim to be providing anything reasonable towards solving the housing problem on the countryside by Clause 3. My hon. Friends are, therefore, justified in opposing the Clause.

    1365
    The Minister said that the Clause would be very useful in providing accommodation for stockmen on isolated farms. I do not see how that applies in my district, but it may be particularly applicable to remote parts of Wales and Scotland. The obvious answer is that if the private owner cannot provide a house for the stockman, the local authority should do it. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the Housing Advisory Committee and quoted from its report to the effect that local authorities will not always be able to erect houses in such a situation. They did not say why, and the Minister has not given any reason. I see no excuse, in the absence of any better reason, why local authorities cannot meet the housing needs of the lonely farms in regard to stockmen's houses. I hope the Committee will agree not to allow the Clause to stand part of the Bill.
    7.25 p.m.
    Colonel R. S. Clarke: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that he did not expect to get anything given to him by the landowners. He said that was his experience of local government. I believe he is a member of the Surrey County Council. I am a member of the East Sussex County Council, and my experience has been totally different from his. I have been constantly surprised at the generosity of landowners in giving pieces of land for road widening and selling sites for hospitals and public buildings at less than the market value. The hon. Member is, I believe, particularly interested in open spaces and will I think, know that the Hailsham planning scheme was made possible only by the generosity of landowners, who allowed their land to be sterilised without any cost to the county council and the rural district council. Such generosity is justification, if justification were needed, apart from the urgent need for houses for agricultural workers, for some help being given to rural landowners to get cottages built. In many directions they are put to considerable expense which they do not get back.
    I have been speaking of amenities, and I should like to refer to many cases where landowners would have been very glad to sell part of an estate for building purposes and to use the money in putting farm buildings into good order, but in order not to spoil the countryside they
    1366
    have deferred doing that because it would have led to ribbon development, and now, under the Ribbon Development Act, they cannot do it. As a result, their property has been depreciated in value.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think we had better keep to the Clause before the Committee.
    Colonel Clarke: I was only trying to justify these subsidies being given by stating the fact that rural landowners have in the past done a considerable amount for local government authorities out of their own pockets.
    7.28 p.m.
    Mr. Tomlinson: As a member of the Lancashire County Council I have not been so fortunate as the hon. and gallant Member in finding landowners particularly anxious to give something for nothing. My experience has been that they were very good business men and expected, and invariably received, good value for that which they handed over. Especially has that been so in regard to land required by the county council. The more earnestly it was desired by the county council, the higher has been the price. In regard to the Clause, it seems to me that an additional subsidy is being given to a section of the community which has been pampered in the past. There is a feeling that anything we can do to assist the agricultural labourer, should be done. We on this side of the House are anxious to help the agricultural labourer, but to make provision whereby he will be called upon to live in what, to all intents and purposes, is a tied house, is a questionable advantage to the agricultural labourer.
    We have heard something to-day about the agricultural labourer leaving the countryside, and it is now being argued that the reason for his so doing is that the housing accommodation is not satisfactory and that, therefore, if the landowner or the farmer is given a subsidy to enable him to build houses, the agricultural labourer will remain on the land. The fact is that if the agricultural labourer had been treated as he ought to have been treated, he would have been able to pay a rent for the house which people would have been prepared to build, and it seems to me that this is an attempt to retain the agricultural labourer in the very disadvantageous economic position

    1367
    in which he is to-day. The man with a small wage, living in a decent house that has been provided as the result of a subsidy, will be tied to that house, but his wage will not be improved, and the fact that the only guarantee there is that his economic standard is to be safeguarded is that the wages must be paid under the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act, 1934, does not amount to much.
    Everybody who knows anything about the position of the agricultural worker knows that, although he is at an advantage to-day as compared with the period before that Act was passed, yet the wages that are being paid under the wages boards are anything but adequate, and the difficulty of organising the agricultural labourer makes it very difficult for him to obtain what we consider to be a reasonable minimum wage. Therefore we suggest that to attempt to fasten the agricultural labourer on the land by providing him with a tied house is not the way to solve the problem. Rather would it be disadvantageous than advantageous to him, and for that reason we propose to vote against this Clause.
    7.32 p.m.
    Captain Heilgers: I would remind the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) that whatever the wages of the agricultural worker may be, the tied house is always going to be cheaper for him. I believe that the agricultural worker is provided for adequately under Clause 2 of this Bill. Clause 3 does not deal with the agricultural worker so much; its purpose is not to assist the rural economics of the district, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) put it, but to assist agriculture, and the reason for doing that is that there is in this country a very greatly increased number of livestock at the present time. We have more cows, bullocks, sheep, pigs, and so forth, and all that big increase of stock means that more men are required to look after them, and you must have them living as near as possible to their animals. If they do not, it is a great hardship for them. For that reason, and because this Clause will assist agriculture, I think it ought to be supported to the fullest extent.
    7.35 p.m.
    Major Mills: A council may arrange for housing accommodation to be "provided
    1368
    by some person" other than themselves. Does the word "person" include a county council, if the county council already has power to build cottages for members of the agricultural population under some other Act, as, for instance, under Section 12 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, or Section 12 of the Small Buildings and Allotments Act, 1926? I am not seeking to create a power to build by a county council, but if the power to build already exists, can use be made of this Clause, all necessary consents being given and all conditions being fulfilled? I am sorry the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) has no one in his forest who will benefit under this Bill, because it is not an agricultural population, but I am sure that he will rejoice to know that I have, in the New Forest, many small commoners who have a little bit of land, who make a living out of agriculture with the help of their forest rights, and who often have very old cottages in which they live. I feel sure that many of them will welcome this opportunity of getting a grant from the Government with which to build houses for themselves.
    7.36 p.m.
    Mr. Kelly: The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) urged the necessity for this Clause because of the increase in the numbers of cattle in this country and because of the necessity for those attending the cattle to live near their animals. That is surely not a justification for handing over to some private individual and giving him each year a subsidy for erecting houses for agricultural workers. That can well be done by the public authorities, and if it be that those rural councils find that it requires a larger authority than themselves, that surely is a matter for the Government to consider. To be handing out this subsidy and putting it into the pockets of those engaged in private enterprise at this time of day is to show that the Government intend to help their friends to add a little more this time to the much that they have been given in the past in other directions.
    I hope this Clause will be defeated. Some of us are concerned with agriculture. We are engaged in a large way with it, and I can assure the Committee that we, as a public authority, have hundreds of cattle that our people have to look after, and that we make a success of it, making

    1369
    great profits each year, and that private enterprise has nothing to do with the rearing and selling of this cattle. I must not develop that point however. We would certainly never dream of handing over to private enterprise the construction of houses for our people in that connection. This is one more example of the attitude of the present Government, who, instead of helping the local councils and the public authorities, are prepared to help the landowners, to whom this Bill will be a godsend.
    Mr. Turton: Do I understand from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) that the Co-operatives are building no houses for their agricultural labourers?
    Mr. Kelly: I am not referring to the Co-operatives, and the hon. Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton), who is very jealous of the profits that the London County Council makes on its farming, knows very well that I was referring to that particular body. The council will build the houses for their own people and will not ask that the landowners of this country should be benefited by public money being put into their pockets.
    7.39 p.m.
    Sir William Wayland: It is delightful to see the interest which hon. Members opposite are taking in the fate of the agricultural labourer. To mention the very word "landlord" to hon. Members opposite is like hanging a bit of red rag before a bull. Presuming you were to do nothing to help the landlord to restore many of these cottages which are in a bad state of repair, and which he is absolutely unable to repair himself, the local authorities would have to build cottages as they have been built in my district, the rents of which, instead of being 3s. a week, are 7s. 9d. a week. They cannot be let at less than that, so that the local authority will be saving somewhere in the region of 6s. a week through the Government helping the owners of these tied cottages, which are absolutely necessary, with a few shillings a week to restore them to a proper state of repair. So far as Members on this side are concerned, I think we have absolutely knocked the bottom out of any of the so-called arguments of the party opposite.
    7.41 p.m.
    Mr. Bernays: Before I deal with the challenging attack which has been made
    1370
    on this Clause, I would like to deal with the rather technical point that was put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Major Mills). He asked whether the word "person" included county councils; who already have the power to build cottages for members of the agricultural population under some other Acts. The answer, I am advised, is "Yes. A corporate body, including a county council, is covered by the word 'person'." On the other hand, I must add that it would clearly not be right that Exchequer grants should be paid under two different Acts in respect of the same transaction, and in so far as a county council or other authority may be entitled to a grant under some other Act, it would obviously be necessary for my right hon. Friend to impose conditions under Clause 3 of this Bill excluding that case for a grant under the Bill.
    Mr. Price: Can the hon. Member say whether the Land Settlement Association will become eligible for a grant?
    Mr. Bernays: I think it would, but I would not like to say without further consideration. I am almost sure it would. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) said that we on this side did not realise the strength of feeling of hon. Members opposite on this Clause. I think we do realise it, but what we find difficult to do is to understand the reason for it. In our judgment the proposal to omit this Clause would gravely impair the value of the Bill and would, to some extent, interfere with the number of houses that might be built and the number of agricultural labourers who might be rehoused. We have the authority of the Housing Advisory Committee, which was not composed of Tory landlords. They were quite emphatic about this point. They said:
    "In a comparatively small number of cases it may be necessary to build new houses on isolated farms for the accommodation of stock keepers. In view of their situation, such cottages will, we anticipate, only be suitable for the accommodation of the employés of the particular farm on which they are built."
    Therefore they envisaged, and we envisage in this Bill, that the number of such cases that will be dealt with will be relatively small, but our point is that it was recommended by the Housing Advisory Committee that in certain cases the local authority would not be able conveniently to undertake the erection of

    1371
    houses in such a situation to meet this relatively small need.
    Mr. Morgan Jones: Has that report been made public?
    Mr. Bernays: Yes, it has been out since December. To meet this relatively small need we suggest that a subsidy equal to the Exchequer subsidy which is to be paid to a local authority should be made available for private enterprise. That is the definite recommendation of the rural housing advisory committee. I have been asked why it is necessary to adopt this method in these rare cases. One reason is the distance and isolation of some of these farms. They are far away from the nearest brickworks and the cost of transport is heavy, and there is also the poverty of the rural district council itself. The principle of a subsidy to private enterprise, as hon. Members opposite like to call it is very well established. It occurs not merely in the 1923 Act, the Chamberlain Act, but also in the 1924 Act, the Wheatley Act, for which hon. Members opposite were responsible.
    In the 1924 Act Exchequer subsidies were made available through local authorities to bodies or persons who were prepared to build houses subject to special conditions. There is a similar Clause in this Bill. It is difficult to see any difference except that the conditions we lay down are, in our opinion, more stringent than the conditions laid down in the Wheatley Act. The special conditions in the Wheatley Act were that the houses should be let and occupied by tenants who intend to reside therein, and that the rent charged should not exceed the rent charged by the local authority. The rent conditions in the present Bill are substantially stricter than those in the Wheatley Act because they limit the rent which can be charged to the level of agricultural rents. We believe that the present proposals impose stricter rental conditions and will ensure that the houses are for members of the agricultural population and are let at rents appropriate to them. It is indeed difficult to understand the opposition which our proposals have created. We are only doing what hon. Members opposite themselves did in 1924, and the only difference between us, I suggest, is that we are doing it a little more effectively and with more prudence than they did.
    7.49 p.m.
    Mr. Ridley: The innocent inability of the Parliamentary Secretary to understand successive speeches which have been made from this side of the Committee can hardly be due to those who have made the speeches, because the case has been put so simply that I should have imagined it was easy for any hon. Member to understand our position. The Bill proposes to allow local authorities in any particular case to transfer the subsidy of £10 per year for 40 years, which makes £400, to any particular farmer or landlord. That will be a very acceptable largesse to farmers who are in distress and to those who are not in distress; and it is done, as far as I can see, without any means test of any kind. It is not a fact that every farmer is on his knees or nearly in the bankruptcy court, or that every landlord is. But no matter what their standard of prosperity may be, they will have the advantage of this £400 through the local authority, and I would point out that they themselves may be members of the local authority which is to transfer the subsidy given under the Bill.
    On the Second Reading of the Bill an hon. Member opposite explained just what this financial advantage would mean to him. He said that he employed a number of agricultural labourers, and housed as many of them as he could afford. He did not reveal the extent of his means, and presumably he will not reveal his means either to the local authority. But there was one poor fellow for whom a house could not be provided, and he said that the provisions of the Bill will enable him to build a house for this wandering agricultural labourer. There is to be no standard of need for the farmer or the landowner, and no kind of national control by the Minister or this House over the distribution of public funds by local authorities. I seriously suggest that in the absence of a means test, or even with a means test, it is wrong to hand over public money in this way without any sort of control. I think the Committee should pause as to whether we should allow the control of the distribution of these bounties and subsidies to be in the hands of local authorities to be distributed by farmers and landlords without regard to need, requirements or necessities, and in the absence of any evidence to show that the subsidy is really required.
    7.53 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: Reference has again been made to the Wheatley Act, and I think it is necessary that something should be said about it. It is time that these references stopped. I happened to be an exceptionally close friend of the man who was responsible for the Wheatley Act, and when that Act was being prepared I took a certain part in the preparation of it. I was consulted on many questions. I was a sort of liaison between Mr. Wheatley and the building trade officials. When that Act was being prepared Mr. Wheatley was absolutely opposed to a single penny of public money being handed out to private individuals. But when he came to the later stages of the Bill he was faced with the fact that there was only a small minority behind the Labour Government, and he had to take note of the fact that concessions would have to be made if the Bill was to be got through. The forces arrayed against the Labour Government forced Mr. Wheatley to put this concession in the Act. It represents no principle for which he stood or for which the Labour party stands. It represents the power which existed at that time to force upon Mr. Wheatley and the Labour Government concessions which they would not have considered for a moment if they had had the necessary majority to carry through their own proposals.
    If hon. Members will only read the speeches of Mr. Wheatley prior to the Act of 1924 they will find that one thing upon which he was adamant was that no public money should be used for private purposes. You put the agricultural labourer in a very difficult position. No man should be in a tied house; and nothing should be done to encourage the tied-house system. The argument has been used about costs. It is as difficult for a private individual to put up houses in these lonely parts as it is for the local council. The Committee, if it has any regard for the agricultural labourer, if it wants to see him a free man as far as is humanly possible, should not put him in a position where he is under the control of the farmer, with the landlord be-hand the farmer; in a position where with the least excuse they can get rid of him and throw him out of his house. We have seen too much of that already. No public money should go to private individuals and I ask hon. Members, on behalf of the agricultural labourers, apart from any question of a subsidy going to the landlords, to vote against the Clause.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 114.

    Division No. 117.]

    AYES.

    [7.58 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Errington, E.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff. S.)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Apsley, Lord

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Cook, Sir T. R. A. M, (Norfolk, N.)

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Fleming, E. L.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Cox, H. B. Trevor

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Balniel, Lord

    Critchley, A.

    Furness, S. N.

    Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Crooke, Sir J. S.

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Cross, R. H.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Bernays, R. H.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Birchall, Sir J. D.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Grimston, R. V.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Harbord, A.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    De Chair, S. S.

    Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

    Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Bull, B. B.

    Doland, G. F.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Hepworth, J.

    Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

    Channon, H.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Christie, J. A.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

    Holdsworth, H.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Spens, W. P.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Munro, P.

    Storey, S.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    Nail, Sir J.

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Hums, Sir G. H.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M F.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Pilkington, R.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Leesh, Sir J. W.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Touche, G. C.

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Turton, R. H.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Levy, T.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Lewis, O.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

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

    Liddall, W. S.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Rowlands, G.

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    McKie, J. H.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Withers, Sir J. J.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Magnay, T.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Savery, Sir Servington

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Wragg, H.

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

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Markham, S. F.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon Sir A. (C'thn's)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Captain

    Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Dugdale.

    Morgan, R. H.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hayday, A.

    Price, M. P.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Ridley, G.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Ritson, J.

    Barr, J.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Batey, J.

    Hollins, A.

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Hopkin, D.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Benson, G.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bevan, A.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Shinwell, E.

    Broad, F. A.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silkin, L.

    Bromfield, W.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Simpson, F. B.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Burke, W. A.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cape, T.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stephen, C.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Leach, W.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lee, F.

    Thorne, W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Thurtle, E.

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Logan, D. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Daggar, G.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Tomlinson, G.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Viant, S. P.

    Day, H.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Dobbie, W.

    MacLaren, A.

    Walker, J.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Maclean, N.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Ede, J. C.

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Watson, W. McL.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Marshall, F.

    Westwood, J.

    Frankel, D.

    Maxton, J.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Gallacher, W.

    Montague, F.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Gardner, B. W.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

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

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Muff, G.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Parker, J.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Groves, T. E.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Pearson, A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hardie, Agnes

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

    Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Review of contributions.)
    8.7 p.m.
    Captain Conant: I beg to move, in page 6, line 26, to leave out "forty-one," and to insert "forty-three."
    The two following Amendments in my name on the Order Paper are consequential to this Amendment. The Clause, as drafted at present, provides for the review of contributions every three years, and the Amendment provides for the review at the end of every five years. I think there is a close relationship between the amount of subsidy which is given, the period of time in which it is operative, and the cost of building. There is a danger that if one gives a comparatively generous subsidy for a short period, it may lead to an increase in building costs and so make the building of cheap houses an impossibility. For that reason, I propose that the period of three years, which is the time for which the subsidy is guaranteed, should be extended to five years. If that were done, it would make more certain the supply of cheap houses, which is the purpose of the Bill.
    8.9 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's motive in moving this Amendment. He said that the question whether we would get cheap houses would depend upon the length of the period before the subsidy was reviewed, but I am afraid that is not the case. In the Bill, I have followed the precedents which were set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) in what is described in my notes as the Greenwood Act, 1930, and by my distinguished predecessor. In both cases it was thought that the review of the position should be made after a period of three years, and I think that is a reasonable period. Five years is a long way off, which ever way one looks at it. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his Amendment, but will be content in the knowledge that in three years time we shall all be here in out respective places. I have no doubt that from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, the sooner they can consider this matter again, the better, and from my point of view, I think three years experience will be sufficient.
    8.11 p.m.
    Mr. Greenwood: For once, I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman
    1378
    the Minister of Health, and I hope that my hon. Friends will not think I am unfaithful to them when I say that. As a matter of fact, this Amendment is a purely academic one, since the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health will not be in that position in 1941. In view of the fact that in some respects the subsidies which are to be given will be less advantageous than the subsidies that have been given, it is reasonable, from my point of view, that the period should be kept down. I know the difficulty of rising prices. If the subsidy were established for a long term of years, it might become unjust either for the State or for the local authorities. Prices may rise, and I imagine that His Majesty's Government, after three years of rising prices, would want to increase the subsidy. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment can have consulted his hon. Friends, and certainly he did not consult hon. Members on this side. I think that the Bill, for what it is worth—and hon. Members know my view—should contain a provision for this review of contributions, and that the review should take place every three years, and not every five years.
    Captain Conant: In view of the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Local authorities' contributions.)
    8.13 p.m.
    Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, to leave out "half," and to insert "one-third."
    The object of this Amendment, which is on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), who is absent from the House at the moment, is to reduce the rates burden which is on many of the heavily-rated districts in the country. In working-class areas, where housing needs are the greatest, the rates burdens are invariably the heaviest, and to that extent those districts ought not in future to be called upon to bear a heavier burden, in the interests of housing the people, than they are bearing at the present time. From time to time the Treasury has had to help

    1379
    private enterprise, or society generally, to build houses for workers, and in some cases a heavy contribution has had to be made from the rates. I do not think that should happen any longer, or at least to the extent that is proposed in the Bill. The Amendment, which reduces the contribution from one-half to one-third, seems to me to be a reasonable one, although even one-third of the charges will represent a heavy burden upon the people in districts where large numbers of houses are required and where rateable values are comparatively low. For these reasons, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the Amendment, for no one knows better than he does what the rates burden means in working-class areas, where the rates are far too heavy and where private enterprise will not build a solitary house. It is left entirely to the local authorities to erect dwellings, and the more they do in that direction, the heavier the burden upon the local people.
    8.15 p.m.
    Miss Wilkinson: I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment. I would recall to him the fact that a deputation from the county council of Durham some time ago was met by the Parliamentary Secretary. We laid our case before him and he promised to convey the facts to the Minister. Durham is, I think, the most heavily rated county in the country. It certainly will be under the new arrangements with regard to public assistance. It is also the county with the highest rate of overcrowding. Anything that can be done to ease the rate burden in those particularly distressed areas, ought to be taken into serious consideration by the Government at the present time. We have, over and over again, pressed on the Government the fact that in these heavily rated areas the local authorities have to undertake a burden which ought to be placed on the national shoulders. They are sinking under the weight. They suffer from all the drawbacks of poverty in an aggravated form. They have a terrific rate of unemployment and a high rate of tuberculosis requiring sanatorium services and other services; they have a very heavy public assistance rate; and they have also to carry this very heavy burden in respect of overcrowding.
    We fear that if the proposed ratio goes through those areas in which the rebuild-
    1380
    ing of the present overcrowded slums is most urgent will be unable to afford to do the work. Over and over again we have laid this matter before the Minister and he has promised to give it sympathetic consideration. I can tell him, as the deputation from the county of Durham has already told the Parliamentary Secretary, that the situation which will arise under the Bill is viewed with grave concern. Whatever the ratio may be and however fair it may be to the more prosperous Southern counties—a matter which we leave the Minister to decide—for those Northern counties to which I refer, the ratio and the subsidy as proposed in the Bill will not meet the present needs. I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment as cheerfully as he accepted a previous Amendment.
    8.19 p.m.
    Mr. Jenkins: I, too, hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. He knows that all kinds of efforts have been made by the Government to mitigate the effect of high rates in those areas which are most heavily rated. Only last year we got a revision of the block grant, which comes into operation as from April of this year and from which some advantages are expected to accrue. But already much of that prospective advantage has been absorbed by the ever-increasing rate burden in these areas. Whatever steps are taken, the rates still increase, or at any rate the steps which have been taken have not proved sufficient to counteract the increase in rates. My own council will gain a substantial advantage as a result of the re-arrangement of the block grants, but if these areas are to bear heavy charges for housebuilding, it means that a number of them will not be able to carry out the work which is absolutely necessary if they are to have reasonable housing conditions.
    That statement applies pretty generally to the Special Areas. I think it can be said of a number of them that their housing activities up to date have to a large extent been directed to removing an accumulation of bad houses. Those areas are already bearing substantial burdens, and if the Minister persists in his present attitude, it means that his policy will be a policy of decadence as far as those authorities are concerned. I believe that the Minister is fully conscious of this fact and that he desires to meet

    1381
    the wishes of hon. Members who are pressing him to meet this difficulty. There is already in these areas an average rate of about £1, which is very substantial when compared with other areas where the rate is about 10s. It may be that those less heavily rated areas will be able to carry out substantial housing programmes, but I assure the Minister, as regards the heavily rated areas, that we have nearly reached the limit of possibility of subsidising anything at all. That fact ought to be recognised by the Government.
    Various methods are being employed to draw additional money to those areas, but the real solution has not come yet. Industries have not been located there to the required extent, in order to create new rateable value and enable the authorities to apply some of that increased rateable value to the solution of their housing problem. Instead of that they are faced with an ever-declining rateable value and the problem remains unsolved. In those areas we have hundreds, indeed thousands, of old houses which were built from 150 years to 200 years ago. A large number of them are owned by colliery companies. They were let cheaply before the War. Wherever there has been decontrol recently the rents have jumped up and substantial rents are now being paid for many of those houses. I had the misfortune to live in one of them in my early days and I can say truthfully that they are not fit for habitation and ought to be destroyed. But if, under the provisions of the Bill, we ask the local authorities to destroy such houses, we shall find that they have not the financial means to meet the liability arising from such schemes.
    It is all very well to talk in the House of Commons and to produce a Bill and to say that you are going in for a great housing campaign to solve the problem of slumdom and give everybody nice cottages. The Minister must be conscious that we are not going to do anything of the sort by this Bill. The authorities in the heavily-rated areas cannot do the work unless they are met in the way proposed by the Amendment. I ask the Minister to give consideration to the facts which must be obvious to anybody who considers the position. If the right hon. Gentleman does so, and faces the situa-
    1382
    tion fairly and squarely, he must accept the Amendment.
    8.25 p.m.
    Miss Ward: Nobody could be more enthusiastic than I am for proceeding effectively, efficiently and quickly with the housing programme, and although I should have liked to have seen greater and quicker progress, I am one of those who are extremely proud that it is the Government of which I have the honour to be one of the back-bench supporters which, by its legislation, has made progress in slum clearance and overcrowding. I assume—and I hope I am right—that in this Bill the special provisions are being continued for financial assistance to slum clearance and overcrowding programmes which were provided in the original Act for meeting the additional charges which would have to come out of the rates in the Special Areas. If I have any grouse against my right hon. Friend, it is that I do not think there has been sufficient publicity of the provisions for providing houses in the Special Areas. In the North-East Coast area—and I presume the same facilities are available for the other areas which are scheduled Special Areas—the local authorities, if they so desire, can have the whole of their housing programmes carried out at the cost of the National Exchequer, with no additional cost to the rates.
    Miss Wilkinson: Higher rents.
    Miss Ward: The hon. Lady murmurs "higher rents," but I doubt whether she has any justification for making any such statement.
    Miss Wilkinson: I do not usually make statements in the House unless I have justification for them. It is a fact that the rents of houses built by the North-Eastern Housing Association at Hebburn, which is the only place in my constituency that has undertaken it, have twice been raised and are now substantially higher than the rents of the houses built by the local authorities. That is my justification.
    Miss Ward: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. All I can say is that, as far as the houses built by my local authority, which is on the other side of the water, and which is a moderate council—
    Miss Wilkinson: Hebburn is a moderate council with a moderate chairman.
    Miss Ward: I am very much obliged to the hon. Lady. It just shows the difficulty of getting into a dispute as between one council and another. All I can say is that, as far as I am aware, there is to be no increase in the rents of the houses built by the North-Eastern Association.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Cyril Entwistle): I would remind the hon. Member that we are now discussing whether the share of a local authority shall be one-third or one-half.
    Miss Ward: I listened to the case put forward by hon. Members above the Gangway, and they based their arguments for their Amendment on the case that we were imposing undue burdens on the finances of the Special Areas, and it seemed to me that I might be in order if I asked my right hon. Friend whether the same provisions apply to this Bill, that is to say, whether the whole of the charges can be paid for under the special provisions in the other Measure, in respect of houses built through housing associations. We have in process of being built by the housing association the whole of the houses which are required for slum clearance by the Wallsend authority, comprising some 400 houses, at no cost whatever to the local authority. It has taken rather a long time to get the local authority to accept the offer that was made by my right hon. Friend, and in another area in my Parliamentary Division the local authority has not yet taken advantage of the financial provisions offered.
    It is only fair to say that my right hon. Friend has realised the position in the Special Areas and that no Government could have given better and fairer opportunities for the carrying out of housing programmes than the offer to bear the whole of the cost. I am told by my local authority—and I would refer the hon. Lady to this—that the terms which were offered by the North-Eastern Housing Association to the local authority were such that it was impossible for the authority to refuse them. The local authorities have been slow to take advantage of my right hon. Friend's offer, and I only wish that he would use a little additional pressure on some other authorities, because, where the rates have to be increased to meet the cost of housing programmes, they had far better take advantage of the Government's financial
    1384
    provisions and spend the additional money on extending social services which are much needed. I felt that it was essential that I should rise on this occasion to defend what my right hon. Friend has done, and I hope that in reply to the Amendment he will make such a speech that no local authority will turn down the financial provision which has been offered.
    8.33 p.m.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: As one who, unfortunately, has a constituency that has had more than half of its working population unemployed from 12 to 14 years, I would be only too pleased to give every opportunity and encouragement to the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) to come to Merthyr Tydfil and apply the panacea which she has placed before the Committee. I could not allow this Clause to pass without emphasising the appeal that has been made, looking as I do, at what is implied in this Clause from the angle of a constituency such as mine. The local authority there has to build houses because the conditions of such an area have for many years naturally frightened away the speculative builder of houses. I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this fact and I am glad to see the Minister of Labour sitting nearby. The Government has already spent considerable sums of money—and I appreciate it—in clearing derelict work sites, and it has made the district more attractive than it used to be. There are, however, circling these old sites, dwelling houses running from 50 to 80 to the acre, built 100 to 150 years ago, which present a spectacle that is the last word in ugliness. That is certainly not conducive to attracting prospective employers to the district. They are houses a large number of which the right hon. Gentleman would, I know, condemn at a glance, and it is left to the local authority to try to provide fresh accommodation for the people who are living in those houses, hundreds of which have been condemned.
    I have listened to hon. Members complimenting the Government on what they have done, but Merthyr Tydfil is an area which draws nearly 50 per cent. of its resources from cottage properties rated at under £13 per annum, and I cannot allow this Clause to pass without appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to try

    1385
    to appreciate the difficulties of that and similar places. The right hon. Gentleman rightly draws our attention to our obligations to house our people under better conditions, but, without wishing to make any party capital out of this, I must tell him that my friends on the borough council of Merthyr Tydfil are really disappointed with this Bill. These old industrial areas, which have, relatively, the heaviest housing problems, are admittedly in an extremely difficult position, because no fresh industries are going there and there are no fresh sources of revenue for the local authorities, and yet the problem devolves upon them of trying to rehouse the people who are living under such poor housing conditions as I have described. Until new industries are established we must continue to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for a larger measure of consideration. He is anxious that new houses shall be built for these people, but it is becoming more difficult year by year to do it. In South Wales we have had many long years of unemployment, and it is getting more and more difficult to rehouse our people, and I want to emphasise the appeal that the Minister will in some way or another give us more generous treatment, and at least accept the Amendment,
    8.39 p.m.
    Mr. Silkin: I wish to support the Amendment—although it was standing in my name I was, unfortunately, not able to be present to move it—and to put the case of another special area, namely, London. The Minister of Health is fond of suggesting that London is in a very special position and can bear all sorts of burdens, but I would put it to him that London consists of 28 metropolitan boroughs, each of which is a housing authority, and that a number of those boroughs are undoubtedly very much worse off than many towns in the country. Take the case of Bethnal Green, Southwark or Bermondsey. Rateable values are low and the rates are high, and the housing problem is a very considerable one. I understand that Bermondsey has a housing rate of something like 6d. in the £. When the Minister talks of London being a prosperous area he should remember that London is not one area but 28 areas in the matter of housing activities. This Clause alters the basis of the relationship of the Exchequer subsidy to the local authority subsidy, to
    1386
    the detriment of local authorities. Ever since 1930 the proportion of Exchequer subsidy to local authority subsidy has been as four and half to one. For dwellings, particularly on sites costing more than £1,500 an acre, which is the case in practically all urban districts, the Exchequer contribution has been—on the basis of five persons per dwelling—£17 10s. per dwelling and the rate contribution has been £3 15s., which is roughly as four and a half to one.
    Then came the Act of 1935, under which any dwellings put up for the purpose of abating overcrowding were provided with an Exchequer subsidy, and the local authority had to make a contribution amounting to one-half of the Exchequer subsidy. We on this side protested against that but nevertheless, taking the two susbsidies together and on the assumption—it is undoubtedly a fact in most places—that the number of dwellings required to rehouse persons displaced from slum areas is about twice the number rquired for the abatement of overcrowding, the existing proportion of Exchequer subsidy to rate contribution is as three to one. The purpose of this Amendment is to ask the Minister to retain that relationship between the Exchequer contribution and the rate contribution. If the Amendment is accepted, instead of the rate contribution being £2 15s. it will be, as stated in the second Amendment, which is consequential on this one, £1 16s. 8d.
    I realise that the answer which will be given to this Amendment is that if it were acceepted the aggregate contribution of the Exchequer and the rates would be reduced, and that places me in some difficulty, because our real purpose is not to reduce the rate contribution but to increase the Exchequer contribution, and I should not be strictly in order in moving an Amendment of that sort. However, I want to put on record the fact that the local authorities are being badly treated by having the proportion which they are required to contribute towards the deficiency on housing increased from an average of one-third to one-half. Undoubtedly the effect of that in many cases will be a slowing down in the operations of local authorities or, alternatively, there will be an increase in the rates. I am not in a position to argue that the Exchequer contribution should be in-

    1387
    creased, I wish I were, because I think there is a perfect case for it, and the only thing that is open to me is to plead that the existing proportions between the Exchequer contribution and the rate contribution should be maintained, and for that reason I hope the Amendment may be accepted.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I support the Amendment. I come from another distressed area, although it is not looked upon as one, and that is the County of Lancashire. There are 95 separate housing authorities under the Lancashire County Council and most of them will be called upon to build houses under the new regulations. I am anxious to help the Minister to achieve what it has been said he is out to achieve—a record during his term of office in the number of houses built. I should be happy to help him, not because he is the present Minister, but because I am interested in the people who will occupy the houses. I am just a little afraid that if the conditions remain as they now are in the Bill, the Minister's desire to create a record will pass into the category of the Private Member's Bill which was introduced yesterday for Scotland, and be among the still-births. The reason is that all over the County of Lancashire there is a rising rate demand for things other than houses. On Thursday next we shall be faced with an increase of 1s. 3d. in the £, the highest increase there has ever been in the history of the County of Lancashire.
    Many local authorities who are housing authorities will be utterly unable, faced with this additional burden, to contemplate meeting their obligations under the Bill—and they are real obligations. Faced with an increased demand for housing they will not be able to meet that demand. Rates have been increased mainly because of the action of the right hon. Gentleman's Department and of other Departments. Some mention was made of that fact at Question Time. For poor relief and public assistance an increased rate of 4½d. in the £ is being asked. What does that mean? It means that conditions are so bad and are worsening to such an extent in Lancashire that the requirements of the people under this Bill will not be met by reason of the calls made upon local authorities from other
    1388
    directions. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to achieve his object in having houses built, there is one way only in which it can be done, and that is by reducing the burdens upon local authorities and enabling them to carry on without the disadvantages which they now have. This is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to show that he is anxious that the local authorities should get on with their work, and the right hon. Gentleman should make it possible for them to do so.
    8.49 p.m.
    Mr. Dunn: I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. I am trying to help him and the local authorities who are dealing with the housing problems of their districts. I have often been pressed by hon. Members on this side of the House and who come from what are known as the Special Areas. Fortunately or unfortunately I come from an area which has not a classification of that kind, although I would be prepared to agree that there is a considerable measure of distress operating in the district, particularly noticeable when one comes closely into relation with the working conditions which have existed in that part of the country for a long period.
    I am anxious that the Minister should look at the housing problem in relation to the general rating problem in the counties, and particularly the counties of the North. My experience will be similar to that of the hon. Member who has just spoken. When we in the North examine the rate burden, which affects the rent of the houses, and we compare the North of England with the South, we find that we are in an unenviable position. Taking the county from which I come with the local authority of which I happen to be a member, the combined rate works out at the present time to 21s. in the £. If local authorities are to be called upon to deal with their housing problems—this statement applies to the whole of my constituency—I think I should be right in saying that the combined rate would be in the region of 20s. in the £ for the whole of the constituency.
    The local authorities have been progressively concerned since the immediate post-war years with dealing with their slum problems and in building hundreds of houses to deal effectively, in advance of this legislation, with their problems of

    1389
    overcrowding and slum clearance. I heard an hon. Friend talking of the rate-in-aid of housing in some of the London areas, and I understood him to say that the rate was 6d. in the £. If that is the measure of the rate contribution that has to be borne by prosperous London, we must compare it with 1s., 1s. 8d., and in some cases 1s. 9d. and 2s. in the £, with which the industrial poverty-stricken and hard-pressed areas of the North have to contend. There is a real case that even the areas not described as distressed put forward when they ask the Minister of Health to accept the Amendment.
    Not only is there the problem of housing conditions, but the general problem of health. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows my views with regard to the problem of rating. I have stated from time to time on the Floor of this House that some measure of financial assistance for local authorities in dealing with their housing problem should not be out of compass with the provisions made by the Ministry of Health and with the desire of the ratepayers generally to assist in the housing problem. I have had many years' experience of local authorities of all kinds, from the parish to the county council, and I express the view, which applies particularly to the north of England, that unless there is a new conception of the measure of the capacity of the ratepayers to bear the burden in those distressed areas, we may have to call a halt in the public health services of the country. It is because I want housing to go along, and because I want the public health services to go along also, that I support the Amendment, hoping that the Minister will accept it and thereby avoid putting an unfair burden on the ratepayers of the districts concerned.
    8.55 p.m.
    Mr. MacLaren: I support this Amendment, but not because I feel that it is an economic proposition to remove an imposition from the local authority and put it on the taxpayer. That, as I have mentioned previously, is like the Irishman who took four inches off the top of his blanket and stitched it on to the bottom, in the belief that he was making the blanket longer. To relieve the local authorities and put the burden on the Exchequer is not doing much in an economic sense; the public still have to pay.
    1390
    I support the Amendment because I want to make an appeal to the Minister. He occupies a unique position in the political sphere in which he operates. I see from time to time in the Press that he has been credited with having displayed considerable genius in bringing the forces of the National Government into a well organised state. We remember that, at times when elections are coming along, photographs appear in the Press of the right hon. Gentleman with his well-known smile, and we are invited to look at what the Minister of Health has done, and not to vote for Socialist candidates at the next November election, but to vote for the National Government candidates. The plea that is consistently made on behalf of National Government candidates as against Labour men in our local parliaments is, "Do not vote for the Socialists or the rates will go up." Here we have the organising genius, in the person of the Minister of Health, who will microphone these ideas through the divisions next November, but what is he doing now? He is putting up the rates, not only in this but in other Measures. The rates of the local authorities have become a veritable snowball owing to the new responsibilities which are constantly being passed on to them by the State. I appeal to the Minister as an honest man, because I believe that no one could keep that eternal, childlike, simple smile on his face without being an honest man—a man with an easy conscience. I appeal to him to consider this Amendment. If the Rulings of the Chair were not so strict, there are other lines that I might take on this question but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the Amendment seriously in view of the distress which has already been expressed to him.
    We have national taxation running into astronomical figures, and naturally Ministers of all Departments are becoming apprehensive as to how much they can charge to the Exchequer and how much they can place on the local authorities. But, while the charges on the national Exchequer are running sky-high, it is true to say that the liabilities which are being piled upon the local authorities are equally becoming intimidating. Here we have these two horses running neck and neck, and Ministers are becoming apprehensive as to what they shall do. I know that the Minister of Health will now be labouring under that difficulty,

    1391
    and will not be able to be as liberal to local authorities, in view of the stringency at the Treasury owing to the rearmament policy; but it is equally true to say that in almost every industrial division in Great Britain the rates are almost as great a menace to local authority administration, if not a greater menace than the intimidating influence on the Treasury of a large Budget. We are now asked to reduce the commitments of the local authorities.
    I conclude by saying that the Minister, as an honest man, will either have to consider the Amendment which has been placed before him or, when he is asked by the office across the street to get ready propaganda next November, he will not be able to pursue the line that the Socialists put the rates up. In view of the task that is before him next November, it will not be to his advantage, when the public are being asked for their support for National Government candidates, to leave us in a position to point to this and many other things that are done which make it impossible for the rates to come down, but which, on the other hand, put them up. In districts where there is great distress, the Labour men on the councils have a greater need for these services by reason of the higher rate liabilities which are imposed upon them. If Parliament imposes upon us the obligation of increasing the rates, the Government will not be able to come along next November and blame us. We believe in the right hon. Gentleman's integrity, his honesty, his uprightness and disinterestedness. Let him give us a lead by accepting the Amendment in one way or another.
    9.2 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I gladly respond to the appeal which the hon. Gentleman has made to me in such flattering terms. I wish that everyone agreed with him in the attitude he has expressed towards me. I will confine myself, as he has suggested, to the terms of the Amendment, which I do not think has been properly put before the Committee by the hon. Gentleman who is responsible for its appearance on the Paper. What in fact would happen if the Amendment were passed? By the Financial Resolution which has been passed by the House, the Exchequer contributions have been fixed, and no deviation is possible. We have determined,
    1392
    after considerable debate, what it is that the State shall contribute to this proposal. Now we have an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), asking that a reduction should be made in the rate contribution. If I ever ventured to describe this Amendment from the point of view of the hustings, I should not say that it is an attempt by the Socialist party to reduce the rates; I should say that it is a proposal which would increase the rents.
    The logical conclusion, as I think all hon. Members must appreciate, of this Amendment if it were passed, is that, the Exchequer contribution having been fixed, the only consequence of passing an Amendment of this kind to reduce the rates would be from a practical point of view, from my point of view as Minister of Health, and from the point of view of hon. Members interested in their constituences, that rents must be raised. I do not, however, press that upon the Opposition to-night, because I know that what they really desire in moving this Amendment is to raise the question of the rate contribution. I only put that point because it is the logical conclusion of the Amendment on the Paper. I appreciate, because I myself have been in Opposition once or twice—very rarely and for short periods—that this is the only way in which hon. Members can raise the question of the rate contribution, and, therefore, I do not want to make a mere debating point so far as that is concerned.
    The hon. Member was, however, under a misapprehension when he said that this was a slap at the Exchequer. This Amendment is not a slap at the Exchequer, but a slap at the tenant. The hon. Gentleman in whose name this Amendment stands is in a very different position, speaking on behalf of a great local authority, from that of the other hon. Member who has expressed—as I think, very naturally and properly—his sense of the burden under which many tenants have suffered. I make no comment on rates in London. I do not want to do anything to encourage the hon. Member to increase still further the rates of London. I was somewhat disturbed at the announcement that I read in the paper this week, and I hope that no words of mine will encourage the hon. Member in that path. But, so far as the rates in London are concerned, hon. Members will perhaps be surprised to know

    1393
    that the London County Council housing rate is at present 2½d., and that the completion of the slum clearance and overcrowding programme will probably add a further sum of less than 2d.
    Mr. Silkin: In addition to the rates levied by the London County Council, each of the London boroughs raises its own housing rate. The right hon. Gentleman ought to add the Metropolitan borough rate to the county council rate to get a true picture.
    Sir K. Wood: I will certainly do that, and that will not destroy my argument at all in the comparison I was making between the hon. Gentleman and the other hon. Gentleman who spoke from the point of view of ratepayers up and down the country. I do not want to criticise the London County Council for what they have done in connection with rates, but, on the financial provisions of this Bill in relation to London, there is very little difference between the London County Council and myself. The hon. Gentleman has heard the statements from time to time of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), but, if he wants to look at the real difference between the London County Council and the Ministry of Health on the financial provisions in regard to London, he should look at the report of the finance committee of the London County Council in relation to those provisions. It is true that they state that the council would be placed in a worse position financially, and they complain about the ratio of State contributions being two to one; but when you examine exactly what they further require, what they say is that the subsidy per flat should be increased by £1 a year for 40 years in respect of flats on sites the cost of which (as developed) exceeds £1,500 but does not exceed £10,000, and that higher subsidies should be available for houses as distinct from flats erected on sites the cost of which (as developed) exceeds £1,500 per acre. They also say that dwellings provided for rehousing purposes in connection with slum clearance operations and displacements from unfit houses in redevelopment areas for which tenders are accepted before 1st January, 1939, even though the dwellings are completed after that date, should rank for subsidy at the existing rates.
    1394
    I am very happy to think that, very largely as a result of negotiations between the London County Council and the officers of my Department, there is really little difference between us on these financial provisions. The London County Council, in fact, are in a very different position from local authorities in other areas about which hon. Members have spoken this evening. I do not think that the London County Council, from the point of view of their own resolution, can say that the Government have not, to a very large extent, met the necessities of London in this connection. It is quite natural that when local authorities go to a Government Department they should press for all they can get. For the representatives of other areas who have spoken to-night, I have a great deal more sympathy. I know, from my own observations, that other areas are in a very difficult position: there is no question of a 2½d, rate for them; and we are endeavouring to meet, by various provisions in the Bill, some of the necessities of their case.
    I do not want to go over the whole question of what has been done by recent proposals of the Government and the block grant. A very considerable addition was made in that connection; and I again press on hon. Gentlemen opposite, although I know their difficulties, the value and the merit of the North Eastern Housing Association. I have many times met hon. Members who represent the Special Areas. They do not like the fact that housing has been handed over from the local authorities to the Housing Association. I feel sympathy with them in that respect; but I must say that, however much they feel that, I cannot think how any locality could turn down an offer which is available in no other part of the country by which houses can be provided without any cost to the rates at all. Although I do not want to criticise hon. Members opposite, I think that is an almost impossible position to justify; and, in those circumstances, I suggest, at any rate so far as larger authorities in general are concerned, that there is very little difference between us. This Amendment, obviously, should not be pressed, because it would simply mean increased rents, particularly for those tenants in areas where they are least able to pay increased rents at the present time.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Greenwood: When the right hon. Gentleman is as conciliatory as he has been in his last speech I know that he has got a very bad case. When he pushes out his chest and is truculent, I know that he thinks he has a good one, but when he speaks in that minor key which he has adopted to-night, it is perfectly clear to me that he knows that he has not got a good case. We oppose the right hon. Gentleman not because we wish to create any new rate burden or to increase rents, but in order to raise the issue of the ratio between the contributions of the State and the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has been handing out bouquets to the London County Council—I could almost feel my hon. Friend behind me blushing—in trying to defend his position. The truth is that in future, at any rate with regard to slum clearance, and indeed in regard to the whole of his housing, local authorities are to be expected to make a relatively bigger contribution than they did before the Bill was introduced. The relation of the proportion is to be as two to one. Local authorities are to be prepared to supply half as much as the State.
    What is the basis? Is it suggested that the resources of local authorities are about half the resources of the State? Is it suggested that the local authorities in this coming year can have a budget of £500,000,000? The State can find the money for what it wants. The Prime Minister has taunted me time and time again in this House for the statement which I made when I said that the people of this country can pay for anything they want. The right hon. Gentleman does not want housing as much as this Government want a Budget of £1,000,000,000, swollen because of rearmament expenditure. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not you want rearmament?"] I am dealing with the question of relative values and with the relative resources of the State and local authorities. I am saying that in the view of this Government, with its almost unlimited resources, local authorities should carry out a problem which is on their doorstep, not in Whitehall, and contribute half. That is impossible. The responsibilites of local authorities are increasing. A hint has been given—I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) is
    1396
    not here—that the London County Council rate is to be increased by 6d.
    Mr. Ede: That is not the only county council rate increase.
    Mr. Greenwood: Let it not be thought that it is due to the inefficiency of the Labour government of London, because it is also announced in the Press to-day that the Conservative Lancashire County Council rate is to be increased by 1s. 3½d. in the £. I am not accusing them of anything. I am simply saying that heavier and heavier responsibilities are being thrown upon local authorities. The Government have not even had the courage to take national responsibility for air-raid precautions. Authority after authority in this country is having to face an increasing rate burden, because it feels that it must take all possible steps to defend its ratepayers in the event of air attack.
    Reference has been made in many speeches to the distressed areas, and to those areas which are distressed but are not so defined, where, in spite of all that the Government say they have done for the maintenance of the unemployed in these times of increasing unemployment, there is an ever-growing burden for the maintenance of the poor placed on the local authorities. The more rationalisation and mechanisation advance, the more certain it is that people will lose all rights to Unemployment Insurance Benefits, and the more certain it will be that they will have to be cared for in the last resort by the Poor Law and not by the Unemployment Assistance Board. That board to-day is getting rid of its bad debts and pushing them on to the local authorities, and as this process goes on the poorest areas in the country are the areas which are having to carry the heaviest burden. They are the areas where the rateable value is the lowest, where the mass of the people are the poorest, where there are no prosperous suburbs of well-to-do people, and they are the areas where the housing problem, broadly speaking, is most acute. The right hon. Gentleman's great contribution to this problem is to make the local authorities bear half the burden of the State.
    The real obstacle to the housing of the people in the rural areas is the rate problem. Rates there are relatively high. The yield of a penny in the £ is almost insignificant, and there are rural areas

    1397
    in this country where three-quarters of the rateable value is derived from council houses. The case that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to make is not a good one. There is a limit to what you can get out of the ordinary ratepayer, who is a poor person. The rate burden to-day on the great mass of our citizens is relatively heavier than the tax burden is to most of our citizens. Incomplete, inadequate and insufficient as our system of taxation may be, we are working towards a position where the burden will fall on the backs that can bear it best. I am not saying that we have got there, but the rate burden is unfair because it falls most heavily on the poor.
    The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the block grant, but that is no answer. He is doing one of two things. Either he is going to increase the burden on
    the backs of the working people or he is going to hold up housing, because if local authorities are going to have to bear a proportionately heavier burden than in the past, they will either shirk their responsibilities or, if they carry them out, they will have to put up the rents of the houses that they build. The right hon. Gentleman's charm of manner and his reluctance to debate the principles that are at stake will not help him. It may well be that he will have his way but the case put by my hon. Friend is unanswerable and I hope he will lead us into the Lobby in support of a principle which we believe to be right.
    Question put, "That the word 'half' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 113.

    Division No. 118.]

    AYES.

    [9.27 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    De Chair, S. S.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Doland, G. F.

    McKie, J. H.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Apsley, Lord

    Duncan, J. A. L,

    Magnay, T.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Assheton, R.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Ellis, Sir G.

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

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Markham, S. F.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

    Fleming, E. L.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Balniel, Lord

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Moreing, A. C.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Gledhill, G.

    Morgan, R. H.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Birchall, Sir J. D.

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Nail, Sir J.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Neven-Spance, Major B. H. H.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Harbord, A.

    Pilkington, R.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Plugge, Capt. L. F.

    Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Bull, B. B.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Hepworth, J.

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Cary, R. A.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Channon, H.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Holmes, J. S.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Christie, J. A.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Rowlands, G.

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Cook, Sir T. R. A. M (Norfolk, N.)

    Keeling, E. H.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Critchley, A.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Crooke, Sir J. S.

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Savery, Sir Servington

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Scott, Lord William

    Cross, R. H.

    Levy, T.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Lewis, O.

    Smith, Sir R. W, (Aberdeen)

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Lipson, D. L.

    Spens, W. P.

    Storey, S.

    Turton, R. H.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M F.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Wragg, H.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Touche, G. C.

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hardie, Agnes

    Pearson, A.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Hayday, A.

    Price, M. P.

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Batey, J.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Ridley, G.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Ritson, J.

    Benson, G.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hollins, A.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Bromfield, W.

    Hopkin, D.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Shinwell, E.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Silkin, L.

    Burke, W. A.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Cape, T.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Simpson, F. B.

    Casslls, T.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cooks, F. S.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Cove, W. G.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Daggar, G.

    Lathan, G.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Thurtle, E.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Leach, W.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lee, F.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Day, H.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dobbie, W.

    Logan, D. G.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Walker, J.

    Ede, J. C.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    MacLaren, A.

    Westwood, J.

    Foot, D. M.

    Maclean, N.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Frankel, D.

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Gallacher, W.

    Marshall, F.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Mathers, G.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Montague, F.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Muff, G.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.

    Groves, T. E.

    Parker, J.

    Amendments made:
    In page 7, line 28, leave out "A rural district council," and insert "Any council of a county district."—[Lieut.-Colonel Heneage.]
    In line 35, after "pound," insert "a year."
    In page 8, line 9, leave out "the Eighth Schedule to," and insert "Section one hundred and fourteen of."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    9.36 p.m.
    Miss Wilkinson: On the previous Amendment I drew attention to the rate burden in Durham, and the Minister made a somewhat lengthy reply, with which I should like to deal. On this
    1400
    matter he has dodged the issue of the rate burden for houses in the distressed areas by saying that we in Durham can get over it by means of the North-Eastern Housing Association. He is doing in this Clause what he has done in the country. It is not fair. The North-Eastern Housing Association is a dodge. The Minister attempts to get round the unanswerable case of Durham, of South Wales, of Cumberland and the other distressed areas, by making a special case of Durham. In the propaganda of the Tory party he blames the Socialists for duplicating officials, and then he comes along and in order to meet a difficulty he insists that an entirely separate organisation for housing should be set up. He cuts out entirely the experienced officials of the municipal authorities, and sets up his own authority and makes it an excuse for taking housing

    1401
    out of the hands of the local authorities and putting it into the hands of private enterprise.
    In order to carry out his own political ideas in regard to housing the right hon. Gentleman takes this step and then he says that Durham has no case, because they can have the North Eastern Housing Association. There might be something in that argument if the North Eastern Housing Association had proved a success, but the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council really shows that what is being taken off the rates is being put on to the tenant. That is precisely what the Minister has done in the North Eastern Housing Association. I had an argument with the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) with regard to certain figures. The figures show that the Housing Association has put up houses which are demonstrably inferior to those that have been put up by the local authority—that can be proved by looking at the bricks, the windows and the general finish—and yet there have been two increases of rent above the charges that are made by the local authority. What is that but taking it off the rates and putting it on to the tenant? The Minister has not met and has not even attempted to meet the case of Durham that we put up when dealing with the original Amendment. All that he has done is once again to trot out the Christmas stocking of the North Eastern Housing Association.
    I should like to give him some figures in regard to the Urban District Council of Felling in my division, who have told me what this Clause will mean to them. Their additional programme is for 500 houses, which will not qualify under the present subsidy but must come under the new subsidy. If they were getting the present subsidy it would mean £5,242 a year for 40 years, but under the proposed subsidy that figure will be reduced to approximately £2,750, a reduction to this extremely heavily rated area of £2,492 a year. In these areas we have to deal with the Minister of Health in a number of different guises. We deal with him as our loan authority. He has just refused us power to raise a loan for a stretch of road that is a death-trap, where children are being killed month by month as they come out of school. He has refused the loan on the ground that the rates in this
    1402
    area will not support the necessary increase, and yet by this Clause there will be an additional burden on this heavily rated district of nearly £2,500 a year. Is he going to meet that position by talking about the North Eastern Housing Association? The figures are well known.
    If I may say so with due respect to a man whom we recognise as one of the most capable of a not specially good lot, I would say that it is not fair for him to come before the House and attempt to answer our unanswerable case from Durham by making jokes about his predecessor. If he would admit that the case is unanswerable we could respect him. Goering says that you cannot have arms and butter, and if the right hon. Gentleman would say: "You cannot have arms and houses," then we should understand him, but to say that the things of which we complain do not take place, is not worthy of him or of the Committee.
    9.43 p.m.
    Mr. Sexton: I do not want to speak of a big industrial area like that of Jarrow, but of the more remote parts of South West Durham. We have there an urban district council, the Barnard Castle Urban District Council, which has so small a rateable value that a penny rate will hardly provide sufficient money to buy a wheelbarrow. I was a member of an urban district council in the South-West of Durham where a penny rate produced only £19. Where you have a district where a penny rate produces anything like that sum it means that the housing problem, however small, is very serious. The Barnard Castle Urban District Council will be entitled to £6 10s. per house, and yet it will be badly hit, according to a reply which I received from the right hon. Gentleman to-day. I was informed that under slum clearance there are 140 houses in the urban district of Barnard Castle which have to be replaced. They have already built 50 of those houses and there are 90 still to be erected. Ninety times £2 15s. is £247 10s., which will make an additional rate of 6d. or 7d. in the £.
    In addition to that the same urban district council will have its overcrowding problem to contend with, and once again the rates will be increased. These rates must be borne very largely by small tradespeople in the village. There are only about 3,400 inhabitants altogether,

    1403
    and the tradespeople are doing badly enough now, but when I tell the Committee that there are 250 people signing on at the Employment Exchange every day in the week, it will be clear that something better ought to have been done for councils like this one. Barnard Castle is a very old-established country place, with very old houses, and one can imagine that if you really did what ought to be done in a place like that, it would cost 1s. 3d. or 1s. 4d. in the pound. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) said something about the North Eastern Housing Association, which is simply an outlet for frozen money. Money is being frozen up in certain parts of the country, with no outlet for investments, and here is the opportunity, but why should the housing be taken out of the hands of the local councils?
    Mr. Magnay: Is it not a fact that at South Shields the Labour council have adopted this recommendation and put contracts in the hands of the North Eastern Housing Association?
    Mr. Ede: That was done before the Labour party had power, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was great difficulty in getting the final stages of that arrangement carried through because
    of the strength of the feeling on the council.
    Mr. Sexton: Has the control of local councils been at fault in the past? Has not praise often been given in this House by Ministers of the Crown for the efficient work done by local councils in housing? Yet public money is to be given to private enterprises such as the North Eastern Housing Association, and there will be competition between their houses and the local council houses. Whose house will it be, supposing the Association gets £200 altogether in public money, at the end of that time? I say the house should belong to the body which provides the money, because at the end of the time, when the house is paid for, if it belongs to the local authority, it will be an asset, because it will help to relieve the rates. Besides that, the fact of this £3 15s. a year being given to the housing association is neutralised by local authorities which are using direct labour, because they are building cheaper and, as the hon. Member for Jarrow said, much superior houses. Therefore, I have great pleasure in voicing my opinion against this Clause.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, no.

    Division No. 119.]

    AYES.

    [9.49 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Christie, J. A.

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

    Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

    Conant, Captain R. J. E

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Apsley, Lord

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Critchley, A.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Assheton, R.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Harbord, A.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Crooke, Sir J. S.

    Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Cross, R. H.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Balniel, Lord

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.

    Beamish, Rear Admiral T. P. H.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Hepworth, J.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm h)

    Dawson, Sir P.

    Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

    Beechman, N. A.

    De Chair, S. S.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Bernays, R. H.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Birchall, Sir J. D.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen, H. C. (Newbury)

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Bull, B. B.

    Fleming, E. L.

    James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Cary, R. A.

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Gledhill, G.

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Channon, H.

    Granville, E. L.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Lewis, O.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Plugge, Capt. L. F.

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

    Lipson, D. L.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Lyons, A. M.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. C.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Titchfield, Marquess of

    McKie, J. H.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Touche, G. C.

    Magnay, T.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Turton, R. H.

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

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

    Rowlands, G.

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

    Markham, S. F.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Waterhouse. Captain C.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

    Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Moreing, A. C.

    Savery, Sir Servington

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Morgan, R. H.

    Scott, Lord William

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Wragg, H.

    Nail, Sir J.

    Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crews)

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R J.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Spens, W. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Storey, S.

    Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.

    Pilkington, R.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hardie, Agnes

    Price, M. P.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hayday, A.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Ridley, G.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Ritson, J.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Barr, J.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Batey, J.

    Hollins, A.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Hopkin, D.

    Shinwell, E.

    Benson, G.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Silkin, L.

    Broad, F. A.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Bromfield, W.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Burke, W. A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cape, T.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Cassells, T.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lathan, G.

    Thurtle, E.

    Daggar, G.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Leach, W.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Lee, F.

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Day, H.

    Logan, D. G.

    Walker, J.

    Dobbie, W.

    McEntee, V. La T,

    Watkins, F. C.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Ede, J. C.

    MacLaren, A.

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Maclean, N.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Foot, D. M.

    MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Frankel, D.

    Marshall, F.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Gallacher, W.

    Montague, F.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

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

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Muff, G.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Parker, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.

    Groves, T. E.

    Pearson, A.

    Question, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(County council's contributions.)
    Amendment made: In page 8, line 28, leave out "rural," and insert "county."—[Brigadier-General Brown.]
    Consequential Amendments made.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Transitional provisions.)
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. E. Smith: I beg to move, in page 10, line 20, to leave out, "if the Minister thinks fit so to determine."

    1407
    I am moving this Amendment after a careful examination by several local authorities who are concerned about this aspect of the Bill, and desire that these words should be deleted.
    Sir K. Wood: The Amendment is so reasonable that I must accept it.
    Mr. Mathers: Is there not some error here? Should not the word "thinks" be altered to the word "is"?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 10, line 36, after "under," insert "Section one or Section two of."
    In line 40, leave out "and by the Eighth Schedule thereto."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    10.2 p.m.
    Mr. Maxwell: The Clause deals with the amount which those who are building new houses will gain by the subsidy under the Bill, and I desire to put one point to the Minister. On the Second Reading he dealt with the difference between the subsidy under the old Act and the subsidy as it is proposed under this Bill, and said:
    "There is at present payable a fixed subsidy of £2 5s. in respect of slum clearance and a possible subsidy but rarely admissible … not exceeding £5 for 20 years in respect of the abatement of overcrowding."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1938; col. 1732, Vol. 331.]
    By that I imagine that under the old Act in respect of overcrowding the subsidy is possible but improbable. We have heard about the difficulty of those local authorities who have hurried up with then-overcrowding programme and who are being penalised to a certain extent by having done so, in that they will not rank for the new subsidy under the Bill, while those who have not been so quick in their overcrowding programme will rank for the new subsidy. I appeal to the Minister, if he cannot make the Bill more retrospective, to consider favourably his option to give a subsidy under the old Act. When dealing with local authorities it is our duty to try and encourage them to help the Minister by carrying out the Act to the best of their ability, and our task will not be made any easier if they tell us that because they have hurried up as they were requested to do with their over-
    1408
    crowding programme they are being penalised for so doing. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that he will consider favourably requests that he should grant a subsidy not exceeding £5 for 20 years under the old Act. In King's Lynn, which I represent, the local authority, just before this Bill was brought forward, undertook a very considerable building programme to rehouse people living in overcrowded conditions. It seems to me that it will be very unfortunate if, because they undertook this programme when they did, in good faith and in order to implement the spirit of the old Act, they are debarred from getting the subsidy when other authorities, which have not been so prompt, are going to get it.
    10.6 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: This matter was discussed earlier in the evening. Perhaps my hon. Friend will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, and, if necessary, have a word with me between now and the Report stage.
    Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  SCHEDULE.
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 13, line 4, after "land," to insert:
  "(including additional expenses incurred by the local authority in the construction of any special foundations to the building proposed to be erected on the site."
  I move this Amendment in order to obtain from the Minister an assurance that the calculation of the value of the site will include any additional expenses incurred by the local authority in the construction of special foundations to make the surface suitable for the erection of buildings. Very often, particularly in large towns, local authorities have to get such sites as are available, and it sometimes happens that special foundations have to be constructed. In London, for instance, we had to have piling to the extent of 50 feet in one case, which was very expensive. I consider that the cost of such piling should be included in the cost of the site. My object is to secure from the Minister an assurance that, in calculating the cost of the site, the cost of special foundations will be included.
  10.9 p.m.
  Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member has raised a matter which is of importance as far as his local authority is concerned. I will at once say that I shall be prepared to take account of any extra expense incurred on a site in carrying out any necessary piling operations in the foundations. I shall be prepared to include that expense.
  Mr. Silkin: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and confirmed
  1410
  by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, for the amendment of the Chatham Rochester and District Electric Lighting Order, 1890, and for other purposes, which was presented on the 14th day of December, 1937, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the burgh of Fort William and part of the county of Inverness, which was presented on the 2nd day of February, 1938, be approved."—[Captain A. Hudson.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Waterhouse.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes after Ten o'Clock.

  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  DEFENCE (FOOD SUPPLIES).
  DEFENCE (FOOD SUPPLIES).
  BACON (IMPORTS).
  BACON (IMPORTS).
CIVIL AVIATION.
  IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED.
  IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED.
  PRIVATE FLYING (PETROL DUTY).
  PRIVATE FLYING (PETROL DUTY).
  FASCIST AND COMMUNIST PROCESSIONS.
  FASCIST AND COMMUNIST PROCESSIONS.
  SHOPS ACTS (HALF-DAY CLOSING).
  SHOPS ACTS (HALF-DAY CLOSING).
  SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) ACT.
  SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) ACT.
  POST OFFICE (AIR MAILS).
  POST OFFICE (AIR MAILS).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY (COMMISSIONS AND WARRANT RANK).
  ROYAL NAVY (COMMISSIONS AND WARRANT RANK).
  ROYAL DOCKYARD, DEVONPORT (L. G. E. RING).
  ROYAL DOCKYARD, DEVONPORT (L. G. E. RING).
BRITISH ARMY.
  LAND PURCHASE, PEMBROKESHIRE.
  LAND PURCHASE, PEMBROKESHIRE.
  TERRITORIAL ARTILLERY BRIGADES (WIRELESS EQUIPMENT).
  TERRITORIAL ARTILLERY BRIGADES (WIRELESS EQUIPMENT).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY ADMINISTRATION (INQUIRY).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY ADMINISTRATION (INQUIRY).
  ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH (PAID HOLIDAYS).
  ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH (PAID HOLIDAYS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TRADING).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TRADING).
  SMALL-POX.
  SMALL-POX.
  VACCINATION DEATHS.
  VACCINATION DEATHS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (LIFTS).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (LIFTS).
  PALESTINE.
  PALESTINE.
  EDUCATION (PHYSICAL TRAINING).
  EDUCATION (PHYSICAL TRAINING).
  LAND REGISTRATION.
  LAND REGISTRATION.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  ASSISTANCE, SOUTH WALES.
  ASSISTANCE, SOUTH WALES.
  INSURANCE (NON-MANUAL WORKERS).
  INSURANCE (NON-MANUAL WORKERS).
  TRADE BOARDS (DRY-CLEANING INDUSTRY).
  TRADE BOARDS (DRY-CLEANING INDUSTRY).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Devon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SUPERANNUATION (VARIOUS SERVICES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I have to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am afraid that the Bill does not lend itself to exposition, because it consists of a number of clauses which make minor and, I hope, useful reforms in the administration of justice, but do not embody any broad principle. It is founded, first of all, upon the Peel Commission; secondly, on the Business of the Courts Committee, presided over by the late Lord Hanworth; and thirdly, on the International Convention which was held at Brussels to decide about the immunity of State-owned ships. The Peel Commission suggested that one way of relieving the High Court was to increase the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions, and they suggested that a Committee should be set up—and a Committee was set up by me under the presidency of Sir Archibald Bodkin—to consider what extension could be granted to the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions. The Bodkin Committee recommended that there should be no extension of the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions as at present constituted, but that if Quarter Sessions were presided over by a qualified lawyer then they suggested that extensive jurisdiction should be entrusted to that Court.
The Peel Committee thought that increased jurisdiction should not be given

971
to Quarter Sessions unless the Chairman had certain legal qualifications, and in order to make it easier to find Chairmen with such legal qualifications, they suggested that power should be given to appoint a paid chairman, which is already the law in certain favoured counties, notably those near London. Accordingly, the first four clauses of the Bill are devoted to carrying out those recommendations. Clause 1 enables His Majesty, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor made at the instance of Quarter Sessions, to appoint a legally qualified person as Chairman, whether paid or unpaid, and the qualifications are set out in subsection (4). Then the Bill goes on to extend the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions to certain offences which are specified in the First Schedule—these are taken from the Bodkin Report—where the Chairman is a legally qualified person, either paid or unpaid. Clause 3 makes the Court of Quarter Sessions a continuous Court, and this overcomes an obstacle to the efficient dispatch of business, which was pointed out by the Peel Commission in paragraphs 222 and 225 (c) of their Report. Clause 4 contains the powers necessary to enable a legally qualified Chairman to be paid. The clause requires an agreement between Quarter Sessions and the county council that the salary should be paid, and also as to the amount of salary, the amount being also subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor. This clause also deals with the question of his remuneration, according to whether he is or is not appointed to the Rating Appeal Committee.
Clause 5 is devoted to another recommendation of the Peel Commission which suggested that the dispatch of business in the King's Bench Division would be facilitated by a re-arrangement of the circuit system. The re-arrangement of the circuit system can of course be done by Order in Council, and a draft Order giving effect to that recommendation is now under consideration by the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues, but part of the system recommended is that civil cases should be set down at least a fortnight before the circuit begins, so that the judge going circuit should know a fortnight before he starts what civil business is set down for all the towns on the circuit, and should finally fix his
972
dates accordingly. If there is no substantial business, civil or criminal, at any place on the circuit there is already a power in the Lord Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, to direct that Assizes should not be held at that place. The Peel Commission pointed out that it would greatly assist their proposed scheme if this power could be exercised by the Judge going circuit, and Clause 5 of the Bill is to give effect to that recommendation.
Clause 6 deals with another cause of congestion in Assizes and another recommendation of the Peel Commission. The justices can, of course, now commit to Assizes or to Quarter Sessions. Their power is derived from Section 1 of the Assizes Relief Act, 1889, and it is proposed to limit their power to commit Quarter Session cases to Assizes. Subsection (3) is consequential on the reform of the circuit system proposed by the Peel Commission. The Judge going circuit is intended to have such latitude in altering the date of Assizes that it may be impossible for the justices to know whether Assizes will be held within the month or not. The Peel Commission therefore recommended that the section should be amended, and the amendment proposed uses the word "unlikely." There is some reason to think that justices who have committed too freely to Assizes persons who should be brought for trial at Quarter Sessions have done so partly owing to a misreading of the Criminal Justice Act. They may have thought that if the Quarter Sessions were not held within a month they were authorised by the section to commit to Assizes. Care has been taken in Clause 6 (3) (a) to make it clear that Assizes and Quarter Sessions are to be kept apart in construing this section.
Then Clauses 7 to 13, inclusive, of the Bill carry out recommendations made by the Business of the Courts Committee which sat under the Chairmanship of the late Lord Hanworth. The object is to simplify the present procedure of the Crown side, partly by enabling the procedure to be modernised, partly by eliminating obsolete proceedings altogether. The Crown side deals with such branches of the law as mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto, trial of indictments in the High Court and outlawry. The subject is very technical, and it is hoped that after these clauses

973
are passed the rules known as Crown Office Rules can be completely rewritten and very much shortened and simplified and made part of the general code of Rules of the Supreme Court. Clause 14 is a clause in a form suggested by the Board of Trade in order to enable effect to be given to the Convention to which I have referred, a Convention on the immunity of State-owned ships, and on the suggestion of the Law Officers the clause has been given a more general application. Any rules of the Court to give effect to the clause would probably be to the same effect as the existing rules which give effect to the Carriage by Air Act, 1932. Clause 15 makes a little more flexible the powers of the Court for the reviewing of orders for periodical payments by way of alimony or maintenance.
Clause 16 deals with another recommendation of the Peel Commission. It raises the jurisdiction of the County Court from £100 to £300 and provides that if the amount should exceed £100 the defendant has an absolute right to go to the High Court if he wishes to do so. Nowadays there is already power to parties to the intended action to agree by a memorandum in writing to give the County Court jurisdiction where the amount exceeds £100. When any action is pending the parties are necessarily at arms length, and this clause, which carries out the recommendation of the Commission, provides that the plaintiff may commence an action not exceeding £300 without agreement beforehand and that if the defendant does not object, then the action goes on in the County Court. It the defendant objects, then it shall be transferred to the High Court. Clause 17 restores to the Chancery Division power to remit to the County Court an action which might have been commenced in it without an application for transfer having been made. The power existed until 1937 but disappeared inadvertently in the course of the consolidation of the County Courts Acts. There seems to be no reason why it should not be restored.
Clause 18 makes clear the power of the rule-making authority to give jurisdiction to the Registrar in an undefended action and in any applications which are not actions. The Registrar now has jurisdiction to try even a defended action up to £10 on the application of the parties, and
974
if the defendant does not appear it seems absurd that the Registrar should not have power to deal with the case notwithstanding his non-appearance. There is a doubt whether the power exists and this clause makes it clear. There are also a number of minor amendments and consequential alterations in the law, and I hope your Lordships will recognise that this is a modest attempt to give effect, not to an ambitious scheme of comprehensive reform, but to certain useful suggestions from the Commission and the Business of Courts Committee. I trust that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill and that the Bill will, when it reaches the Statute Book, enable the law to be more efficiently and more economically administered.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CAUTLEY: My Lords, it is possible that I may be able to give your Lordships a little information which may be useful in coming to a decision as to the necessity, at any rate, of appointing a Chairman of Quarter Sessions. I say this because I myself have been Chairman of the East Sussex Quarter Sessions for ten years, and I have also experience from another side, having been Recorder for about seventeen years. In olden times the work of Quarter Sessions was simple because the Court could deal with only a few simple cases. Members of Quarter Sessions were practically all laymen acting under the advice of a skilled clerk of the peace, a legal man, and they were able to get along very well; but in recent years a considerable change has taken place in the work, and the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions has been constantly increased. That has made the task much more difficult for laymen, because each extension has required more legal training for the Chairman who directs that body.
The work was made particularly more difficult by reason of the Act which gave the right of appeal in criminal cases, and which necessitated that the trial should be conducted practically in the same way as it is conducted by a High Court Judge trying cases at Assizes. As a result of all that, lay magistrates have refused to act as Chairmen or Deputy Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, because they did not feel competent to charge a jury or conduct a trial in the method that is now

975
requisite. Perhaps some judges of the Court of Appeal have hastened this result by the observations they have made when lay magistrates have made mistakes. The effect is that, in my own bench, from my own experience, I have been left in the position of not having a magistrate who would take charge of the second Court, and we have been driven to come to the Lord Chancellor's predecessor to ask him to appoint a legal magistrate who should be appointed Deputy Chairman. I have known a High Court Judge serving as Deputy Chairman in East Sussex.
Owing to this constant increase in the class of case put upon them, and also owing to the increase of appeals, the work has very much increased at Quarter Sessions, and the work now done by the Chairman is really onerous in very many parts of the country. He has not only to preside at Quarter Sessions, but he has now to sit as Chairman of the Appeal Committee, and all appeals have to be tried by him or the Deputy Chairman at various times, not at the ordinary Quarter Sessions as was formerly sufficient. Further than that, he has to sit as Chairman of the Rating Appeals Committee owing to recent legislation with which I personally did not agree, in that it has differentiated magistrates from being all on an equal level, as for centuries they were. We have now an appeal committee to be composed of magistrates who are peculiarly fitted to try appeals. How Quarter Sessions ever arrive at that, I do not know. The Chairmen of the Rating Appeals Committees are also magistrates selected for their special fitness to try rating appeals.
Be that as it may—and is—the Chairman of Quarter Sessions has to preside over all these bodies sitting at different times. The result of all this is that it is quite impossible, in my view, for anybody but a man with legal training and qualifications to perform the duties which are put on the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Quarter Sessions. If that is to apply to all Quarter Sessions in the country, there are not enough idle lawyers to go round to do the work, and in my opinion it has put an unfair burden on those who have legal attainments that they should be picked out to do this work which has been done hitherto without the reward. Personally, at my age, I am not interested in the emoluments to be
976
given to the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and perhaps for that reason what I have to say may carry more weight with your Lordships.
There are one or two points in the Bill dealing with Quarter Sessions to which I would call attention. The first is that I do not quite see why, if this change in the law is to be made, it should not be made uniform. I cannot see why it should be left to the discretion or desire of a particular bench of Quarter Sessions to decide whether they should pay their Chairman and Deputy Chairman. It should be universal or, at any rate, left to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, who could decide on the statistics of the amount of work to be done. The other way in which I would like to see the Bill altered is this, and I am not quite sure if this is practicable: I do not think any Quarter Sessions can work well where you get a body of magistrates, as I have, of over twenty and up to thirty whose main interest in the case is not in the trial, because that is conducted by the Chairman, but really comes in when the magistrates retire to consider the sentence. It really results in the sentence being, so to speak, put up to auction. One man wants one penalty and one another, according to particular prejudices or views, which are mainly those of laymen not used to continuous practice in the law. But the Chairman is held by the Court of Criminal Appeal responsible for the sentences passed, and very often injustice is done to the Chairman. I do think, if it is possible, that the sentences ought to be left to the Chairman or Deputy Chairman because, being a lawyer, he does try to preserve what is the weak part of the magisterial system—uniformity or consistency.
The Chairman keeps himself aware, roughly, of what the Court of Criminal Appeal decides. He gets a general knowledge of what the sentences are to be for certain offences. He applies that knowledge and keeps the administration of his own particular bench as it were on an even keel, whereas if the sentences are decided, as they frequently are in cases where magistrates insist on being heard and taking their own point of view, the sentences depend on a majority vote. Some magistrates take no particular interest in what the Court of Criminal Appeal does, or in what are the sentences for the average offences. Apart from this

977
part of the Bill on which I have ventured to speak, I welcome that part dealing with the appointment of paid officers of Quarter Sessions.
LORD ROCHE: My Lords, I also have the honour to be a Chairman of Quarter Sessions in an agricultural county, and I should like to trouble your Lordships with a few observations, mainly on that part of the Bill with which my noble friend has dealt. Your Lordships will have gathered from the very lucid statement, if I may be permitted to say so, of the noble Viscount on the Woolsack that this Bill contains many useful provisions. I think it does, in particular those which deal, from Clause 7 onwards, with the proceedings in the Crown side of the High Court. But, in my judgment, it also contains provisions which are less useful. I know that in moss respects it is based upon the Report of a very important Committee; but it is given even to Committees to err, and in my judgment the Committee presided over by a member of your Lordships' House whose death is so much regretted was like other Committees in that respect.
The only clause in the Bill which I propose to say anything about at the moment, other than the Quarter Sessions provisions, is Clause 16. That is the clause which deals with the County Court. There, I will not say lurking in the miscellaneous provisions in the Bill but embedded in them in a not very conspicuous place, is an absolute revolution in the matter of County Court jurisdiction. I am not at all sure that it is desirable. I refer to the enlargement of the jurisdiction from £100 to £300. That does not mean that everybody who has a £300 case is bound to go to the County Court; but he may go to the County Court. County Courts were intended and designed for poor people, for the speedy determination, mainly, of cases arising out of small debts, and my experience—it is a long time since I was at the Bar—was that the small cases are numerous and the large cases are few. Whether it was because the County Court Judge was more interested in the large cases or not I cannot say, but the counsel appearing in the large cases were able to prevail upon him to take their cases. I know that the small cases had a habit of being left out at the end of the day, and you marked your brief
978
with "not reached for want of time," for which, as far as I can remember, the young counsel received a fee of one guinea. That was all very well for the young counsel, and perhaps that consoled him, but it was a wrong to the small litigant. Think of what that means in lost time to the people who came there and went away unheard. Because I think that this clause will tend to accentuate that hardship on small people I will ask those responsible for this Bill before it leaves the Committee stage of your Lordships' House to consider whether that clause could not be omitted or modified.
But the provisions with which I am really concerned are the Quarter Sessions provisions. I agree with what has fallen from the noble Viscount on the Woolsack and from my noble friend, that it is very difficult if not impossible now for a non-legal Chairman to preside properly at Quarter Sessions. That is partly because there is a Court of Criminal Appeal to find him out if he goes wrong, but it is also partly because the law is much more complicated in the matter of the remedies it provides than it used to be. The difficulty of administering the Criminal Law—and I speak from an experience now of twenty-three years or thereabouts—is not in finding out who is guilty. That is comparatively easy, with the help of that very excellent and British institution, the jury, whose function the Committee responsible for this Bill tried, incidentally, to minimise. That was one of my quarrels with them. The difficulty with a jury is not to find out who is guilty; the real difficulty is to know what is to be done with the person when he is convicted. It is there, with systems of probation, very excellent systems of binding-over, Borstal institutions and many other things, that the lay Chairman feels in great difficulty, particularly if he is embarrassed by such a disorderly set of magistrates as my noble friend has. I wonder he does not keep them in better order and tell them more decisively what they ought to do.
That is the real difficulty. Therefore I agree that it is desirable that there should be a legal Chairman and Deputy Chairman, but in a great number of cases there is a legal Chairman and Deputy Chairman. In the part of the country with which I am best acquainted, what is called

979
the Oxford circuit, consisting of six or seven counties, there is only one county which has not got a legal Chairman and Deputy Chairman, and I am not sure that this Bill goes the best way about extending that very desirable system. I will tell your Lordships why, in the hope that this may be considered, because the Bill does tend to advocate what I may call the appointment of an official legal Chairman from outside. They are to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I agree that it would be very wise that the Lord Chancellor should have something to say upon it, but I am not sure that the agricultural counties, with all their pride, will like the appointment to rest only with the Lord Chancellor. I think they would like, if they are going to adopt this Bill, to have a say as to who the Chairman is to be, and they would prefer that he should be a local person. This Bill is rather drawn upon the basis that the Chairman is always to be a paid Chairman. My noble friend was of that opinion. The noble Viscount on the Woolsack shakes his head. The Bill makes it merely permissive, but it is so drawn in some details as to give rise to that impression; nay more, to put more duties upon the legal Chairman who may be appointed than ought to be put upon him. It does this rather on the basis that he is to be a paid Chairman.
I will very shortly illustrate what I mean. In my view it would be a grave misfortune if in the average county the Chairman of Quarter Sessions were paid. I think that many of the Chairmen would prefer not to be paid. This is a matter going back five hundred or six hundred years. There is a long tradition of honorary and voluntary service in the Chairmanship of Quarter Sessions. In my view, although it is extremely desirable where counties have become almost suburban, and the amount of time required from the Chairman runs into months, that he should be paid, in the ordinary county where probably fourteen days would see it through it is most desirable that he should be unpaid. This Bill provides, in Clause 1, that the appointment should be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. By Clause 3—I call attention to this as an instance of putting too much upon the Chairman or Deputy Chairman—if he is
980
appointed under this Bill, he is of necessity there for life (that is, during good behaviour), and he is made of necessity Chairman of the Appeal Committee. It is true both of lay Chairmen of Quarter Sessions and legal Chairmen of Quarter Sessions that they do not always retire when they ought to retire. People do not always know when they become very deaf. I think counties will resent having a Chairman appointed for them for ever. In the county with which I am most familiar, we appoint for a term, for the very simple reason that there was so much trouble in getting rid of the last Chairman. There is no harm in saying that. He is far beyond the reach of anything that may be said here. That will not be altered by having a legal Chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I think it would be very wise, if I may suggest it to those responsible for the Bill, that there should be provision for appointment for a term as well as for appointment absolutely and for ever.
Then there is the other point under Clause 3, that when the Chairman is appointed he becomes automatically Chairman of the Appeal Committee. It is very desirable that there should be a competent Chairman hearing appeals from petty sessions, but it does not at all follow that he need be Chairman of Quarter Sessions. There is such a thing as over-burdening the back of the camel, or of the Chairman. In the county with which I am conversant, we have one High Court Judge as Chairman of Quarter Sessions, but he is happy enough to have another High Court judge as Chairman of the Appeal Committee. I suggest that by an Amendment, which I think could be done by appropriate words, it should be made plain that, although the appointed Chairman may be Chairman of the Appeal Committee if it is so agreed, he need not of necessity be so. The Bill makes provision of an optional character with regard to the Chairman of the Rating Committee in Clause 4, and I would ask those responsible for this Bill to consider whether that should not be done with regard to the Chairman of the Appeal Committee. The gist of what I want to convey by these observations is that the Bill is all right in so far as it extends the system of legal Chairmen, but that there should be very careful consideration in Committee to see

981
whether the Bill does in the best way carry out the object for which it is designed.
LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I welcome this Bill in its various parts. So far as Quarter Sessions are concerned, I welcome it as a real step to a uniform system of having legal Chairmen of Quarter Sessions. We all know that in practice now Quarter Sessions generally choose as their Chairman a legally qualified member. I do not want to say a word against the very admirable work done by lay Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, but in my own experience in regard to Quarter Sessions it has seemed to me very desirable indeed that there should be, not in some cases or in many cases, but in all cases, a legally qualified Chairman. What my noble and learned friend has said about the Chairman of the Appeal Committee is certainly a matter that should be considered. I was myself for some years Chairman of the Appeal Committee and I did not consider that that was compatible with being Chairman of Quarter Sessions in general. I have retired entirely now, but it seems to me that in most cases you want a legally qualified Chairman of Quarter Sessions and a legal Chairman of the Appeal Committee. That difficulty might be got over by appointing both a Chairman and a Deputy Chairman, either of whom might act as Chairman of the Appeal Committee. I do not read this Bill as providing that the legally qualified Chairmen are to be paid. I do not read that as the intention at all, and I should imagine that those Chairmen of Quarter Sessions who are lawyers would not desire to be paid at all, although it is perfectly proper, and indeed necessary, in the case of those Chairmen of Quarter Sessions who sit in thickly populated districts where there is a great amount of business to be done.
I should hope that this Bill will receive a Second Reading from your Lordships' House, and that various points of detail which require reconsideration will be dealt with in Committee or on the Report stage. Many of the provisions of the Bill I could not do other than applaud because many of them are based upon recommendations of a Committee of which I was a member, and I will say nothing more about them. There is only one other point I want to mention, and
982
that is Clause 14, the effect of which is to enable the Government to ratify the Convention of Brussels of 1926 for regulating the immunity of State-owned vessels. I do not know that that question is so urgent as it was in the years immediately following the War, when Governments were possessed with a desire to own fleets of mercantile vessels and it became a real hardship, and indeed an outrage, that those trading vessels should be run purely for profit but free from the obligations to other vessels and to the owners of cargo that they carried which applied to private vessels. That Convention has remained for twelve years unratified by this country, although most other mercantile and civilised countries have already ratified it. I should welcome this ratification, and I may point out that it contains a safeguard to this country, because there is power to revoke it in the event of war. In the event of war it may well be that the British Government would desire to revert to the immunity of vessels owned and operated by itself even if employed in trading voyages. I venture to submit that this Bill should receive a Second Reading and that any matters of detail should be dealt with in Committee.
LORD CARNOCK: My Lords, I suppose very few of your Lordships are really conversant with the County Courts. I am, as a more or less briefless barrister. There have been times when I have appeared for poor people in the County Courts. I do not believe your Lordships realise how important are the County Courts to the poor people of this country. Pitiful stories are put before the County Court Judge, and from long experience he is well able to deal with them. I suggest that if the limitation of amount is put up to £300 a totally different class of person is going to appear in the County Court. Times alter, but work in the County Court is enormous at the present moment and deals with comparatively poor people. If you are going to put half the work of the High Court into the County Court, how is the County Court Judge, the Registrar, or anybody going to be able to deal with these people? They cannot do it; it is impossible. That is all I wish to say.
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive another lawyer for saying a few words on this Bill. It is,

983
however, very much of a legal Bill, and there are two points which I think are of great importance. They both deal with the extended jurisdiction to be given to Quarter Sessions. I think the opinion of the Peel Committee, which this Bill adopts, was that this extended jurisdiction should be given to Quarter Sessions; and they made it a condition, with which I entirely agree, that extended jurisdiction should not be given to Quarter Sessions unless the Chairman was qualified in the direction that has been mentioned in the Bill. But the provision in this Bill which I think perhaps might deserve reconsideration is that the extended jurisdiction is optional. That is to say, if Quarter Sessions do not care to apply for a qualified Chairman, their jurisdiction will not be extended. To my mind it is a new principle in legislation that you should leave it to the tribunal to decide whether it should have more work to do or not. I cannot help thinking that in a great many cases, for the reasons which I shall mention, Quarter Sessions will elect not to have an extended jurisdiction. The persons who have business in Quarter Sessions are entitled to consideration in this matter. May I say that they include persons accused of offences, because they are not always found guilty; they are sometimes acquitted. If there is to be jurisdiction to try cases in their own county at Quarter Sessions, I rather suggest that it should be uniform all round. I think it would be a great misfortune that in populous county A there should be an extended jurisdiction and in populous county B there should not, just because Quarter Sessions do not choose to apply for a qualified Chairman.
But if they are to get the extended jurisdiction, two things must happen. First of all the Chairman of that county must resign, and though they have at the present moment a qualified Chairman, yet they will not get the extended jurisdiction unless he has been appointed under this measure by the Lord Chancellor. I rather assume that if there is a qualified Chairman already in existence it is probable that the Lord Chancellor will appoint him, but it by no means follows, and there are different considerations of age and so forth that might lead to a difficulty in that respect. The real objection, however, is to my mind this.
984
The Chairman of Quarter Sessions, after all, has been for a great number of years a man of weight and importance in county affairs. He is chosen by his brother magistrates. He performs very important functions other than in the trial of cases and in the hearing of appeals. He acts as Chairman of Quarter Sessions in reference to quite an amount of administrative county work which is still left to Quarter Sessions.
I feel great misgivings as to whether or not Quarter Sessions will be likely to accept this boon of extended jurisdiction if as a condition of it they are not allowed to choose their own Chairman. Of course they must choose a Chairman who has the qualifications, and of course it is perfectly proper that the Chairman should be approved by the Lord Chancellor. But this proposal is something quite different. The existing Chairman has got to be wiped out, for the time being at any rate, and a Chairman whom they have not chosen has to be given to them by the Lord Chancellor. With great respect, I think that is a mistake, and that the same result would be arrived at with complete success by the proposal made by my noble and learned friend Lord Roche, that Quarter Sessions should be allowed to elect their Chairman subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor. In those circumstances I think it is much more likely that Quarter Sessions will take the first step—the appointment has to be made at their instance—to get the extended jurisdiction. Unless something of that kind is done I very much fear that this extended jurisdiction, which will be, as I think, of the greatest value to the administration of justice, will fail to have the extended operation which it ought to have.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who have joined in this debate for the suggestions which they have made. These, as they truly say, are Committee points and shall receive attention and discussion. I should like to give a brief answer—only a brief answer, because I do not want to commit myself on points which I may accept in Committee. But my noble friend Lord Cautley—who is, incidentally, the Chairman of my Quarter Sessions; I have sat with him—suggested that the jurisdiction should be made uniform. My noble friend Lord

985
Roche gave the answer to that suggestion. Some counties—urbanised counties and the like—need this jurisdiction; some agricultural counties do not need it. It would be impossible to compel all counties to accept this jurisdiction so as to enable the counties which need it to have it.
My noble friend suggested that there should be an amendment of the law to give the Chairman the power to give sentences. The justices who sit in Quarter Sessions are the justices who sit in petty sessions. They have jurisdiction to give sentences there, and in the Quarter Sessions they will be obviously guided by the advice and the counsel of the Chairman. They will learn to administer the law and to fix the sentences according to the principles laid down by the Court of Criminal Appeal and explained to them by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions. I remember my noble friend expounding to his bench, quite powerfully, the sentence which he wanted to give when I did not agree with it, and it will not be a surprise to noble Lords to learn that the Bench agreed with him and not with me! That is an instance of the influence and power of the legally qualified Chairman of Quarter Sessions.
Then my noble friend Lord Roche referred to Clause 16—that is the County Courts clause—and the noble Lord, Lord Carnock, said that it would completely revolutionise the character of the County Courts. I am afraid my noble friend is guilty of a little exaggeration there, because I have caused a calculation to be made—of course only a rough one—and my advisers tell me that there are only 750 cases in a year which would be started in the County Court by this procedure and which are now started and tried in the High Court. That is not half the cases and would not swamp the Courts. Of those 750 there are some in which the plaintiffs would not desire to avail themselves of this suggestion, and there are more in which the defendant would avail himself of his right to get the case transferred to the High Court. Therefore I do not think it is quite accurate to say that the County Courts will be swamped and that they will be deprived of their character as the poor man's courts. I remember that something of the kind was said on each occasion when the County Court jurisdiction was extended and I doubt very much whether this very modest proposal will have that effect.
986
My noble friend Lord Wright referred to Clause 14 and mentioned the power of revocation in time of war. He remarked also that this Convention which was signed in Brussels was made in 1926 and now it is 1938. I am glad to tell your Lordships that it is not so long as it seems, because in 1935 a supplementary or amending Convention was signed and from 1926 to 1935 was spent in getting the nations to agree to amend the Convention in a sense which this country and others desired. Therefore, it was only from 1935 to 1938 that we have had to wait.
Then my noble friend Lord Atkin said that it was desirable to allow the Quarter Sessions to elect their own Chairman. That I shall be glad to consider and discuss with him and my noble friends Lord Wright and Lord Roche. We will look into it and see what is desirable. My noble friend Lord Atkin also said that it is a mistake to give the Quarter Sessions an option. In other words he argues that this should be made uniform. I think I have given the answer, which I suggest is a satisfactory answer, to Lord Cautley, and my noble friend Lord Roche agreed with me that it was not desirable to compel a county to take a qualified Chairman. It is quite true that this Bill does not compel the counties to pay a Chairman. I have no doubt that many legally qualified Chairmen will continue to give their services, as they have done in the past, and as my noble friends have done for example in their own counties, and that they will not want any remuneration. Section 4 only provides that if it is desirable to pay a Chairman, and the county council and Quarter Sessions agree that it is necessary and desirable to have a paid Chairman, then it shall be open to them to fix the salary with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. In fact several of the counties have had Private Bills passed giving them that power; I think Hertfordshire, and of course Middlesex. I think probably it will be useful, to help the counties where the work is excessive, that they should have power to pay a Chairman. I think all the points which have been raised—points which can be usefully considered in Committee—have been answered, and I thank the House and my noble friends once more for the attention and care which they have given to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DIVORCE AND NULLITY OF MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I think it is my good fortune to move the Second Reading of a Bill which will be accepted in all quarters of the House, and for me it is rather like old times to be introducing a Films Bill. I had the privilege of piloting the original Bill through the House of Commons, and the duty also of writing nearly every word of that Bill myself. The British film industry, when the film industry was starting, held quite a proud place. It was a pioneer, and it held its own in the early days. It was only when the War came and more important matters engaged the country, and in the years after the War, that the British film industry dwindled away until, in the year before the old Act was introduced, I believe considerably less than 5 per cent. of the films shown on the screens of this country were of British origin.
I wonder if I might try to summarise the motives which moved me in 1926 to try to re-create, or help to re-create, that industry, because I think they were the same motives as those which move noble Lords in all quarters of this House to support the Bill to-day. It was not merely that the film industry was a great industry, that in America it was employing tens of thousands of people and making large sums of money, and, more important, that large sums of money were going out in wages, although that in itself was not unimportant. There was much more than that. This industry is of enormous indirect value to trade. I remember reading, shortly before I introduced or started work on the original Films Bill, a statement by the secretary of the Department of Commerce in America, who was very well able to
988
judge, in which he said that the domination which the American industry had in the cinemas of the world was worth more to American foreign trade than the whole of the advertising which the American firms did put together. I was President of the Board of Trade, and it was my job to try to help British trade, and I thought that that was a very pregnant observation. But the reasons went much deeper than that. I do not think one can exaggerate the influence of films in spreading the atmosphere, the ideas, the characteristics of the country in which they are made, and just because that influence is subtle, is half-unconscious, so the less directly propagandist a film is the more effective is its influence in the countries through which it circulates. I felt, therefore, as I think we feel to-day, that this industry in the production of British films has very special national and Imperial importance.
I raised the question at the Imperial Conference in 1926 and I was encouraged at that Conference to go forward. It was a new field. I knew something about some industries, but frankly the film industry was entirely new ground. I felt that the best plan would be to try to get the film industry together—the three estates of the film realm, the producer who produces the film, the renter, who is the middleman so to speak, and the exhibitor who shows the films—to get them together and see whether they could agree upon a workable scheme. Their meetings were, if the most reverend Primate will forgive my saying so, a little reminiscent of some of the earlier Councils of the Church. There was great faith, there was, I think, perhaps a larger measure of good will than sometimes was shown in those assemblies, but there was a complete absence of any agreement. So I had to try my own hand and draft a Bill and ask the three branches of the industry to criticise it and try to make a practical scheme of it. That help was very readily given, as I know it has been given all through in the working of the Act and in the framing of this new Bill.
I would like, if I may, from that experience to pay a very real tribute to the exhibiting side of this industry. After all, it is obviously very much the interest of the producers to have a measure which helps them to produce; but showing films

989
is the bread and butter of the exhibiting industry, and the facts that the exhibitors gave their very best endeavours to frame a practical measure for imposing a quota upon themselves, that they have with very few exceptions, and in spite at times of considerable difficulties, most thoroughly and honourably carried out their quota obligations, and that they are to-day supporting the extension of this measure, I think reflect a very large measure of credit on the exhibitors. Time and experience showed that there were defects and loopholes in the original Act but, by and large, that Act has succeeded. It re-created the British film industry. Throughout the years of its operation more British films were shown by British exhibitors, I think in every year, than the quota compelled them to show. And it enabled a very considerable extension of the showing of the British films in different parts of the Empire. To-day I believe Parliament is unanimous in its desire to continue the system which that Act brought into being, and to continue it very generally on the lines of the old Act. That Act was for a term of years—ten I think—which runs out at the end of this month, and therefore a new Bill became necessary if this scheme were not to die.
In preparing this new Bill the Board of Trade was very greatly helped by the work of my noble friend Lord Moyne and his Committee. The general structure of the old Act is reproduced in the new Bill. The system of quotas, on both the renter and the exhibitor, is continued. As in the old Act, the quotas start at a relatively modest level and rise progressively; and, as in the old Act, the renters' quota is always kept at a figure rather above that of the exhibitors'—a desirable provision, because that helps to ensure that there shall always be a sufficiency of British films available to the exhibitor to fill his quota. The definition of a British film remains very much the same as it was under the old Act. Your Lordships will see that that definition is given in Clause 25 of the Bill. There is, however, a new provision in a sense with regard to the definition of a British film as applied to the renters' quota, to which I ought to draw your Lordships' attention, because it is entirely new. That is in Clause 26.
In order that a film may count for the renters' quota, that film must have been made in this country. It will not count
990
for renters' quota if it was made in another part of the Empire. That provision is absolutely necessary if the provisions to which I shall refer later for applying a cost test to British films is to be effective. If this provision were not made it would be perfectly possible for any foreign renter who wished to evade the provisions of this Bill to go and manufacture what is vulgarly known as a "quota quickie" at a very cheap rate in another country of the Empire, pass it through into this country, and thereby entirely evade the provisions of this Bill. Moreover, this really is no deprivation of any privilege which an Empire country could reasonably seek to enjoy, because any British film manufactured in another country of the Empire can count for exhibitors' quota. Therefore any Empire film which is worth showing can find its way freely into this country and can count as a full British film in the exhibitors' quota, if it is a good enough film for an exhibitor to wish to show. I therefore submit that that provision is fully justified.
In Clauses 17 and 18 are the provisions with regard to blind booking and block hooking, or advanced booking—the twin dragons which were so embarrassing to the exhibitors in the old days—under which on the chance of getting a good film in the lottery they were compelled to take quantities of films blind, that is, films they had never had the chance of seeing, and to book up their programme for months, and indeed for much more I believe than a year ahead. Those pratices were forbidden under the old Act. The prohibition, which is continued under the new Bill, is, I understand, most warmly welcomed by the exhibitors, and indeed insisted upon by them. Your Lordships will therefore see that the whole main structure of the new Bill is very much the same as the structure of the old Act.
There are, however, three main changes to which I ought to draw your Lordships' attention. The first is that a separate quota is imposed for long and short films; the second is that a special qualification is insisted upon for a long film; and the third is the creation of the Cinematograph Films Council. If your Lordships turn to the First Schedule of the Bill you will see that there are separate quotas for long films and for short films, and that in the case of renters the quota for long films starts at the higher figure,

991
15 per cent., and the quota for short films at in per cent., while in the case of exhibitors' quotas the percentages are 12½ and 7½ respectively. In each case the quotas rise by progressive stages until the long film quotas become 30 per cent. and 25 per cent., and the short film quotas 20 per cent. and 15 per cent. respectively. The father of the short film quota is my noble friend Lord Moyne. He gave in his Committee's Report very cogent reasons why a short film quota should be introduced, why the short film should be treated separately from the long film. Among the reasons which he advanced for special protection of short films were that these films afford a valuable training for both the higher and the general personnel in film production; that there is an opportunity for bringing in small capital for a film venture where the capital would be inadequate for a large film; that there is a possibility of experimenting with new ideas in film production; and last, but by no means least, that many of these short films, as your Lordships know from experience, have a special cultural value of their own out of all proportion to their cost. For these reasons, among others, it has been decided that there should be a separate quota for the short film.
The second big change is that a test is introduced for qualification for the long film. The old Act contained no test except length. It therefore afforded an opportunity—and we did not foresee this at the time—whereby anyone who wished to evade the spirit of the Act could make as cheaply as possible a film of the required length, and then come and get it registered for quota. In that way was born the "quota quickie," and the characteristic of the "quota quickie" was that it was cheap and nasty. That brought British films into disrepute. It did great harm because people saw these films deliberately produced as cheaply as possible and, I must frankly say, produced not only as cheaply as possible, but produced with a certain intention that they should not only be nasty and inferior but so appear, and so depreciate the genuine British film. That brought discredit on British films in general and, of course, occasioned great embarrassment to exhibitors, who either had to take films of this kind which had been registered or default upon their quota obligations.
992
That was never the intention of the old Act. The object of that legislation, as of this, was to lead to the production of good British films, and if I am asked for a definition of what I mean by a good British film I would give the democratic definition that a good British film is a film which a sufficient number of British people will pay to go and see. I am bound to say I think well enough of British public opinion to believe that the British public will insist on reasonable standards of good taste as well ell as of competent acting and production.
Some test is necessary for the long film, and two possible alternatives have been suggested. The first is what I may call the quality test and the second is what I may call the means test, to use a well-known expression. A quality test sounds all right, but what is quality, and who is to be the judge? The ultimate test of quality in this matter is, will people go and see the film? To use the language of the trade, is it a reasonably good box-office proposition? But in any test which you are to apply you must have a very large measure of certainty. We shall not get films produced, we shall not get the necessary money put into the production of films, unless the men who produce them feel reasonably certain that once a large amount of money is put into the production of a film, and that film has come into being, it will automatically obtain its licence. We want to encourage finance to come into the production of British films. After all, this means test or cost test is a pretty good test. It does ensure that the producer and those who finance him are prepared to back their fancy to a very substantial amount, and, without doubt, this cost test will kill the "quota quickie."
In fixing the cost test, the Bill substantially follows the lines in cost considered by Lord Moyne. My noble friend considered a cost test of £2 per foot. It has been estimated that the labour costs in a film—that is, salaries, wages, and payments specifically attributable to labour and services in the making of a film, exclusive of copyright payments—amount approximately to half the total cost. We have, therefore, taken that figure, and it is laid down in Clause 26 of the Bill that the minimum cost to qualify for a long film shall be £1 per foot, with a minimum labour cost of £7,500. But care has been

993
taken to ensure that a film shall not fail to get its certificate if it is a film of real merit, even if it has cost a great deal less than £7,500, and the Board of Trade is given power specially to licence films, cheaper films, of high quality on the advice of the Films Council.
There are two or three provisions with regard to the renters' quota which are new and to which I ought to draw attention. The first is that the renter, who hitherto has been able to satisfy his quota at any time during the year and has, I think, sometimes had a tendency to fill his quota rather late in the year, thereby not affording to exhibitors a full complement of films—the renter will have to fill his quota half-yearly. This and the fact that the renters' quota is higher than the exhibitors' and that the renters' year starts earlier than the exhibitors' year ought to go far to ensure that there will be a sufficiency of films, and more than a sufficiency of films, a choice of films, for the exhibitors. Then there are two special provisions with regard to the renters' quota which are designed to encourage high-class production and distribution abroad. The first is that if a film is more than treble the minimum value—that is to say, more than three times the £7,500 minimum labour cost, which is the test—that film may count twice for renters' quota. There is another rather more complicated provision in Clause 3 under which a renter—this would be a foreign renter or a renter largely operating abroad—may acquire for £20,000 the foreign distribution rights in one country of what I have called a treble value British film, and if he does so, he may count that foreign distribution right towards his quota, but he must not fill more than half his quota with such foreign distribution right films. I hope I have explained that rather complicated clause in as simple language as it lends itself to. I believe that that is a really valuable clause for encouraging foreign renters to acquire British films and to show them, and particularly to show them in the United States of America.
Finally, the Bill establishes a Cinematograph Films Council of twenty-one members, eleven of whom are to be independent of all film trade interests. That Council will take the place of the old Advisory Committee, and all important decisions taken by the Board of Trade
994
in administering the Act must be taken after consultation with the Films Council. A Council in this form, with a predominating independent element, has the full support of all sections of the film industry. It will be consulted by the Board of Trade on all the periodical reviews of quota which are provided for in the Bill, and, in addition to the many specific duties which are laid down for it in the Bill, it will, if I may so put it, have the run of the whole field of film production and film activities, so that it can be in a position at any time to report to the Board of Trade on any matter of interest to the film world and to the public—after all, the film world is the public. It will, moreover, make an annual report to the Board of Trade and to Parliament. I believe that a Council of that kind will be of very real value. In addition to the provisions I have mentioned, there are a number of detailed amendments, to which I do not think I need refer, but most of which were recommended by Lord Moyne's Committee. I have no doubt that certain points will be raised on the Committee stage, and rightly raised, but, generally speaking, I believe that both the policy of the Bill and the practical application of that policy in the Bill will command general assent in this House, as they have in another place and as I believe they do in the country, because to-day it is universally realised in this country how far-reaching and how important is the influence which a sound film industry can exert. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree with me that the noble Viscount has occupied the minimum of time necessary to explain a very complicated and intricate measure, and he has given a very fair picture of the Bill now before your Lordships. I want to say at once that my friends in another place did not divide against the Third Reading of this Bill nor indeed against the Second Reading, and that, broadly speaking, we support it. Indeed I think it is a conscientious effort to meet the needs of a difficult and complicated industry, and we approach it in a non-Party spirit. I remember very well the noble Viscount, when he was President of the Board of Trade, piloting

995
the original Bill of 1928 through the Commons. I also remember that that Bill was fought on Party lines, largely through the efforts of a noble Lord who has now left us, the late Viscount Snowden, who fought it on free trade lines, and of the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who also fought it on free trade lines. That, of course, is still a line of opposition. You may say that no industry should be specially protected in any way. But I entirely agree, and the Party for which I speak agrees, that the special circumstances of this industry, and its importance for cultural and educational and even commercial reasons all over the world, make it absolutely necessary to maintain a flourishing British industry.
The Bill of 1928, as the noble Viscount has reminded your Lordships, was really his child. I suppose we can say that this Bill is his grandchild. It follows the framework of the 1928 Bill. May I say here that I am sorry indeed to hear of the ill-health of the present President of the Board of Trade, and I hope he will soon be better and that the value of his advice will be available on certain Amendments which will no doubt be moved. One of the difficulties, as the noble Viscount has said—and he would have found it just as difficult to-day as in 1928—has been to get agreement among the three main sections of the industry. The amazing thing is this. You can understand the distributors differing from the middlemen, the renters; and the renters disagreeing with the producers; but the curious thing is that within each of these separate sections there are conflicting interests. In the exhibiting side the large circuit owners take a different view from that of the small independent groups or single-theatre owners. The people who make these "quota quickies," and do it quite profitably apparently, have not the same viewpoint as people trying from the beginning to make worth-while prestige pictures. You have these cross currents within each section of the industry. Therefore it seems to me to be quite right that the Government should go above these conflicting interests and legislate for them.
I must make one comment on something that fell from the noble Viscount. He made a charge against the fabricators of "quota quickies" that I have never
996
heard put quite so strongly before. If I understood him aright he said that they were deliberately made bad in order to discredit the British industry. I naturally pay great attention to such a statement from such a source, but that really is a charge of conspiracy and something should have been done about it long before. I have never heard the charge put quite so strongly and it rather surprised me. We have to deal with this industry in a drastic manner. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, has a certain amount of agreement with me on that point. There may be other devices found for evading this present Bill. The noble Viscount said his advisers did not foresee the "quota quickie." We cannot foresee what means may be found of escaping from and evading the clauses of the Bill now before your Lordships, and for that reason I am going to plead for elasticity. You cannot legislate effectively for this extraordinary industry for ten years ahead. You must have elasticity, and there should be some body with sufficient power and right to take action to meet the changing situation.
In 1928, when the noble Viscount introduced his Bill as President of the Board of Trade, the whole industry was very different from what it is now. Within a couple of years of that Bill reaching the Statute Book there was a veritable revolution in the industry by the introduction of what are vulgarly called the "talkies." The introduction of sound on the screen was not foreseen. Yet it made an enormous difference to the whole technique of the industry. Another development that was not foreseen, and could not have been foreseen, was the growth of super cinemas, as they are called—those large, expensive, luxurious buildings which are now found in almost every town of any size. What are the revolutions ahead? I do not want to prophesy, but there is one great change which seems likely. I think there is a great future for the long feature spectacular cartoon film. I have not seen the latest cartoon film "Snow White," and I am only speaking from hearsay, but it seems to me that there will be something like a revolution if synthetic film stars are made by this wonderful art of the cartoon which Mr. Disney with his genius has produced. It may have a great future. Many films may be made in that way, and I believe they are very expensive and take a long time to make.

997
That is one of the changes I can see coming.
The £15,000 film which is now to be the minimum, with £7,500 spent on labour, is only going to be a sort of "super-quickie." I have gone into this matter very carefully, even to the extent of seeing cost sheets, and I challenge contradiction when I say that you cannot make a film for £15,000 that will have any chance of finding its way abroad to our own Dominions, to leave the American market alone. You are going to get a sort of super "quickie" and that is all. As the Bill is drawn nearly all the British films are going to be of that kind. The next uncertainty I sec is a matter for which I do not expect the Government to take full responsibility, and that is the great uncertainty that there is going to be about finance. At present there is not sufficient finance available for the production of British films. The uncertainty as to how this Bill will finally emerge from the deliberations of Parliament is one of the causes of that. It has held up investment of money, because people did not know what was required in the industry, and that has held up production. In the boom period followed by the slump which happened in 1935–36 and the beginning of 1937 financial interests in the City of London got a very serious warning. They were perhaps parties to reckless finance, but they burned their fingers badly, and when once these gentry burn their fingers in a particular industry they leave that industry and go elsewhere. They go in for wireless or television or some other invention. This will make it a little difficult, I think, to get English finance once more into the industry.
It is a curious thing that a lot of English money has gone from the City of London in the last year into France to produce French films. I see in one of the trade papers, the Cinematograph Weekly, which I have usually found reliable, the statement that last year one million pounds of British money went to make films in France. It would not have gone unless the investment was profitable. French films to-day are very good. The good French film is very good indeed and therefore has deservedly attracted British capital. I am a little doubtful about English capital, even after the uncertainty of legislation has been removed,
998
being again attracted into the British industry in sufficient quantity. That is why I regret that the recommendation of the Moyne Committee, that there should be a semi-official finance corporation, has not been pursued. I think it would be invaluable for the industry to have a semi-official body that could find finance for approved British productions. If the industry remains in the doldrums and does not revive, I hope that the Government will turn to that recommendation in the future. I do not expect it to be done by this Bill, but I hope that it will not be lost sight of in the future by the Government's advisers.
There is another point on which I feel disappointment—it is a matter which my friends in another place pressed very strongly—and that is that the recommendation of the Moyne Committee, that there should be a Films Commission composed of three or five full-time independent people, was not adopted, instead of setting up an unwieldly Council of twenty-one. I am very sorry about that and I will briefly give my reasons. There is, as I have said, need for elasticity. You cannot tell what is going to happen in this industry. I would have liked to see a small body of eminent people, with no pecuniary interest in the industry, paid adequately, and invested with the sort of powers suggested in the Report of Lord Moyne's Committee. At a later stage I am going to ask your Lordships to support that view. With the present body of twenty-one members—eleven independent, and ten from the trade, representing labour, exhibitors, renters, producers—you will have the same conflicts that have been described by the noble Viscount. The experts will disagree with each other, and the whole idea of a Council of twenty-one is in my opinion bad. It will be an unwieldy body which will not bring results. We think the Bill should be amended, and I think that is also the Government view, in order to provide minimum conditions regarding labour for films that are to qualify for quota. It was not in order in another place to move an Amendment, but in your Lordships' House that can be done and I hope we shall adopt an Amendment to put that matter right.
I just want to mention one other point where I do not see eye to eye with my honourable friends in another place, or

999
some of them. I said this was a non-Party measure, and I have not had a chance of discussing this matter with my noble friend Lord Snell and my other noble friends in your Lordships' House. The Government introduced what is known as the triple credit proposal in the House of Commons, under which a film costing more than £60,000 in all should count as three for quota. Then, as a result of a storm by the exhibitors, of the pressure they brought to bear on Members of Parliament, and also of the arguments of Members of Parliament themselves, the Government withdrew it. They introduced it rather at the last moment, on the Report stage, and then they withdrew it again. I am not sure that when the whole matter is thoroughly examined and explained there is not a great deal to be said for that original proposal of the triple quota. I think that if you are going to get the great prestige pictures which we must have in this industry if we are to regain a place in the world's market, something of that sort is needed.
I do not want to take up your Lordships' time with arguments for it except to say this. I think that both the exhibitors who have taken alarm and the representatives of the labour in the industry are wrong. I think that they are needlessly alarmed. What counts, after all, in the exhibitors' quota is what is known as "playing time." It is not the number of films he shows but the amount of time he gives on the screen. Now these little "super-quickies," as I call them, for £15,000, these little second-feature pictures, will only be shown for three days or a week, but a successful British picture, a prestige picture that is popular, will run at a picture house for weeks at a time. Therefore this alarm about the shortage of pictures if a few great British pictures are made instead of a host of these little rubbishy films is, I think, unfounded. Then, with regard to labour, I have heard evidence from the leaders of labour in the industry, very able men. By labour, of course, I mean the scenario-writers, the actors, the directors, and the skilled technicians of all kinds. They have spoken almost as strongly as the noble Viscount against the "quota quickie." They say that the "quota quickie" is derogatory to British labour. I entirely agree with them. They
1000
said they wanted to see prestige pictures made by British labour in British studios which would be a credit to this country all over the world. I do not see how you can get these prestige pictures. I may be wrong, but I think it would have made it more certain that you got these prestige pictures on the Board of Trade proposal for what they call the triple credit.
As for employing less labour, I am not sure they are right there either. I have seen costing sheets by which the large picture, the large, expensive film, gives more employment than three or four of the smaller ones. It seems to me to stand to reason. Take the case of the American renter. He has to have so many quota pictures to fulfil his obligations. He can make three of these little pictures and spend £7,500 on each on labour, and then he has satisfied the law. Or he can make one picture to fulfil the same part of his quota, spending £30,000 on labour on a £60,000 picture. Three times £7,500 is £22,500, and that is less than £30,000. I cannot see the argument that there will be less labour employed on the big picture. Above all, I am hoping that the big pictures will reestablish the whole British film industry and, taking a broad view, will fill the empty studios and employ again the 8,000 or 9,000 men who are working short time or are unemployed in this industry. In their own interests that matter should be re-examined. As I say, I have not consulted my noble friends on this matter, but the whole subject needs thorough examination, and I should be glad if, when the noble Viscount replies—if he is in a position to do so; I do not press him if he is not yet—he would say whether, anything is proposed to be done along these lines. A hint was given in another place that your Lordships would be invited to consider some Amendment of that kind. It would be interesting to know if the noble Viscount is in a position to give any information.
I have one other suggestion to make, and that is entirely my own. I beg leave to throw it out for consideration at some future time. This is not the last word. I do not believe that this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will legislate for the industry for ten years. The whole industry is moving, changing and developing too rapidly. This is my own suggestion. If

1001
I were dealing with this matter I would go about it in a different way. I am taking account of the whole quota proposal. I would keep on the exhibitors' quota, but I would abolish the renters' quota and put something else in its place. The reason why I would abolish the renters' quota is that, as things are, with this tremendously powerful industry in the United States of America, if you put upon the American renters the obligation to produce so many British pictures, they will produce the pictures all right, they will produce the films in this country; but these will not really be British films; they will be British films made by Americans in England, which is not quite the same. I have nothing against the American film industry. I do not think they are villains, as the noble Viscount does. They are simply business men out to do the best business they can. First and last they are out for business, and without them we should not have the great exhibiting industry in this country. It is no use pretending otherwise. They have had certain advantages, and we cannot grumble if they have taken advantage of their.
But, after all, I want to see a British industry in this country. What I would do, instead of a renters' quota, is to enter into a kind of trade treaty with them. There is a certain provision for reciprocity, and I should like to congratulate the Government on that also. I think that is quite excellent. I think that might, again, be made a little more elastic. But instead of having a renters' quota, I would come to this arrangement with them. I would calculate what each of the great American companies—there are only seven or eight of them—or other great foreign companies make out of this country. That is easily done. Then I would fix a percentage as you fix your quota now and say that they have got to spend on British films, in the same way, that amount of money. You say the same thing in the Bill, but you do it by means of a quota film. I should say, "You can either make films in England, large or small, as you please; we will leave that to you; we presume you want to make films to sell; or you can spend that amount of money by renting, hiring, British films to show abroad. You can do which you please." That is reciprocity, of course, and I would wash out the renters' quota altogether. That is my
1002
own proposal. I should be very grateful if it could at some future time be considered—we know it cannot be done in this Bill—and I throw it out for examination. I hope this Bill will be successful as an Act. I hope it will have the desired effect, and if it does I shall be the very first to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade and the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I hesitate very greatly to intervene in this debate, because I am wholly incompetent to deal with the highly technical provisions in a Bill dealing with one of the most complicated of industries. But, as we are all aware, and as my noble friend who introduced the Bill so clearly pointed out, we are dealing this evening with a matter which most profoundly affects the whole life of the community. I suppose it would be true to say that the cinema has as great as, and I would say a greater, influence even than the wireless and the Press. I wonder whether we who live in this generation realise the profound and far-reaching revolution which is taking place in the whole outlook of the minds of our people through these three agencies. Certainly, day by day and night by night, the films are for weal or woe moulding the habits, the outlook and the way of life of the community, of the old and, especially, of the young. Just for that reason my only object in rising is to express my disappointment that the whole of this elaborate legislation, dealing, as it proposes to do, with the whole industry, is based entirely upon the financial interests of the film industry.
I admit, of course, that its primary object has been the protection and encouragement of the production of British films, but even so I wish there had been more in this Bill to recognise that quality matters even more than quantity in the production of these films. The noble Viscount alluded to the effect upon this great matter of the Imperial Conference of 1926, and he will remember that the General Economics Sub-Committee appointed at the request of the Conference laid great importance upon what they described as not simply the volume of British films and Imperial films produced within the Empire, but on there being what they called a high entertainment value, and a sound educational

1003
value. It is not merely the financial volume of the trade that matters, but the intrinsic value of what it produces. Lord Moyne's Report certainly, and I think rightly, spoke of the exceedingly poor quality of many of the films that are made for renters, in order to enable them to fulfil their quota obligations, and the Committee therefore, for that and other reasons, insisted that there must not merely be a cost test but also a quality test, because, as they very forcibly pointed out, the mere cost is in no sense a sufficient and satisfactory test of value.
For that reason they recommended that there should be established some authority which could see that a quality test, as well as a cost test, was satisfied. It was not in the least proposed that there should be a moral or aesthetic censorship but that there should be a test by which we could be sure of a sound general minimum of good quality in the films, which could be tested by the films being viewed, directly or by deputy, by a Films Commission wholly independent of the trade. I am well aware that the Government have seen fit to reject both those proposals—both the proposal of a quality as well as a cost test, and also the proposal to appoint quite an independent Films Commission. I know that their reasons have been set forth by the noble Viscount, and are contained in the White Paper of the Government, but I am not satisfied that their objections are wholly sound, and I cannot but share the regret expressed by the noble Lord opposite that the Films Commision proposed by Lord Moyne's Committee, independent of the trade, permanent and expert in its character, has been set aside.
I certainly wish more attention had been paid in the Bill to the considerations of quality as well as of quantity. It is in that respect that while, naturally, I view the Bill with entire favour, I must record my disappointment. I can only hope that the new Cinematograph Films Council which is to be appointed, charged with the review of the progress of the film industry and the duty of reporting to the Board of Trade, will keep in mind not only the amount and cost of the films, but also their intrinsic value. Also, the matter is so vastly important, that I hope the powers of the Film Censor inadequate as they are, may be
1004
so strengthened, or his influence so increased, that this great industry affecting as it does the whole community may be influenced by considerations higher than the mere financial interest of the industry itself.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I need hardly say that I agree with the most reverend Primate that it is very unfortunate that no way has been found for judging films by quality rather than by cost. The subject was very carefully examined by the Departmental Committee, and they put forward a proposal which the Government have, no doubt for very strong reasons, not seen their way to adopt. I think, however, the most reverend Primate may to some extent console himself with this: that there is an appeal against purely cost qualification, and I am not sure that in practice the change over of emphasis from quality to cost is going to be quite so different from what we had in mind as might at first sight appear. After sitting through the hearings of that Departmental Committee, the strongest impression that they left on me was the very remarkable skill with which the original Act had been drafted. I think it showed most remarkable prevision on the part of the noble Viscount, who is now in a different office, that he was able so far to foretell the difficulties, and find a sound foundation for this system on entirely unknown and untried ground. I think this Bill, in the light of ten years' experience, will be able to achieve a great strengthening of the system, and that many malpractices and evasions will be effectively checked.
The system of control of the cinema industry by quota is one of extreme complication, and even after the evidence given before the Departmental Committee I would feel great difficulty in dogmatising as to the repercussions of the quotas between the various conflicting interests. The Board of Trade has been confronted with the necessity of balancing these conflicting interests, and it is very unfortunate, as Lord Strabolgi said, that they are not merely divided between distributors, renters and producers, but that each section has got very considerable cross-interests within its own group. Therefore I recognise that there are many ways in which we can look at this application of the quota scale, and I am going to make criticisms as to the standards in

1005
the Bill as it has reached us. The quota, of course, must be applied with a careful examination of the possibilities of the industry, and we are all familiar, from the information in the Press, with the extreme depression in which the producers now find themselves. All the same, the Bill reflects a gloomier view than that which was formed by the Departmental Committee.
The Committee proposed a temporary reduction of the exhibitors' quota, in view of the possibility of a shortage for a few months of British films, due to the suppression of the cheap film made for quota; but the Bill has gone even further and reduced the exhibitors' quota from 20 per cent. to 12 per cent. The Committee considered that the renters were fully able to remain at the present quota figure of 20 per cent., up to which they had been brought under the Act now expiring. But here, too, the Board of Trade propose a very large reduction of 5 per cent. We thought that any such pessimistic view was unjustified. Our great difficulty in this country with the film industry is the inferiority complex under which many people seem to suffer. Many quarters accept the domination of the foreign film as permanent and inescapable. I think one could see that by the remarkable commotion caused by a suggestion of the Departmental Committee, that, as an eventual goal, it would be reasonable if the British market were shared half and half between our home production and foreign competitors. And I can imagine no other industry, with every natural facility for home production, accepting with complacency a position of complete dependence on foreign importations. I do not agree that it is impossible to make good British films.
We know the advantage of the United States in their enormous market. That of course gives special facilities for the production of spectacular films. I heard on the wireless the other night some figures given by Mr. Rowson, who is a very eminent statistical expert and has studied this question, as to the way that British films are paid for. The average cost of admission in cinemas is 9¼d., and of that 9¼d. the first feature film gets a very small fraction over one penny. Therefore, say that a film costs only £30,000. Leaving profit altogether aside, about seven million people must pay one penny each before the cost has been
1006
covered. Well, the advantage of the United States, in view of that figure is, I think, easy to understand, because, with their vastly greater home market and their domination in our market as well, when they come to make super-films costing, not £30,000 but actually £300,000 and more, naturally it is much easier for them to find, not seven million people to pay a penny, but the seventy million pennies that would be required to cover the cost of production. While and so far as this taste for spectacular films is maintained, no doubt the United States will keep this advantage. The United States is the home of mass production, founded on mass consumption and mass taste, and we are all familiar with the methods of sensational publicity upon which this system depends.
I do not think we ought to accept this position. We should work to bring home the fact that the best British film in its own style is as good as any United States film, and that many of them are better than the common type of imported film which gives a false picture of life, perverted history, and garbled literature. It seems to be a matter of education of the public taste for films of a British flavour, and it is also for producers to learn to turn out films in accordance with the consumers' taste. Other home industries have been built up by protection, and this industry is unfortunately one to which it is particularly difficult to apply ordinary protective methods, because you cannot value a film at the time of importation, and it is only many months afterwards, when receipts have been worked out, that any fair idea of the profit on a film can be formed. I do not think you can better the very ingenious method of the double quota which has been vindicated by its success, which has worked up British film production in ten years from 5 per cent. to a quota of 20 per cent., and a performance, as judged by the exhibitors' returns, of 30 per cent. The stimulation of the industry has been such that it is now fully equipped to supply a much larger share of our own market, and its plant and resources have been multiplied tenfold in seven years.
We must not exaggerate the importance of the present slump. It is the inevitable result of the present uncertainty as to the new basis for British quota films. This uncertainty affects both foreign and

1007
British producers. Take a great combination like the First National and Warner Films. Their Teddington studios have been closed for, I believe, three or four months, during which time they would have produced three or four films at a fairly low cost. Some of these films would probably not have qualified under the new scale of costs, and until the Bill passes it is impossible for such producers to decide whether they are going on with a cheap film, costing £1 a foot, or a double-counting film costing £3 a foot. But the reason why we must not attach too much importance to the present slump and let it affect the quota scale against national interests is that the exhibitors' year ends in September. I am assured that there is no difficulty in maintaining the current quota from films already made, seeing the very big margin there has been in former years, and that there is still time to provide programmes for the beginning of the new quota year next October at a higher scale than that proposed in the Bill.
My first suggestion for strengthening the Bill is that Clause 16 ought to come out altogether. It is a clause to reduce the exhibitors' quota retrospectively below the level to which it has been brought under the expiring Act. It seems to be something very near a breach of faith to the renters that, when they have worked their quota to the full level of the Act, the obligation of the exhibitors to show films on that scale for the current year should be wiped out. An even greater weakness in the quota scales is, I think, with regard to the renters' quota. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would like to sweep the renters' quota away altogether. I think he was chiefly aiming at helping British films to get into the foreign markets. That is not the only object of the renters' quota. The renters' quota is to increase production and exhibition in our own markets; but I agree with his view that we should greatly benefit by more effective measures for reciprocity than those contained in Clause 3. I shall not develop that now—I shall do so if necessary during the Committee stage—but I am sorry to say there is very great difficulty in getting effective reciprocity owing to the impossibility of controlling the accuracy of figures in foreign countries. If it is not possible to be satisfied with statistical
1008
information from our Dominions, still less is it likely to be administratively possible to get a water-tight scheme of reciprocity on anything but a purchase of rights as opposed to the actual evidence of film-time achieved.
The renters' quota at first sight certainly seems less important than the exhibitors' quota, because it is only an obligation to offer films without, as in the case of the exhibitors' quota, any necessity to show that they have reached the screen. The Committee were convinced that this quota was at present indispensable; firstly, because exhibitors were very strong in their view that it would be unreasonable to leave them subject to an obligation to show British films unless adequate steps were taken to see that these films were made in the necessary numbers. Another reason for the renters' quota is that it is a way of financing British production which, though in theory it may be less desirable than independent financial support, cannot at present be spared. This renters' quota is admittedly a burden on the foreign producer, who generally has his own renting organisation, but I do not think it is an inequitable substitute for import duties which are perfectly fair in themselves but which have been rejected because of the practical difficulties they would cause. Mr. Rowson, whom I have already quoted once, has given figures, which are not contested, that every year there goes from this country to the United States £6,500,000 in payment for films. I do not know how much of that is profit, but certainly a very large figure, because they paid the cost of their films in their own market. Surely out of this very large sum it is not unreasonable that American producers, through their renters, should make a contribution to production here in England. It was for that reason that the Departmental Committee felt no sympathy with the plea of the renters that their quota should be reduced.
We ought to compare the treatment of these various interests in the Bill. The producer is not going to get anything, at any rate directly. The exhibitor, for the moment, will get a reduction of burden, though afterwards his quota will be put up. But when you come to the foreign renter—and renters are predominantly foreign—you find he is rewarded for his invention of the "quota quickie" by now having his obligation

1009
reduced to 5 per cent. below the figure which had been considered reasonable by the noble Viscount ten years ago when he never envisaged the "quota quickie." They are going to get this reward for having so long and so successfully evaded this obligation. There is another point, that owing to the method of counting some films twice over the whole basis of the quota is so altered that even the diminished obligation may become very largely inoperative, especially in the case of large combinations where, by means of the new reducing factor, they would be able to work partnerships which might let them out of any burden whatsoever. I do not say that has been achieved yet, but it does lend itself to manipulation in that way. I do not criticise this double quota on its merits. There is a great case for encouraging the production of high-class British films, even with foreign money. That, I think, will help us to compare more favourably with the extravagantly financed United States films; but the point is that this new factor is going to reduce the effective percentage figure of the renters' quota by an unknown amount, and if the President of the Board of Trade again introduces in this House a treble quota, for which there is much to be said, that reducing factor will be still less easy to determine.
I am quite aware that there is an unfortunate difference of interest between the independent British producers and those subsidised by the foreign renters' quota. The independent producers wish, by increasing the exhibitors' quota, to force up the demands for their own products. If investors were in a more favourable frame of mind that might be a safe course, but unfortunately the financial conditions are at present such that I do not think it would be wise for the industry to do with-out this foreign money. The Departmental Committee certainly agreed with the Government that the renters' quota must be maintained. I would therefore hope that the Government will still strengthen this renters' quota, and that it will he made effective at its present level. I would remind the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that there are already two safety valves against an exceedingly high quota. Firstly, the renter can import rather fewer foreign films; and, secondly, the individual exhibitor can get dispensation from the Board of Trade under Clause 13 if, owing to forces out-
1010
side his control, he is unable to comply with that quota. If these safeguards are not enough, it would be quite practicable to take power under Clause 15 to give retrospective absolution, not merely to individuals as under Clause 13, but to exhibitors and renters as a class, from any quota requirements which the output of the industry had not made it possible to fulfil.
In spite of the rejection of a quality test, and the necessity which that would have caused for an independent body, I believe there still remains a strong case for having a Commission. There are many other functions besides a quality test in which the Commission could have done much to help this very badly organised and extravagantly run industry. If really effective stimulus to home production is to be achieved, the fixing of quota year by year under a more elastic system on the certified performance of British producers, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and as also recommended by the Committee, would give an inducement and a quick reward for efficient development. In spite of sectional difficulties I believe the industry would have accepted it, but I suppose we have probably got to make the best of the Advisory Committee. I do not think that Council of twenty-one will do anything of value unless they are given the driving power of a full-time paid chairman and a full-time secretary. Rumours mentioned several names in connection with the Chairmanship, but it is quite evident that no part-time attention from an eminent person with his time more than filled by existing demands is going to be effective in supplying driving power in this very difficult administration.
Another amendment in the constitution which I would like to see is that the Board of Trade should be given wider discretion in appointing their representatives. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill mentioned that no one with any financial interest in films should be eligible. I think that is going too far. I think that the Board of Trade ought to have full discretion to appoint anybody they choose in the public interest, and we can all think of people who are quite independent in their views about films but who may have had at some time a small financial interest in them. That in no way disqualifies them, in my opinion, from participating in a body of

1011
that kind where there are also trade interests. On the contrary, it probably makes them far more valuable members because of the experience which they would have had of this extremely difficult trade from a more detached position than that of the representatives of the trade bodies. I quite recognise that it is very difficult for the Board of Trade to hold a just balance between these various interests, but I feel that they have shown a little too much timidity in dealing with the foreign renter. I trust that even now they will consent to reenact at least that measure of effective protection which the industry was enjoying under the expiring Act, and thus increase the prospect of establishing a really strong British film industry.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lord, I rise for a few minutes only because I want to associate myself with those who are supporting this Bill as a Bill which will do something to strengthen and build up the cinema industry in this country. I want to see the cinema industry here present British pictures of British scenery, giving an accurate account of our history, showing something of the energy and enterprise of our people at the present time, and setting forth some of the ideals which have been characteristic of our nation. It is, I think, a most serious matter that at present 75 per cent. of the time in cinemas is occupied with foreign films. Now if 75 per cent. of the Press was owned by foreign companies we should undoubtedly feel considerable anxiety, and if in 75 per cent. of the schools of this country the text books were those which had been produced abroad and were taught by foreign teachers, we should feel that the position was quite intolerable; yet the cinema has a greater influence over many than the Press has, and over the young it has a greater influence than the schools.
It is not only that we suffer here through not having a strong British cinema industry, but we suffer abroad. The other day I was hearing from a man who had been travelling in South America how he was struck by the way in which certain foreign countries displayed their excellent films, but the only reference to England was as a rule of a contemptuous nature, showing our weakness compared
1012
to the alleged strength of some Continental nations. We are suffering also in our own Empire through the weakness of our films. I noticed in to-day's Times that in Australia the Commonwealth Film Censor's report for 1937 records a decline in the import of British films from 27 per cent., in 1934, to 20 per cent. last year, and then goes on to state:
"Film critics, commenting on the report, declare that the shrinkage in British films is attributable to a deterioration in standard, straining the loyalty of Australia."
I hope that this Bill will do something to strengthen the industry at home, but I do very much regret two particulars in which it has departed from Lord Moyne's Report.
I refer, of course, first of all to the way in which the test of quality is to be by cost and not by direct viewing. The noble Lord who has just spoken has pointed out that that may not perhaps be quite as serious as it seems at first sight. Then I regret still more the fact that an Advisory Committee is to be called into existence instead of a small Commission. Advisory Councils are quite invaluable when they are not oppressed with certain conditions which are present in this case. An Advisory Council can get very valuable advice and reach useful decisions when they feel that the work which they have to deal with is limited, but here it is almost unlimited. They can get through a great deal of work when they are agreed on first principles, but in this case we are told that there is no agreement amongst those who are engaged in the trade, and if such a Council is to be successful there must be a very strong permanent staff able to carry on the work in the intervals and able to prepare the work for the meetings between which there will be considerable intervals. I believe it would have made enormous difference to the whole British industry if there had been created a strong Films Commission consisting of a few men whose main object would be to think out problems connected with the cinema business in England, and who would set themselves to encourage the business in every kind of way so that it might be of real value to the Empire, the nation and the general public as well as to themselves.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I hope I may be pardoned if I engage in this debate for a few minutes on the

1013
strength of a very slight and recent contact with these problems of the film industry. I hope that this Bill will become law as quickly as possible, if not entirely without amendment, because at the present time the cinema-producing industry is, so to speak, marking time, waiting to know how the Bill is going to turn out and what the quotas are going to be. It has always struck me that, compared with the treatment given to middlemen and distributors in other industries, the renter and the exhibitor in the film industry have got listened to a great deal more than, say, the home-grown beef trade. I have not noticed that auctioneers or butchers are consulted to the same extent as are the renters and exhibitors. As long as the cinema industry continues—and even football pools do not seem to interfere with it very much—so long will renters and exhibitors rent films and fill cinema houses. If they support regulations for quotas and such like it is surely from motives of patriotism rather than motives of business. Your Lordships will be aware that many of the big concerns in the cinema trade combine the functions of producers, exhibitors and renters, but that I think does not affect my present argument.
We should, when considering this Bill, study first and foremost the interests of the producer because it is the producer alone who has the power to transform a large number of spasmodic and casual workers in the industry into permanent employees. I saw it stated in the Press, I think on January 22, that out of 10,000 employees in the industry 8,000 were at the time on the "dole." I think every one will be agreed that if it had not been for the Act of 1928 the cinema industry would not be alive to-day, but it can hardly be claimed that the Act has increased quality to the same extent that it has increased quantity. Certainly I do not think anyone can claim that it has been completely successful in the establishment of a well-organised industry. Your Lordships may know that there is not a single University course in existence in this country which has a direct bearing on the cinema industry, and when one compares that state of affairs with the invaluable assistance which University courses give to most of the large industries in this country, that certainly seems a very strange thing. It makes one wonder whether some of the
1014
thousands of pounds used to finance companies which have since disappeared would not have been better used in endowing a University chair with the object of improving the standards of the cinema industry.
It was clear, I think, when the 1928 Act approached expiry how great the disorder was in the cinema industry, and how very wide the differences were between one section and another was shown by the correspondence in the daily Press. Until these matters are put right can we really hope for the conquest of foreign markets? We can certainly be sure that the new Bill, like the old Act, will achieve the output of films in requisite volume, whether they are quick or slow, but until this industry is in a better state of organisation than now I doubt whether any films, however much they are supported by quotas and the like, will ever make a successful invasion abroad. We shall still be faced with the question of how much money Hollywood is prepared to put down to comply with the letter of the law in this country. So it seems to me that the cinema industry should stand to gain a very great deal by the establishment of the Films Council, and I think that Council has the great advantage that it will afford a meeting ground for sections of opinion in each of the three estates of the cinema realm. There they will have an opportunity of discussing differences which would not be open in a smaller body, and perhaps would never occur if stricter control were exercised by a Government Department.
The new Bill provides a much more flexible amount of control than the old Act, and it will be within the power of the new Films Council to advise on the modifications which will certainly be required during the next ten years. I doubt, however, whether that Council will ever be really successful unless great care is given to the selection of the lay members as well as of the members representing the industry. May I venture to support the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, in his reference to the importance of choosing representatives of the financial interests on that Films Council? The film industry is suffering from a number of diseases, including financial diseases, and patients do not always succeed in curing their own diseases. The ailments of the film industry will, it seems to me, be cured much more quickly if among the lay

1015
members on the Films Council are included financiers, solicitors and accountants who are familiar with the special problems of the film industry, which, so we are given to understand, are very special ones indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made reference to the question of film finance. I do not wish to say more than a word or two on that subject, but I do think that it would be, to say the least of it, helpful if some indication were given of the attitude of the Government towards the recommendations of the Moyne Committee on the subject of film finance. It is no good pretending that there is not a great lack of confidence in the City and on the part of the investing public in regard to anything that has to do with films. Until confidence is awakened we shall have the situation where British films are financed entirely or very largely by foreign renters, not because they want to finance them but because they have to. Quotas may come and they may go, and they may be changed, but they are not likely to contribute any permanent benefit to the film industry unless a determined effort is made by the Films Council or others to produce cohesion and financial stability in that industry. I believe that the provisions in this Bill augur well for the establishment of that state of affairs in the next ten years.
LORD STONEHAVEN: My Lords, at this late hour I must apologise for detaining your Lordships even for a few minutes, but there is a point which has not yet been raised which I think is of sufficient importance to justify my dealing with it. It is the question of the change made by this Bill as regards the renters' quota. I want to speak particularly of the effect of the change on Australian films. Under the old Act Australian films have enjoyed exactly the same privilege, I understand, as films made in this country. For reasons which were explained by my noble friend, it has been found wise to alter the qualification which enables a film to be accepted as part of the British quota for the renters' quota, and under the new qualifications it is impossible for the Australian films to come in. My noble friend, in introducing the Second Reading, alluded to the tremendous and subtle force that the cinema has in spreading ideas about one country or another. It is precisely the
1016
desirability of making Australia better known to the world in large, and to us in this country among others, that seems to justify an attempt to retain, if it is possible, those advantages for the Australian cinema industry which I understand—I am not an expert in any sense—it enjoyed under the old Act.
Then there is another thing. The right reverend Prelate referred to the regrettable amount of films of foreign origin describing foreign life and foreign scenes that are shown here. If we want, as we do want, overseas films to be shown, surely it is very desirable that those films should depict scenes and events in our own Dominions rather than in foreign countries, and should act, as they would, as a connecting link and a strong uniting force between different parts of the Empire. And there is another point of a rather wider kind. The Australians are naturally, rightly and justifiably jealous of the part which they play in contributing towards helping the different parts of the Empire. There was a notable instance quite recently, to which too little attention has been paid, when Australia risked a very serious difference of opinion with Japan, one of her very best customers as a rule, in order to maintain in the Australian market a preference for British goods that acted prejudicially on. Japanese goods. That is only one example of many that might be given.
With regard to films alone, I understand Australia admits our films free, which is a very substantial advantage as compared with the American films, which have to pay eightpence a foot, I am told. That amounts to something like £300 on a single film, and as it applies to something like a hundred films in the year, it appears to be a substantial advantage. But the gesture is far more important than the amount of money involved. It seems a pity, if it can be done, that we should not reciprocate that in regard to Australian films coming under our own quota. I believe very few films are affected. The Australians import something like 500 British films a year, I am told, and not more than five or six Australian films come over here. Manifestly, if you want to encourage a film industry in Australia, no industry can be built up on a market of six and a half million people. There must be a larger audience, and that audience can only be provided by us and other parts of the

1017
Empire. Those are only a few of the arguments which I beg to submit to my noble friend. Undeniably this is a question which will need to be treated, if it is treated at all, on the Committee stage, and I hope your Lordships will deem the points which I have raised of sufficient importance to justify my intervening in the debate at this late hour.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, certainly the Government can have no complaint of the general reception of this Bill, because every speaker has joined in expressing the hope that it will find its way to the Statute Book as soon as possible. Nor, indeed, has there really been any criticism of the broad structure of the Bill. The criticism has all gone to matters of detail, though, of course, some of them are important matters. Therefore I must make a rather disjunctive reply, which shall not be long, but I must in fairness deal with the various points which were raised. Let me take first of all the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Stonehaven, who spoke last. He was obviously speaking under a misconception of the true situation. He said it would be wrong not to give Australian films a fair measure of reciprocity. If there were any question of refusing to Australian films a fair measure of reciprocity, I should be the first to agree with him. But let me assure him that, so far from there being any lack of reciprocity, I am pretty sure that I am correct when I say that Australian films receive a more generous treatment in this country than films from this country receive in Australia.
In certain of the States—if I am wrong I will take occasion to correct what I say—instead of exhibitors being able to take in British films perfectly free and count them for exhibitors' quota, as they do here, I rather think there has to be a proportionate holding of Australian films. Be that as it may, there is no question that we do treat them at least as well. But observe. My noble friend said it would be a pity if these Australian films were prevented from coming here. Indeed I would agree with that; but what is the situation? Under the provisions in this Bill not only are they perfectly free to come here, but if an Australian film comes here an exhibitor in this country is perfectly free to count that film in his exhibitors' quota. Therefore there is every encouragement for the
1018
Australian film to come here. The only thing that is now prohibited under this Bill is that a renter in this country—not an exhibitor at all, but a renter—shall not count for renters' quota a film which has been largely manufactured outside this country. As I pointed out in my opening speech, if that provision were not in the Bill then all that would happen would be that the foreign firm wishing to manufacture a "quota quickie" would be able to go and manufacture it in Australia, Canada or anywhere else he liked.
LORD STRABOLGI: In India, particularly.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: India, or anywhere; he could manufacture it anywhere in the British Empire and register himself as an Australian, Indian or Canadian company, make "quota quickies" by the mile, at a penny a mile, or whatever would be an appropriate rate, and import them into this country, and the whole of our provisions for the cost test would at once go by the board. I am sure that my noble friend would be the last to wish to suggest that, particularly when the Australian position is fully and fairly safeguarded.
Lord Strabolgi said that £15,000 was a bad figure because you would only get a poor film for that amount of money. I am not at all sure that that is true. I do not pretend to be an expert on film finance; all I can say is that it was the figure which the producers themselves suggested to the Board of Trade, and I presume they know something about their own business. But let me observe two things first of all, on the noble Lord's statement that you cannot get a good film for anything like that. It has been found necessary to put into the Bill a provision that a film of good quality may be allowed to count for quota when it has been looked at by this Council, although it has cost less than that. That provision has not come out of the blue as a sort of figment of the imagination. It is found necessary because there have in the past been films which have cost a good deal less than £15,000, but which have been very good films and very good moneymakers as well. Therefore I do not think it is reasonable to say that you are not going to get any decent films for £15,000. Let me observe that £15,000 is not a dead level figure. It is not the maximum figure; on the contrary, it is

1019
the minimum. What we are saying is not that you shall not spend more than £15,000 on a film, but that unless you spend at least £15,000 you shall not count your film for quota.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I put this right? The noble Viscount misunderstood me. I did not say that you cannot make very palatable or beautiful films for much less than £15,000, but that you cannot make spectacular films for that money.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I quite agree. Nobody ever said you could, but in order to get more expensive films there is the provision that if you get the triple value film then it may count twice for quota. I think we should he unwise to raise a figure which the producers themselves think to be a good figure.
Then the noble Lord suggested that the Government might be ready to accept a fair wages clause. At present, the exhibitors have a wages agreement of their own with their employees, and such a clause as he suggested would not affect them, but it would affect the producers, and if an appropriate clause, which I understand has been drafted, were put down, the Government would be glad to accept it. The noble Lord also said that we ought to have an independent Films Council, because the industry was always in disagreement. It is quite true that the industry itself is in disagreement. Indeed there are very few things it is able to agree upon, but the one thing that it did agree upon was that none of them wanted a completely independent Films Council. Therefore I do not think that by trying to create such a council we should be adding to the measure of agreement in the industry.
I might take the whole question of the Films Council. I generally find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord Moyne, but, frankly, about this I find it extraordinarily difficult to follow his reasoning. You cannot make people efficient by lecturing them. I am all for having the independent people in. I think this industry—as is indeed the case with most industries—has a good deal to learn. We all of us have, and we are all the better for associating with people wiser than ourselves, and getting a second and impartial opinion. But the wisest man outside—even my noble friend on his
1020
Committee, and he did some extraordinarily good work—did not know all about the industry before he started, and I am not sure that my noble friend did so even when his Committe came to an end. I would have thought that as the object of this Council is to make the industry more efficient, outsiders—provided you get the right kind of outsider, like my noble friend, and not people who talk a great deal about films, from a high moral point of view, but who seldom go to see a film and certainly have no money invested in the industry—in their association with this Council will be very valuable, and I cannot help thinking they will be more valuable if they are associated on the Council with members of the industry itself. Otherwise you might have an atmosphere created in which it is thought: "Here are people who are telling the industry what is good for it." If, however, you have ideas put forward by independent people, and difficulties explained by members of the industry, I think you will get much better results than otherwise would be the case.
I also see the importance of having a good Chairman. There is no provision in the Bill for payment, but I have enquired and I am informed that the President of the Board of Trade, in another place, did suggest that payment of the Chairman might be considered, if it was an important matter. I am not sure what the rules of order would permit. I do not know how wide is the Financial Resolution, if there be one, which covers this Bill, or whether, if as I suppose the expenses of the Bill are paid by fees taken from the industry, this might not be a financial matter in the strict sense of the word. Provided, however, that it were in order for this question to be raised here—and indeed it would be in order, although it might be taken exception to in another place—perhaps my noble friend, if he thinks it well to raise the matter, will raise it on the Committee stage.
I also see the point that you might have somebody who would be a very good man for the post but who might be considered disqualified by reason of his having some shares in a film company. It is worth considering, perhaps, whether instead of saying—I have no authority from the Department to say this, but I say it from my own experience in connection with other Bills—that none of the independent

1021
members must have any sort or kind of interest in the industry, you should say that anybody must disclose any interest he may have to the President. I know it has taken that form in a Bill before, because it was not wished to disqualify a man from being appointed—a first-rate man for the job—merely because he held, perhaps as a trustee, shares in a railway, and a very strict clause might be held to disqualify him. With regard to the triple quota provision it was fully discussed in another place, and if after consideration the President of the Board of Trade feels it is a matter which ought to be considered further, then it would be appropriate for the Government to put down an Amendment on which the question could be raised.
To come to the last point, the point raised by the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate, the quality test, the most reverend Primate expressed his sorrow, that there was not a quality test in the Bill. He said, quite frankly, that in saying that he did not mean a moral censorship, but a good film. We all want a good film, and I do not think any of us dissent from the test which I ventured to put in opening, that a good film is a film good enough for a large number of people to want to go and see it. It is, incidentally, rather a mistake to suppose that the majority of British films, apart from "quota quickies," are bad films. I do not think they are. The trade itself has a system by which after trade shows the films get regularly marked. They go up from seven to nine and a quarter, I think, and the ascending figure shows what the film is supposed to be worth from a box office point of view; and I think that, though there were not a great many of them, the marking by the trade itself of the British films did not compare unfavourably with the marking of foreign films.
But we want to get these films better, and how are we going to get them better? We shall only get them better
1022
by encouraging people to put their money into financing films, and having the best people to make them and act in them, so as to get the best films produced. With great respect, I am perfectly certain that that will not be done by having a quality test imposed by some outside body. For it means that the man who is going to make a film, and has to collect, it may be, £50,000 for the making of it, will not know until the film is made whether it is going to be allowed to count for quota or not. I am sorry the most reverend Primate is not in his place, because I should have liked to have asked him this, as an acid test of the system he advocates. Supposing I were the arbiter of whether the film was of high quality, and he were the producer of the film, would he put £50,000 of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' money into the making of a film, when he had not the faintest notion whether it was going to pass the test of me as a sort of arbiter elegantiarum? I am perfectly certain he would not produce a penny of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' money in those circumstances, and he would be quite right.
If that is so, surely the answer is that you cannot have this kind of arbitrary test ex post facto. You must have the test of encouraging people to put the money into the business, and where the treasure is there will the heart be also. If they put a great deal of money into it they will put a great deal of energy into it, and they will do their best to make it a success. Quite frankly, I believe that the system in the Bill is the only one which will work in practice, and for these reasons I venture to commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.

OXFORD CORPORATION (ELECTRICITY).
Petition of the Mayor, aldermen, and citizens of Oxford under their Corporate Seal praying for leave to introduce a Bill to transfer to the Mayor, aldermen and citizens of Oxford the undertaking of the Oxford Electric Company, Limited, or their successors, as owners of such part of the undertaking authorised by the Oxford Electricity Orders, 1890 to 1924, as has not been previously transferred to the said Mayor, aldermen and citizens and for other purposes, together with a copy of the proposed Bill, annexed thereto: Read, and referred to the Examiners.
ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
ADELPHI ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
MIDDLESEX HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with an Amendment.
LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (RIVERS BOARD AND GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]

  STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:

  M. Townshend,

  L. Braye,

  L. Rossmore,

  L. Merthyr (Chairman),

  L. Carnock:

  Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on
  1024
  Tuesday, the 29th instant, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]

  MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:

  E. Poulett,

  L. Ellenborough,

  L. Annaly,

  L. Redesdale (Chairman),

  L. Doverdale:

  Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 29th instant, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

SCOTTISH HIGHLANDS ELECTRICITY (DORNOCH AND DISTRICT) ORDER, 1937.
Special Order in respect of the Royal Burgh of Dornoch and parts of the Counties of Sutherland and Ross and Cromarty:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

DRAFT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (ADDITIONAL BENEFITS) ORDER, 1938.

  DRAFT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (ADDITIONAL BENEFITS AND REDUCTION IN CONTRIBUTIONS) (AGRICULTURE) ORDER, 1938.
  Orders to be made by the Minister of Labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

CHATHAM ROCHESTER AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1937.
WORKINGTON GAS ORDER, 1938.
FORT WILLIAM ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1937.
SPALDING GAS ORDER, 1938.
NEWPORT (MONMOUTHSHIRE) GAS ORDER, 1938.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (INDIA-BURMA FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT) ORDER, 1938.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (GOVERNOR'S SALARY, ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1938.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1938.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (GOVERNORS' ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1938.
Report from the India and Burma Orders Committee, That they have examined the Draft Orders as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Orders do not raise important questions of policy and principle; that the Orders are founded on precedent; that in the opinion of the Committee the Orders can be passed by the House without special attention, and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Orders:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.