Sitting of 4 July 1939

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

NEW WRITS.
For the Borough of Portsmouth (South Division) in the room of Major Sir Herbert Robin Cayzer, Baronet (Manor of North-stead).—[Captain Dugdale.]
For the County of Monmouth (Mon-mouth Division) in the room of Lieut.-Colonel John Arthur Herbert (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Caption Dugdale.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into 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 Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Barmouth Urban District Council Bill [Lords]

Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords,].

Bills to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (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 fallowing Bills, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (North Lindsey Water Board) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wembley) Bill [Lords.]

Bill to be read a second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bill [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),
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, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bacup) Bill [Lords.]

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Stirling Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  COAL INDUSTRY.

    SAFETY IN MINES.
    Mr. Gordon Macdonaldasked the Secretary for Mines to what extent and in what direction has administrative action been taken in consequence of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Safety in Mines?
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Secretary for Mines the number of additional inspectors of mines he proposes to appoint; when the appointments will be made; and the districts in which they will be engaged?
    The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The Royal Commission expressed the view that health and safety duties should always be regarded as a primary function of the Mines Department, and that the status of the Health and Safety Division should be raised. His Majesty's Government accept this view and propose to give effect to it by substantially strengthening the administrative staff and by raising the status of the Head of the Division to that of a Deputy Under-Secretary—a matter to which the Royal Commission attached the highest importance. In addition, a number of new technical posts have been created at headquarters, including a second Deputy Chief Inspector, an Inspector of Mechanical Engineering, an inspector to deal

    1083
    specially with the problems of preventing accidents from falls of roof and side, a Deputy Medical Inspector and an additional inspector to deal with problems of the prevention and suppression of dangerous dusts.
    With the increase in the new headquarters establishment, it will be possible to accelerate the work on other administrative developments arising from the Commission's Report. In the meantime more stringent regulations for dealing with the dangers of coal dust have been under discussion with the industry, and I hope will come into force on 1st October.
    In accordance with the Royal Commission's recommendations, measures for suppressing and collecting coal dust in mechanised mining are being considered by a Departmental Committee, and a detailed revision of the Electricity Regulations is in progress.
    Finally, I am glad to be able to announce that a detailed scheme for the reorganisation and expansion of the inspectorate on the lines recommended by the Commission has been worked out and approved. Twenty-three district inspectors,with suitable offices and subordinate staffs, will be substituted for the present eight divisional inspectors. The work of the district inspectors will be coordinated by six superintending inspectors, each in charge of a group of districts, and each with the necessary specialist technical staff at his immediate disposal. The total strength of the mines inspectorate, including quarry inspectors, will be increased under this scheme from 127 to 165.
    Mr. Macdonald: Is it the intention of the Minister to have consultation with both sides of the industry, as regards further improvements and further action on the lines laid down by the Royal Commission?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Jenkins: What progress is being made with the preparation of a Bill in connection with the general recommendations of the Royal Commission?
    Mr. Lloyd: In addition to the administrative plans that I announced to-day, considerable progress has been made with
    1084
    the preparation of the Bill, and discussions have been initiated with both sides of the industry.
    Mr. Jenkins: Can the Minister give any indication as to when the Bill will be ready?
    Mr. Lloyd: I could not say that at present.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Has the Minister had due regard to the mechanisation which has been going on in the mines, particularly in recent years, and to the necessity of ensuring that the inspectorate are of such a character that they can detect any faults in machinery, not only above ground but particularly below ground?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. The Royal Commission have paid special attention to that matter. The hon. Member will see the number of new technical posts which have been created at headquarters for dealing with that.
    Mr. Whiteleyasked the Secretary for Mines whether the official tests of the Voortman stemming plug have proved successful, and, if so, what recommendations he intends making?
    Mr. Lloyd: Since the reply given to the hon. Member on 21st February last, there have been certain demonstrations in the North of England, at some of which His Majesty's inspectors were present. The reports I have received provide no grounds for modifying the opinion then stated, but tests are now being arranged which it is hoped may show whether or not this plug has any advantages over sand-clay stemming.
    Mr. Whiteley: Are we to understand that the Ministry has confined itself to this type of plug? There are other plugs which are being used at various collieries in the country, and, from our point of view, it does not matter what the plug is as long as one is used.
    Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate that point. Of course, there have been inquiries with regard to a large number of plugs, but in view of the hon. Member's interest I was arranging for a special test of that type of plug.
    Mr. Whiteley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at the last test that was made, one of his own officials definitely put the use of this plug far above the

    1085
    ordinary methods in operation at the present time?
    Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Member will look at the answer, he will see that I used the word "demonstration" with regard to the occurrence he mentioned. As I said, the reports I received from the inspector did not give me any grounds for altering the opinion expressed by my predecessor, but in order to reach a decision in the matter, I am arranging for a special test.
    Mr. Pilkington: Are not dry limestone and sand stemming plugs equally efficient?
    Mr. Lloyd: That of course is one of the matters involved in this question.
    Mr. Whiteleyasked the Secretary for Mines whether the tests of the Nox safety lamp have been concluded; and when approval is likely to be given?
    Mr. Lloyd: The official tests are proceeding and the manufacturers have been asked to discuss the design of the lamp with a view to its improvement in certain particulars. I will decide the question of approval as soon as these matters have been dealt with, the tests completed and the testing officer's final report received and considered.
    Mr. Whiteley: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there has been a tremendous delay in regard to this matter?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am not aware that there has been any great delay. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a new firm of lamp makers and certain modifications of their design have been suggested by the Mines Department, and they are being invited to discuss the matter with them.
    Mr. T. Smith: Are the tests taking place in the Sheffield Testing Station?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

    INSPECTIONS, LANCASHIRE.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary for Mines the number of inspections made by His Majesty's inspectors this year in Lancashire; and the number made on afternoon shifts and on night shifts?
    Mr. Lloyd: During the current year up to 24th June, His Majesty's inspectors of mines and quarries have made 888
    1086
    inspections in Lancashire. Three of these were at metalliferous mines, and 115 at quarries. The remaining 770 were at mines under the Coal Mines Acts, and included 144 on afternoon and 137 on night shifts.
    Mr. Tinker: Does the percentage of afternoon and night inspections compare favourably with that for last year, and if it does not, will the Minister urge the inspectors to increase these inspections?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. There has been a very substantial increase in the number of afternoon and night inspections.

    RESEARCH STATION, BUXTON.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary for Mines what steps are being taken to enable Members of Parliament, men and boys employed in the mining industry, and others interested to view the work that is done at the mining research depot at Buxton?
    Mr. Lloyd: Each year since 1927 arrangements have been made for parties of men and boys employed in the mining industry, mining students and others to witness demonstrations of the work in progress at the Safety Research Station at Buxton. In 1938, 22 demonstrations were given attended by some 6,000 visitors, of whom about 2,000 were boys. Similar demonstrations on the same scale are taking place this year. Some hon. Members have visited the station with these parties, or may be arranging to do so, but if a number of Members wish to visit the station together, I shall be very happy to co-operate in making arrangements.

    PRODUCER-GAS.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has now considered the report of the Glasgow Corporation transport engineers on the use of producer-gas; and, if so, what action does he propose to take and, particularly, whether it is intended to encourage the production of producer-gas and its use as a motive power?
    Mr. Lloyd: By the courtesy of the Glasgow Corporation Transport Department I have been supplied with a copy of their report of one month's tests on a producer-gas driven omnibus. As regards the latter part of the question, I am not in a position to add to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member on 2nd May.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister not aware that this bus under those conditions, was a great success in Inverness?
    Mr. Lloyd: I shall have to inquire about that.

    OIL EXTRACTION.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Secretary for Mines what action is being taken to increase the production of by-products to be obtained from coal; and whether it is intended to erect a Fischer-Tropsch plant or similar plants?
    Mr. Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 2nd May in answer to a similar question.

    ACCIDENT, ASTLEY GREEN COLLIERY.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has decided to have a court of inquiry into the cause of the death of five persons at Astley Green Colliery, Lancashire, on 6th June last; if so, will he give the name of the person who will conduct it and the date of inquiry?
    Mr. Lloyd: Very close inquiries into the causes of this lamentable accident have already been made by His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines. These will be completed as soon as circumstances at the colliery permit. I propose to exercise my power under Section 82 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, to direct the divisional inspector to make a special report with respect to the accident, and it is my intention to publish this report as soon as possible.
    Mr. Tinker: Does that mean that an inquiry will be held?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is an inquiry, but it is one by His Majesty's Inspector, which is referred to under Section 82 of the Act, and I have decided to publish the inspector's report. It is not quite the same as a formal court of inquiry.
    Mr. Batey: I thought we had got away from the position of having an inspector as chairman of an inquiry, and that we had an independent person. Why could not that be done in this case?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think the hon. Member is confusing an inquiry under Section 82 with an inquiry under Section 83.
    Mr. Batey: What is the difference?
    Mr. Lloyd: The inquiry under Section 82 is a special inquiry ordered by the
    1088
    Secretary for Mines to be undertaken by the divisional inspector. An inquiry under Section 83 is made by a specially-constituted court.

    COPPICE COLLIERY, HEATH HAYES.
    Mr. Adamsonasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that between 300 and 400 miners have been dismissed from the Coppice Colliery, Heath Hayes, Staffordshire, whilst the remainder of the 800 miners previously employed, are on day-to-day notice to terminate their engagement; and whether he will state the cause of these notices having been given?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am informed that the recent dismissal of approximately 800 workmen and the subsequent re-engagement of 450 of these men on day-to-day terms at the Coppice Colliery, Heath Hayes, Staffordshire, arises from litigation in connection with the will of a former proprietor of the colliery.
    Mr. Adamson: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that this litigation has been proceeding for several years, and can he not use his influence in any way to mitigate the difficulties?
    Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate the difficulties, but the position is that the case stands adjourned until to-day.

    QUOTA (TRANSFER).
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the transfer of quotas from one colliery owner to another does, in many cases, cause the closing down of collieries, and distress follows in consequence; and will he have an examination made of what has taken place in these transactions to see: if the changeover can be effected with as little hardship as possible?
    Mr. Lloyd: The transfer of quota is not a cause, but an effect, of the contraction of output at one mine and its expansion at another; and to prohibit it would not prevent the closing of a colliery, but merely prevent that colliery's output (and the consequential employment) being transferred to another colliery in the same district. The transfer of quota in many cases reduces the amount of distress which follows the closing down of a colliery. With regard to the second part of the question, the problems which arise in these cases are local and particular, and, even if I had the power to interfere with

    1089
    the discretion conferred by the Coal Mines Act, 1930, on the individual coal-owner to transfer his output rights, I do not think that an examination such as is suggested would enable me to lay down any useful general rule for dealing with such cases.
    Mr. Tinker: Will not the hon. Gentleman go into this matter, as in the case of two collieries which were recently closed down the men had to travel 10 miles in one case, and 20 miles in the other in order to follow the coal, and is not that something that ought to be watched and dealt with by his Department?
    Mr. Lloyd: I agree that it is a very difficult matter. I think that when the Labour Government introduced this Act they had in mind, when imposing restrictions that were designed to help wage conditions, that it was desirable at the same time to preserve a measure of

    Imports of coal into France from Great Britain and Germany during the years 1928 to 1938 and January-May, 1939.

    Year.

    Total Imports.*

    From Great Britain.

    Per cent, of Total.

    From Germany.*

    Per cent. of Total.

    1,000 metric tons.

    1928

    21,984

    8,506

    38.7

    8,983

    40.9

    1929

    28,645

    13,216

    46.1

    10,123

    35.3

    1930

    29,288

    13,581

    46.4

    9,617

    32.8

    1931

    26,867

    10,783

    40.1

    8,395

    31.2

    1932

    21,906

    9,153

    41.8

    8,113

    37.0

    1933

    21,934

    8,896

    40.6

    7,996

    36.5

    1934

    20,974

    7,731

    36.9

    8,000

    38.1

    1935

    18,454

    7,431

    4.3

    5,628

    30.5

    1936

    18,637

    7,199

    38.6

    5,879

    31.5

    1937

    24,630

    9,418

    38.2

    7,996

    32.5

    1938

    18,685

    6,347

    34.0

    5,519

    29.5

    Jan.-May, 1939

    6,286

    1,971

    31.4

    1,620

    25.8

    * As from 18th February, 1935, the Saar has been included in the German Customs Union. For the purpose of comparison, deliveries from the Saar to France, prior to this date, are included in the above figures.

    Mr. Mainwaringasked the Secretary for Mines whether, having regard to the agreed aims during the negotiations of last autumn and to the discontent felt in exporting circles in this country, he is satisfied that the French coal imports agreement is being operated satisfactorily?
    Mr. Lloyd: Since the conclusion of the negotiations to which the hon. Member refers the United Kingdom percentage of French imports of coal subject to quota has increased as compared with the year 1938. I have no reason to suppose that
    1090
    elasticity with regard to the working of the coalfields.
    Mr. Batey: While it is a simple matter to sell a quota to an adjoining colliery so that the men have not far to walk, it is a serious matter if the men have to travel 10 or 20 miles, and will not the hon. Gentleman inquire into this question?

    FRANCE (IMPORTS).
    Mr. Mainwaringasked the Secretary for Mines what the respective portions of French coal imports from Britain and Germany, respectively, amounted to in tonnage and percentage for each of the years 1928 to date?
    Mr. Lloyd: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Following is the information:
    the agreement has not been honoured, but I am hopeful that, as a result of discussions which are now taking place, the position will be still further improved.
    Mr. Mainwaring: Are we to understand that there are no grounds for the complaints that are expressed in different parts of the coal industry?
    Mr." Lloyd:No, Sir, I would not go so far as to say that, but in fact the United Kingdom and the French interests are meeting to-morrow on this very point.

    CLINICS.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Secretary for Mines whether the clinics for the treatment of rheumatism and other diseases in the Durham coalfields are giving satisfaction; and if the extension of such clinics to other mining areas is contemplated?
    Mr. Lloyd: The proposal to build and equip a rheumatism clinic at Horden Colliery Baths by means of grants from the Miners' Welfare Fund has not yet been carried out, as it has had to await the settlement of financial questions by those concerned locally. I hope these difficulties will soon be overcome. As regards the second part of the question, I am informed that this is the only clinic at present contemplated by the Miners' Welfare Committee.
    Mr. Smith: If these clinics are a success from the point of view of improving health, will the Secretary for Mines see to it that no delay takes place in extending such clinics to other coalfields?
    Mr. Lloyd: This clinic is regarded as an experiment from the point of view of making its application more widely extended.
    Mr. Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether reference will be made to this matter in his annual report?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, I will consider it.
    Mr. Shin well: Will the hon. Gentleman do everything he can to encourage the institution of this clinic in the Durham coalfield, and does he also appreciate the desirability of encouraging similar work elsewhere?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that it is a very interesting development, and I have strong hopes that the difficulties which have arisen will speedily be got over.
    Mr. Lawson: Can the hon. Gentleman say that the preliminary reports on this matter are very satisfactory, and that where this system is employed the men are very glad to take advantage of it?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, I think that that may well be the case.

    NOTTINGHAMSHIRE (STATISTICS).
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary for Mines the average yearly output of coal per man, the value at pithead prices of
    1092
    this annual output, and the average annual wage of the workers in the Nottinghamshire coal mines for each of the years 1929 to 1938?
    Mr. Lloyd: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Mr. Cocks: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the figures do not show year by year that the miner is getting a decreasing proportion of the benefit?
    Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. The figures show-that wages, for example, have increased from £120 a year in 1930, and £118 in 1931, to £162 at the present time, but that increase, as I understand it, is rather greater proportionately than that of the annual output.
    Mr. George Griffiths: What is the increase in coalowners profits? Was it not £5 500,000 last quarter—2s. a ton?
    Following is the information:

    Nottinghamshire.

    Year

    Average Annual Cash Earnings per Wage-' earner (exclusive of the value 01 allowances in

    Value of the Average Annual Output per Wage earner

    Average Annual Cash Earning per Wage-earner (exculusive of the value of allowance in kind)*

    Tons.

    £

    £

    1929

    288

    181

    122

    1930

    284

    180

    120

    1931

    292

    183

    118

    1932

    283

    181

    113

    1933

    295

    184

    113

    1934

    310

    192

    116

    1935

    32O

    192

    117

    1936

    341

    228

    134

    1937

    381

    269

    169

    1938

    346

    264

    162

    * The value of allowances in kind is not available for Nottinghamshire separately, but for North Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, it averaged about£ 3 13s. per annum.

    SEAMS (RECORDS).
    Mr. G. Macdonaldasked the Secretary for Mines whether the Mines Department have records as to when the different seams of coal in the various coalfields were commenced to be worked and when further operations are suspended; and, if not will he consider taking the necessary steps to have his Department supplied with this information?
    Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Member is referring to the working of the different seams

    1093
    at individual mines the owner, agent or manager is already required, under Section 19 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, to notify the divisional inspector whenever any work is commenced for the purpose of opening a new seam; also when the working of any seam is discontinued or abandoned, and when working is resumed after discontinuance or abandonment.

    ACCIDENTS (WEEKLY ANALYSIS).
    Mr. Leeasked the Secretary for Mines whether, in the weekly statement of accidents in the mines and quarries of the United Kingdom which he has decided to publish, he will give the character of the accident and the district or county in which it occurs, with the figures for the corresponding period of the previous year?
    Mr. Lloyd: I propose to start by publishing a weekly analysis which will show the number and character of fatal and serious accidents for the country as a whole. I shall be guided by the general response in deciding further developments. I hope these statements will serve as a constant reminder to all concerned of the gravity of the problem of ensuring safety and of the need for constantly renewed efforts by all concerned to improve the position.

    ANGLO-GERMAN DISCUSSIONS.
    Mr. Jenkinsasked the Secretary for Mines whether the negotiations for an international agreement between the British and German coalowners, commenced in the early part of this year, are still proceeding, and, if so, when does he expect to be in a position to make a statement to the House on this matter?
    Mr. Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) on the 9th May.

    CLOSED PITS (LANCASHIRE).
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state the reasons why the Black rod Pit, employing 150 men, is closing down; whether he is taking any steps to keep it open; whether he is aware that in this area of Aspull, Blackrod, Hindley and Westhoughton, where 12 years ago about 10,000 persons were employed in coalmining, every one of the 18 collieries is now closed down; and has he any information as to any of them being re-opened?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am informed that the Blackrod Pit, owned by the Westhoughton Coal and Cannel Company Limited, is being closed as a result of heavy costs incurred by the owners in a recent law suit, and that the pit material is being withdrawn preparatory to abandonment. In these circumstances I am afraid there are no steps which I could usefully take to keep the Blackrod Pit open. I am informed, however, that the supply basic tonnage of the pit has been purchased by the Chamber Colliery Company, Limited; and the closing of the Blackrod Pit may, therefore, not lead to less employment in Lancashire as a whole. With regard to the last part of the question, I am aware that no mines are now producing coal in the urban districts named, but I regret that so far as is known there is no prospect of any of the Westhoughton mines being re-opened at an early date.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that the Blackrod Pit is being closed consequent upon legal costs which have resulted from a quarrel between two colliery companies because they were flooding each other's mine? Is it not possible for the hon. Gentleman to take steps to prevent any such thing happening in future?
    Mr. Lloyd: I will consider that, but I do not think I can make any comment on the case, because I understand it is the subject of an appeal.
    Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Member aware that the total legal costs of these two companies as fixed in the High Court was far greater than the costs which would have been necessary to keep both pits open?
    Mr. Lloyd: I cannot make any comment on the case, as it is the subject of an appeal.
    Mr. Tinker: Is the hon. Member aware that the quota was taken to a pit 20 miles away and that nothing has been done to get the men taken from one pit to another?

    MINING OPERATIONS (DAMAGE TO HOUSES, INCE).
    Mr. G. Macdonaldasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the serious concern of the urban district council of Ince-in-Maker-field at the extensive damage caused by

    1095
    mining operations to a number of comparatively new houses situate in Holt Street, near Rose Bridge Colliery, Ince, and acquired by the occupiers by means of loans; and whether he is prepared to facilitate legislation to bring relief to these persons?
    Mr. Lloyd: If the surface on which these houses are built has a right to support or compensation, the owners have a remedy at common law. If they have purchased their property without such rights I am afraid nothing can be done for them unless the Mining Subsidence Bill to which the House has given the Third Reading becomes law in its present form, in which case the houses may come into the category to which a right to repair or compensation is accorded.
    Mr. Macdonald: Is the hon. Member aware that we entertain some serious misgivings as to whether the Bill referred to will deal with such cases as this, and, if not, will he take further legislative action to provide further protection in this matter?
    Mr. Lloyd: I cannot give any undertaking as to further legislative action, but I will bear the matter in mind.

  AUSTRALIA (CENSUS OF WEALTH).
  . Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will obtain particulars of the amendment to the National Register Bill accepted by the Australian Government providing for a census of all weath in excess of a value of £500, in addition to the census of man power provided for in the Bill?
  The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to forward to the Australian Government for their information a copy of the Conscription of Wealth Bill now before this House? If the right hon. Gentleman will not do so, I will.

  NEW ZEALAND LOAN.
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will take advantage of the presence in London of the
  1096
  Finance Minister of New Zealand, in order to discuss with him matters of mutual interest to this country and New Zealand; and whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to extend to Dominion Governments facilities in regard to loans, at least as favourable as any that have been granted to non-Empire countries?
  Sir T. Inskip: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21st June to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). I am not at present in a position to add anything to that reply, except to say that the discussions with Mr. Nash are continuing.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware of the desirability, or even the necessity, of the Government taking such steps as these in order to counter the unscrupulous attack which has been made on the New Zealand Government by the Bank of England?
  Sir T. Inskip: That is a statement which should not pass without repudiation.
  Mr. Stephen: Can the House have an assurance that New Zealand will get as good terms as any non-Empire country?
  Sir T. Inskip: I am sure that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to give as good terms as possible to New Zealand, and in any case better than any non-Empire country.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the right: hon Gentleman ask Mr. Nash his opinion of the Bank of England?

  GERMANY (AFRICAN COLONIES).
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will inquire from the Government of the Union of South Africa as to what they consider would be fair compensation to Germany for the territories of South-West Africa and Tanganyika?
  Sir T. Inskip: I do not think that, in present circumstances, there would be any advantage in making the inquiry.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a public statement recommending such conversations has been made by the Minister of

  1097
  Defence in the Union Government, and as the matter obviously raises important questions of Imperial strategic defence, ought not some communication to be made to the Union Government?
  Sir T. Inskip: I have read the speech to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, and I am inclined to think that at the present moment any such inquiry would be merely academic.

  SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES).
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is the present position of the negotiations with the Government of the Union of South Africa concerning the transference of the South African Protectorates?
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that British-African subjects in Africa and Great Britain view with apprehension the transference of Basutoland, Swaziland, and Bechuanaland to the Union of South Africa; if discussions between the British Government and the South African Government on this matter will be completed before the Summer Recess; when a report is likely to be issued; and whether the wishes and interests of the natives likely to be affected will have prior claim to that of the European settlers or the Union Government?
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any recent discussions of an official or unofficial nature have taken place with the Government of the Union of South Africa, on the subject of the transfer of any or all of the High Com mission territories?
  Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the nature of the agreement arrived at between the British Government and the Union of South Africa on the question of the South African Protectorates; and has the consent of the native inhabitants of the Protectorates been obtained to the agreement?
  Sir T. Inskip: It was explained in the joint statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the
  1098
  Colonies and General Hertzog made on 29th March last year that it was proposed that His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa should issue a memorandum setting forth the terms on which they would propose that the transfer of the government of the High Commission Territories to the Union would take place, if decided upon. I have recently received from the Union Government the draft of the memorandum which they have prepared, but I cannot yet give the date on which the memorandum will be published by the Union Government.
  As was indicated in the joint statement to which I have referred, the object of the issue of the memorandum is to enable the inhabitants of the Territories to judge what the position would be in the event of transfer. It has been made clear on several occasions that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would not make any decision in regard to the transfer of the government of the Territories until the inhabitants, native as well as European, have been consulted and that no final conclusion would be reached until Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing its views. There is no question of varying this pledge.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that assurances have been given not only to the natives of these Protectorates that they shall be consulted, but that their consent must be obtained before transfer takes place? May I ask that he will give the further assurance that this House will be consulted before any such transfer is made?
  Sir T. Inskip: I have already said that in my answer.
  Mr. Poole: May I ask in what way the right hon. Gentleman proposes to consult the natives? Does he propose to consult the natives or the native chiefs?
  Sir T. Inskip: Consultations will take place with those whom His Majesty's Government consider are the best qualified to express an opinion.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Will the asquiescence of the natives be obtained before transfer is effected? Are we to understand that in the near future further unofficial discussions will take place with the Union Government on this matter?
  Sir T. Inskip: I am not able to say when further discussions will take place with the natives or with their representatives, but I can assure the hon. Member that the fullest consideration will be given to the wishes and interests of the native population.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CHEMISTS FRIEND SCHEME.
    Mr. Vyvyan Adamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the Chemists Friend Scheme under which manufacturers agree not to supply their goods to shop proprietors who are not registered chemists; whether he is aware that the result is that certain proprietors who have, possibly through lack of funds, failed to take their chemists examination, are suffering through this restraint on their legitimate trade; that no public interest is thus served; and whether he will take powers to curtail the operation of all such restraints on trade?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am aware of the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers and of the objections which have been taken to it. The whole question of arrangements of this kind between manufacturers and traders was fully considered by the Departmental Committee on Restraint of Trade which reported in 1931, and I see no reason to dissent from the view which they expressed that there was no compelling reason for a change in the law.

    CALCIUM CARBIDE.
    Sir Arthur Salterasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the United Kingdom is the only first-class industrial country in which no calcium carbide is being produced, although it has been officially stated that it is indispensable for national Defence purposes and that, in the event of war, our imports would need to be doubled; and what action, in addition to the accumulation of stocks, His Majesty's Government are taking to secure that this deficiency in our industrial organisation is remedied at an early date?
    Mr. Stanley: I am aware that calcium carbide is manufactured in the chief industrial countries, but I am not aware
    1100
    of the authority for the statement that in time of war our imports would need to be doubled. I would welcome any well-considered plan for the production of calcium carbide in the United Kingdom. I do not feel, however, that there is sufficient case for any Government loan or guarantee for this purpose, though if a project were started in one of the Special Areas, it would be open for the promoters to apply for assistance of a kind that can be given under the Special Areas Acts.
    Sir A. Salter: With regard to the authority, I will bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the statement of one of his colleagues. But does he not think that at this stage, and in view of the danger of our situation, the Government might take rather more definite steps to get a vital industry of this kind going than he indicated in his reply?
    Mr. Stanley: The Government were anxious that under the Bill which was before the House a calcium carbide industry should be established in this country, and it is a great pity that the hon. Member did not see his way to support that Bill. In regard to this matter two questions arise. If Government money is to be diverted to this purpose it must be diverted from some other equally important subject.
    Sir A. Salter: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider whether there is not an alternative open to the Government which would secure a much more rapid production than the particular scheme which was rejected would have given; and does he really mean that because the House of Commons rejected one of the many alternatives, and not the best alternative, the Government are content now to hold their hand?
    Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Member has any alternative to put before me I shall be only too glad to consider it. I have had discussions with several interests who have different schemes, and in every case I have promised them all the help I can possibly give.
    Mr. Paling: Is it not a fact that several alternatives were put before the Government by different hon. Members, and is it not the case that because the Government could not get their own way they would not adopt any of the alternatives?
    Mr. Stanley: I am prepared to deal with any practical proposal that is put up to me. I have been discussing several alternatives in recent months.
    Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman suggested in his reply that the Government have a plan for producing calcium carbide in this country, but is it not the case that when the matter was discussed in the House, the Government refused to take any side in the matter or to put down any definite scheme?
    Mr. Stanley: At least I voted for it, and the hon. Gentleman who asked the question did not vote.

    MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now completed his inquiries into the possibility of marking imported goods with the name of the country of origin and with what result; and in view of the large imports of drapery, clothing, foodstuffs and toys from Japan, will be come to an immediate decision and take the appropriate action?
    Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Member is aware, the views of the commercial, industrial and agricultural interests affected have been obtained on the representations made to me that the existing option to mark goods which require an indication of origin under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, with the word "Foreign" or "Empire," as the case may be, instead of with a definite indication of the country of origin should be withdrawn. It is clear that there is still considerable divergence of opinion on the subject amongst interested parties, but, nevertheless, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and I have reached the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds in principle for removing the option to use the word "Foreign" or "Empire." Traders in this country have stocks which have been marked in accordance with the existing law and the change must be made in such a way as to avoid loss or undue inconvenience to them. The practical difficulties that arise are now being studied.
    Mr. Thorne: Is it not the case that the reason some of these traders do not want to do away with this is that they would be ashamed to sell the goods if it were known?
    Mr. Johnston: With regard to the existing stocks, before the forthcoming legislation, can the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to deal with firms which have the same labels both for foreign and Empire produce and simply cover over one or other word according to the customers?
    Mr. Stanley: If the right hon. Gentleman knows of a case where Empire labels are being applied to foreign goods, and will bring it to my notice, certainly I will deal with it.
    Mr. Johnston: If I give the right hon. Gentleman a can of Japanese salmon, which I have in the House, on the label of which there are both words, "Empire" and "Foreign," and the word "Foreign" or "Empire," as the case may be, can be plastered over, will he instruct the Law Officers of the Crown to take action?
    Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman will also have to give me the name of the place from which this was bought and evidence that, in fact, the label "Empire" had been applied to a tin of Japanese goods.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the "Daily Worker" today, where he will see information about a case of this sort?
    Mr. Stanley: I am afraid that, like the soldier, the "Daily Worker" is not evidence.
    Mr. Johnston: If I give the right hon. Gentleman a label with both words on it, will he not see for himself that this is intended to prejudice the purchaser?
    Mr. Stanley: That may well be, but unless the right hon. Gentleman can give me some indication as to who used the label and where the salmon came from, obviously I cannot take any legal steps against those responsible.
    Mr. Kirkwood: If I place in the hands of the Minister evidence on this matter, will he take the matter up more seriously than he has done up to this stage?
    Mr. Stanley: It is not true that I have not taken it seriously. What I said was that if any hon. Member would give me evidence of an actual breach of the law, I would deal with it.
    Mr. Turtonasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of

    1103
    the imports into this country from Japan are marked with the name of the country of origin?
    Mr. Stanley: I regret that the information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available.
    Mr. Turton: Can my right hon. Friend say from what date the decision that all goods should be marked with the country of origin will operate?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. It will, of course, require a change in the existing law.

    JAPAN.
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the low prices at which Japanese merchandise is sold in this country; that men's shirts are sold at 1s. 6d. each, pants and vests at 9d., ladies vests at 6d., and embroidered nightdresses at 1s. 6d.; and whether, in the interests of the workers of this country, he will introduce legislation to prevent the importation of these goods which are either subsidised by the Japanese Government or are the product of sweated labour?
    Mr. Stanley: I am aware of the imports to which the hon. Member refers, but I have no reason to suppose that the machinery of the Import Duties Act cannot, where necessary, afford protection to the industry in this country.
    Miss Wilkinson: As the right hon. Gentleman is taking so long to consider the matter of these labels, is it not probable that the emergency with which we seek to deal will pass before he has dealt with it? Can he not give some indication that he will deal with it now?
    Mr. Stanley: That is a different question. The hon. Gentleman did not ask about marking the country of origin, but about action under the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of goods and/or merchandise exported to and imported from Japan for the 12 months ended the last convenient date?
    Mr. Stanley: During the 12 months ended March, 1939, the total declared value of merchandise exported from the
    1104
    United Kingdom and registered as consigned to Japan, including Formosa, was £1,919,000, including re-exports valued at £379,000. As regards imports from Japan during this period, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him last Tuesday.
    Mr. Day: Has the right hon. Gentleman any figures in his Department showing the trade between the Commonwealth and Japan?
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade how many thousands of cases of Japanese low-priced common tea have been imported into this country during 1939; at what price this tea is being sold to the leading English tea-blenders; whether he is aware that this common tea is being mixed with British Indian and Ceylon tea; and what action he intends taking to stop the importation of this tea?
    Mr. Stanley: Recorded imports of tea from Japan during the five months January to May, 1939, were 2,298,000 lbs. and represented 1.5 per cent, of total imports of tea during that period. I am informed that the cheaper qualities of Japanese tea are sold by private treaty and that the usual price is 6d. or 7d. per 1b. (excluding duty). I am aware that this tea is blended with Empire tea for the purpose of producing a cheap packet tea, and I have no power to stop the importation.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of the large importation of Japanese tea, it is being blended with Ceylon and Indian tea, and that a large number of people are selling that blend as Empire tea, and will he take steps to put a stop to that practice?
    Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman has any definite information to that effect I will certainly be glad to look into it, but I am informed that that is not so, and certainly under the law it could not be sold as Empire tea.
    Mr. Shinwell: If this Japanese tea is mixed with Empire tea, and is then marked "Empire," can it not be sold as such?
    Mr. Stanley: No, it is not allowed to be marked "Empire."
    Mr. Alexander: Is it not the case that under the law it need only be marked as "Empire blend tea"?
    Mr. Stanley: I have made inquiries and I understand that it has been sold under the brand of the supplying firm and is not described as "Empire."
    Mr. McGovern: Will the right hon. Gentleman insist that all goods coming from different countries shall have stamped upon them "Member of the Peace Block" or "Member of the Axis" as the case may be?

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade the total declared value of merchandise imported into and exported from the United Kingdom in trade between the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the years 1937 and 1938?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member will find the desired particulars on page 188 of the issue of the monthly Trade Accounts for January last.
    Mr. Day: Does this include all the figures with regard to Russia, showing what the trade balance is?
    Mr. Stanley: It shows imports, exports and re-exports.

    RIVER MERSEY, DREDGING.
    Mr. Pilkingtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a company with foreign capital, or under foreign control, is being given rights of dredging in the River Mersey in areas which are at the present moment worked by existing local companies; and whether, in view of the un-desirability of this, he will take steps to secure that all such work is performed in British waters by British companies?
    Mr. Stanley: The Board of Trade have under consideration an application from a company, registered under the Companies Act, for a licence to carry on commercial dredging in the River Mersey. They would not be justified in refusing to issue the desired licence solely on account of any foreign interests that there may be in the company.
    Mr. Pilkington: Since this is a vital area in the event of an emergency, could my right hon. Friend not reconsider this decision?
    Mr. Stanley: The company making the application is registered as a British company, and I have no information that it is under foreign control. There may be foreign interests connected with it, but I could not consider that, in itself, as a reason for refusing it a licence.
    Mr. Pilkington: If I give my right hon. Friend evidence that the company is under foreign control, would he then reconsider this matter?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir, even that would not affect it.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the increase in the price of sugar during the week ending 1st July, due to a shortage of sugar; that more sugar is required now to meet the demands of canners and jam makers; why the Sugar Council will not allow more sugar to be exported from Cuba; and what action he intends taking about the matter?
    Mr. Stanley: I am aware that, in spite of the additional releases made by the International Sugar Council in May and June, there appears to be some shortage of sugar for arrival in the next two months and that this has caused an increase of price during the last two weeks. I understand that it has not yet been definitely ascertained whether the Soviet Union will ship their share, namely, 66,000 tons, of the additional releases, but urgent inquiry is being made. Should this quantity be surrendered it will become available to other suppliers. I am considering the whole position in consultation with the chairman of the International Sugar Council.

  NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING LINES.
  Mr. T. Johnstonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the apprehension of the Scottish Atlantic passenger shipping lines that subsidies granted to their English competitors upon the Atlantic route may be refused to them; and whether he will take steps to ensure that State subsidies to shipping firms are not granted by such discriminatory methods as will advantage some British firms to the prejudice of their British competitors?
  Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the claims of Scottish shipping companies operating the North Atlantic route for inclusion in the provisions of the Shipping Defence Bill, soon to be laid before Parliament; and whether he can give an assurance that these companies will receive equal treatment with others in the State assistance proposed to be offered under the new Bill?
  Mr. Stanley: An application for financial assistance has been made to me by two British companies operating shipping lines across the North Atlantic, and this is receiving my consideration. As regards the forthcoming legislation to carry into effect the proposal which I announced some time ago regarding financial assistance for liner companies whose services are endangered by foreign subsidised competition, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no discrimination between Scottish and English companies who can make a case for assistance under the Act. I fully appreciate the importance of ensuring that when an application for assistance under the Act is being considered the interests of British shipping concerns other than the applicant should be taken into account.
  Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it in his negotiations that any dominant shipping concern, such as the Cunard, is not allowed to get subsidies which will prejudice its British competitors?
  Mr. Stanley: I think that is fully covered by the last sentence of my answer.

  NEW FACTORIES (DISTRESSED AREAS).
  Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade for particulars, according to the reports obtained for the purpose of the annual survey of industrial development, of the number of factories that have been established in distressed areas in the 12 months ended the last convenient date?
  Mr. Leonardasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of new factories opened in the distressed areas of Scotland in the years 1937 and 1938, and
  1108
  the number opened in Great Britain in the same time?
  Mr. Stanley: So far as such establishments can be identified from the returns which have been received in connection with the Survey of Industrial Development, 23 factories were opened in the Special Areas in 1937 and 61 in 1938, of which 4 and 14 respectively, were situated in Scotland. The Survey takes account only of factories employing 25 or more workpeople.
  Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many persons have obtained employment in these factories?
  Mr. Stanley: Not without notice.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that some of the semi-depressed areas get a factory or two now and again?

  PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENTS) ACT.
  Mr. Bellengerasked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to lay before Parliament rules and regulations under Clause 19 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act?
  Mr. Stanley: In accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, rules of conduct for licensed dealers in securities were published in draft form at the end of May. The rules will be made as soon as the representations which have been received in regard to them have been considered, and they will then be laid before Parliament. I also propose at an early date to lay before Parliament the regulations with regard to applications for licences which have to be made under Section 3 of the Act.
  Mr. Bellenger: Is the failure to lay these rules holding up the operation of the Act, and can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Act will be made to operate as Parliament intended?
  Mr. Stanley: There is no failure to lay these rules. Draft regulations have been published, and certain comments have been made, and it is in order to get comments that they are published, and until those comments are considered it is impossible to lay the regulations in final form.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    MILITIAMEN.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken by him to carry out the undertaking to notify men called up under the Military Training Act that they will at no time during their period of service be asked to perform duties in connection with industrial disputes?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): A paragraph giving the promised assurance has been included in the pamphlet which is being issued to all militiamen.
    Mr. Mander: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that covers the whole period of four years during which they are liable to be called up for service?
    Sir V. Warrender: I understand that this matter was dealt with in a statement by my right hon. Friend in the House on 12th May.
    Mr. Mander: May I ask the specific question: Does it cover only the six months for which they are now being called up, or does it cover the whole period during which they may be called upon to serve? This is very important.
    Sir V. Warrender: I think it covers the initial period.
    Mr. Mander: Was not a pledge given that the whole period should be covered?
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Will they be strong enough to perform these duties if they are fed on margarine?
    Mr. Pilkingtonasked the Secretary of State for War whether there will be a medical examination of militiamen at the end of their six months' training to ascertain the general effect on their health?
    Sir V. Warrender: This suggestion is being borne in mind, but I am not sure that it will be practicable.
    Mr. W. Robertsasked the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements are being made to set up milk bars in the new Militia camps which are being organised, such milk bars to be either part of the dry canteens in the camps or, if that is not possible, in close proximity to the camps?
    Sir V. Warrender: No, Sir, but hot and cold milk will be on sale at the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes.
    Viscountess Astor: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it would be an advantage to the troops to have a good milk bar in every unit, and does he realise how many women are terrified about sending young sons to camp on account of drink?

    BRIGADE OF GUARDS (DRUMMER BOY'S ILLNESS).
    57. Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a further statement regarding the drummer who fainted during the trooping of the colour?
    Sir V. Warrender: My right hon. Friend has made inquiries on the point raised by the hon. Member in a supplementary question on 20th June, and the answer is that no announcement was made before the parade that disciplinary action would be taken against any man who collapsed. The men were, however, reminded in the usual way by their company serjeant-majors of the standing order that any man who falls out on a public parade, or on the march, must attend before the commanding officer after seeing the medical officer.
    Mr. Edwards: Does the Minister still insist that no disciplinary action was taken against this man; and has he considered the further point which I brought to his notice about how long these men had been on parade prior to this incident?
    Sir V. Warrender: I think the incident to which the hon. Member is referring was disposed of by the explanation which was given by my right hon. Friend last week. As regards the length of time the men were on parade, I understand that they came on parade 25 minutes before they were marched off. I do not think the length of time they were on parade was, in any way, excessive.

    INTERNAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for War whether any instructions have at any time been issued by the War Office to units of the Regular or Territorial Army regarding the undesirability of accepting as recruits, persons who have served in the International Brigade in Spain?
    Sir V. Warrender: I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) on 23rd May last.
    Mr. Mander: Is it not clear that that answer did not deal with the point I am asking to-day, and is it not the case, and is it not well known to many persons, that instructions have been issued by the War Office to units saying that no British subject who has served in the International Brigade shall be accepted for the Army?
    Sir V. Warrender: The facts as stated by the hon. Gentleman are not accurate. Such orders have not been issued. Like any employer in civil life, the army reserves the right to inquire into the character of recruits.
    Mr. Mander: Do I understand the Minister to say that no instructions of any kind bearing on this subject have been issued to units referring to service in the International Brigade? Do I understand him to say that in view of what many of us know?
    Sir V. Warrender: The hon. Member must not understand that. What I say is that no instructions have been issued that men should be rejected on the ground of service in the International Brigade.
    Miss Wilkinson: On a point of Order. A slur has been cast by the Financial Secretary on a body of heroic and fine citizens of this country. Have I your permission, Mr. Speaker, to ask him to withdraw?
    Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that I personally know a man who was refused admission to the Army because he was in the International Brigade—
    Mr. Speaker—
    Miss Wilkinson: On a point of Order. Have you not yourself ruled on various occasions, Mr. Speaker, that slurs should not be cast either by private Members or by Ministers? May I appeal to you to ask the Financial Secretary to withdraw that slur?
    Mr. Speaker: I heard no slur.
    Mr. Silverman: You said you heard no slur cast upon the character of these men,
    1112
    but did not the Minister say that no special instructions had been given to reject men who had come from the International Brigade, but that in connection with cases of that kind the Army reserves to itself the right to inquire into their character and references?
    Mr. Speaker: I did not hear that, but perhaps the Financial Secretary would like to explain.
    Sir V. Warrender: I think there has been some little misunderstanding. Any man who offers himself as a recruit for the Army may have to produce a reference, and these men are treated in exactly the same way as—
    Miss Wilkinson: You know that that is not true.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady speaks of casting slurs, but surely she is casting a slur now, and she ought certainly to withdraw that remark.
    Miss Wilkinson: I will certainly withdraw if the Minister will withdraw first.
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order—
    Mr. Speaker: An explanation has been given.
    Mr. Silverman: The point of Order I wish to raise is that. I put something to you which you said you did not hear, and you said at the same time that the Minister might like the opportunity of explaining. In the course of that explanation, owing to an incident with which I had no concern, the Financial Secretary was stopped, and I wish now to ask whether we ought not to have the completion of the explanation which the Minister was making.
    Mr. Speaker: I think the explanation was given.
    Mr. Gallacher: I want to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  LOCATION OF INDUSTRY (COMMISSION'S REPORT).
  Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the delay in the issue of the report of the

  1113
  Royal Commission on Location of Industry, and the urgency of the problems involved in other areas than the Metropolitan area, steps can be taken to expedite the publication of the report at an earlier date than September next?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The chairman of the commission is, of course, fully aware of the urgency of the questions involved, but he does not think it will be practicable to issue the report before September.
  Mr. Harvey: In view of the long delay, will a special effort be made to expedite the Government's decision when the report is received, in view of the great importance of this matter?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot give an assurance until I see what the report is.
  Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great developments in building and industry are taking place and that the longer the delay in dealing with this matter, the greater will be the difficulties?

  WAR RISKS (COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE).
  46. Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to avoid having to act at the last moment and in a hurry, he will now draft a national scheme to cover risks of war damage to buildings assessable for rates and taxes and circulate it among those concerned; and will he then submit the scheme to Parliament for examination so that there may be adequate time to consider the problem to be met should an emergency arise?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him on 27th June and to that which I gave to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) on 20th June. All that can be done at this stage is in hand, and there is no danger of the details of the scheme of compensation having to be settled in a hurry.
  Mr. Assheton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great anxiety which exists on this question in all parts of the country?

  MILITARY TRAINING (CIVIL SERVANTS).
  Mr. Jaggerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now state what consideration in the matter of either bounties or allowances will be given for established and temporary civil servants, respectively, who are called up for training under the Military Training Act?
  Sir J. Simon: Civil servants called up for training under the Military Training Act will reckon the period of absence for the purposes of increment and pension but, as has already been announced, there will be no issue of civil pay in respect of this period.

  INVESTMENTS (CONTROL).
  49. Mr. Bellengerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the competition likely to occur in the money market consequent on Government and municipal loan requirements, private industrial financing, and additional capital requirements of firms under taking armament work, he will consider the desirability of setting up a National Investments Board?
  Sir J. Simon: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on this subject to my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) on 2nd May.
  Mr. Bellenger: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will not set up a National Investments Board?
  Sir J. Simon: The answer which I gave before, was to the effect that there are a number of very important considerations, not all of them one way, and I am not satisfied as to the desirability of this step.

  CHINESE CURRENCY.
  Mr. Belfengerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is still the policy of His Majesty's Government to support the exchange value of the Chinese dollar?
  Sir J. Simon: I see no reason to depart from the view that stability of the Chinese currency is of great importance

  1115
  from the point of view of British interests and of the interests of other countries which have economic and financial relations with China.
  Mr. Bellenger: Arising out of that rather ambiguous reply, are we to understand that the Government are of the same opinion as they held when they introduced the Chinese Currency Stabilisation Bill that they will support the exchange value of this dollar even though it may fall 25 per cent, after the right hon. Gentleman has given his assurance?
  Sir J. Simon: The question which I was asked was whether we would support the exchange value of the Chinese dollar, and I answered it by saying that we think that the question of Chinese currency is an important one, but I am not making any declaration as to what future action we may take.
  Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are still going to supoprt the exchange value of the Chinese dollar, and has he sufficient resources available for this purpose?
  Sir J. Simon: If further resources were needed they could only be authorised by legislation.

  NATIONAL DEBT COMMISSIONERS (UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS).
  Mr. Sextonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the average value for the past five years of unclaimed dividends shown in the National Debt Commissioners' accounts; and the average value for the same period of the capital from which those unclaimed dividends accrued?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I should first point out that dividends are transferred to the National Debt Commissioners when they have been unclaimed for five years, while the stock on which dividends have not been claimed is not so transferred until the expiration of 10 years. The average yearly amount received by the Commissioners over the last five years by way of unclaimed dividends on stock not yet transferred to them was £3,054, the average value of the stock in question being estimated at
  1116
  approximately £100,000. The average amount received by way of dividends on transferred stock was £28,470, the average amount of such stock being £1,212,240.
  Mr. Silverman: Is there any period of limitation beyond which the original owner of the dividends or stock, would not have his claim heard?
  Captain Crookshank: I would like notice of that question.
  Mr. Sextonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the capital producing dividends which are unclaimed and in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners is cancelled after a period of years; whether such cancelled capital goes to reduce the National Debt; and what is the total amount of such cancellation in the last five years?
  Captain Crookshank: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second and third parts of the question accordingly do not arise.

  STEAMSHIP "BARONESA" (EXPLOSION).
  Mr. Logan (by Private Notice)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the cause of the loss of four lives on the steamship "Baronesa" on Saturday, the 1st instant; what is the condition of the survivor; does he intend to be represented at the inquest; and what action, if any, does he intend to take to acknowledge the service of those who formed the rescue party?
  Mr. Stanley: I have learnt with deep regret of this unfortunate accident in the "Baronesa," and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with the relatives of the men who lost their lives. A full preliminary inquiry into the facts was at once ordered by the Board of Trade, and it would be premature for me to express any opinion as to the cause of the explosion until a complete report is available. I have made arrangements for the Board of Trade officer who is undertaking the inquiry to be present at the inquest. I am informed that the fifth man who suffered injuries has now been discharged from hospital. The matter mentioned in the last part of

  1117
  the question will, of course, be one for consideration when the full facts are established.
  Mr. Logan: Will the right hon. Gentleman make note of the heroism shown in the rescue work on this dangerous job?
  Mr. Stanley

MERCHANDISE MARKS.
Mr. A. Edwards: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926."
The Bill provides that so much of Subsection (1) of Section 10 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, as defines the expression "indication of origin" is repealed, and the following definition substituted: "Indication of origin" means, in the case of goods manufactured or produced in Germany, Italy or Japan, or in their dominions, colonies, protectorates or mandated terrntories, a definite indication of the country in which the goods were produced or manufactured. The indication shall be given in all cases conspicuously. The Bill also provides that where any treatment or process results in a substantial change in the goods, the indication of origin shall be given by a definite indication that the treatment or process was undergone in that particular country. The Bill also provides that the Act may be cited as the Merchandise Marks Act, 1939.
We have had many instances brought to the notice of the House recently of abuses of the present law. As the law stands it is sufficient for any of these countries exporting goods to this country to mark them as of foreign origin, and the word "foreign" does not give the slightest indication of the country of origin. Recently we had brought to our notice a consignment of tinned salmon from Japan to this country. On the tins is stamped "Can" with the deliberate intention of giving the impression that their country of origin is Canada. As the law stands we are not given the opportunity of using our own discretion. The law actually favours these particular countries and enables them to ship their goods here under false pretences. The law prevents any citizen of this country, who may not wish to trade with these countries but may even prefer to buy British, to exercise his own discretion.
1118
From the expressions of opinion in this House in recent weeks it is obvious there is almost a unanimous feeling that something should be done about this, and I believe the Government themselves have indicated that the present state of affairs is not at all satisfactory. Whatever else may be done in regard to this law I think it will be the opinion of the House that this much should be done at once. In the case of Japan, Italy and Germany we are literally financing the operation by which they are threatening this country. There is no doubt about that. Apart altogether from our supplying them with raw materials, we are supplying them with money. The citizens of this country ought not to be misled in the slightest degree owing to a weakness in our law. If the law is amended in the way I am suggesting in the Bill everyone will be in a position to make quite certain that any money he spends on imported foodstuffs will not have the effect of bringing nearer his own destruction. It is only right and fair that citizens of this country spending money on imported goods should be in a position to choose the countries; from which they take those goods, and the law if it were amended in the way I suggest would put them in that position. People would no longer be in the position-in which, when they imagine they are buying British, they are actually sending their money to countries which are day and night scheming to bring about the downfall of our own country.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edwards, Mr. Greenwood, Sir Charles Edwards, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Dalton, and Mr. Lathan.

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL,
"to amend the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 183.]

POOR LAW (AMENDMENT).
Miss Ward: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give discretionary powers to public assistance committees to disregard payments made in respect of holidays when assessing relief to applicants for public assistance; and for purposes connected therewith."

1119
On this particular afternoon it would be unseemly for an English Member of Parliament to take up very much of the time of the House, particularly when she represents that constituency which erected the great wall against the onslaught of the Scots, and I propose to be, I hope, com-mendably brief. The extension of the system of holidays with pay under voluntary agreements stimulated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and supported by all parties in the House, has been regarded as eminently satisfactory. A number of agreements have been reached, and not unnaturally they are in widely varying terms. For instance, the agreement with the miners is such that miners are paid a basic rate according, I think, to the age group in which they are; and those engaged in the shipbuilding and the engineering industries have a percentage of their wages put aside by the employers and given out by them to the employes when the annual holiday approaches. Every new industrial practice creates its problems, and this holidays with pay system has created a problem in the case of the unemployed man who by his own work has earned a holiday credit but finds himself unemployed at the time when that holiday credit is payable. We have managed by legislation to provide a fairly satisfactory solution for the man who is on standard benefit and the man who is receiving unemployment assistance gets a certain amount of consideration, though I am bound to say that the present position is not entirely satisfactory, I was glad, therefore, to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour say the other day that he would look into the position of these men again. But, without doubt, the man who has earned a holiday credit and at the time when it is payable finds himself dependent on Poor Law relief has no legal protection whatever. As the law stands public assistance committees are obliged, when assessing the needs of applicants for relief, to take into consideration any holiday credits which may be payable to them.
I think I am right in saying that we should all agree that a man's enjoyment of the holiday credit which he has earned by his own work should not depend on "whether at the time of its payment he is employed or unemployed, and the purpose of my Bill is to give discretionary powers to public assistance committees to
1120
disregard any holiday credit which had become payable to an applicant applying for relief. I think I am also justified in saying that this power would be welcomed by, at any rate, some public assistance committees within my own knowledge. I feel that the House will be generous enough to accord me its permission to bring in my Bill to-day, but there is one point which I would like to put to the responsible Minister. I am very well aware that the Bill will make no progress unless I can get the support and the co-operation of the Minister of Health. If the Minister of Labour, representing the Government Department, asks employers to grant these holiday payments as a matter of national policy I think I am logical when I ask the Minister of Health to present the case for co-operation to the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association on the basis that their co-operation in the working of the Bill would be welcomed by the Government, and I hope this is the way in which the Minister will present the case for cooperation on this Bill. I have briefly outlined the purpose of my Bill, and I hope that I may be given permission to introduce it.
Mr. Batey rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member rise to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Batey: I am going to say one or two words in opposition to it, although I am not going to carry any opposition I feel to it to a Division. I wish to say a word or two on the shortcomings of the Bill. The hon. Lady is asking that holiday pay should not be taken into consideration by public assistance committees and with that we agree, but why stop there? Holiday pay is taken into consideration by the Unemployment Assistance Board. Public assistance committees are dealing only with one or two cases, and why the hon. Lady should not include in her Bill—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is taking advantage of the opportunity to oppose the Bill in order to discuss Amendments that he would like to make to it, and that is out of order.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Ward, Mr. Storey, Mr. Magnay, Sir Alexander Russell, Mr. Denville, and Brigadier-General Spears.

POOR LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL,
"to give discretionary powers to public assistance committees to disregard payments made in respect of holidays when assessing relief to applicants for public assistance; and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Second Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—

Local Government Amendment (Scotland) Bill,

Unemployment Insurance Bill,

Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries (Superannuation) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Coast Protection Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Merthyr Tydfil Corporation, Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

COAST PROTECTION BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill185.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [10TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel Clifton Brown in the Chair.]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1939.
    CLASS V.

      DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR SCOTLAND.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £2,602,227, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Health for Scotland; including grants, a grant in aid and other expenses in connection with housing, certain grants to local authorities, etc., grant in aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service, grants in aid in respect of National Health Insurance benefits, etc.; certain expenses in connection with Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions, and other services."—[Note: £1,410,000 has been voted on account.]
      4.0 p.m.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): On a previous occasion Scottish Members of Parliament earned the admiration of their English and Welsh friends by instituting a self-denying ordinance in the matter of the length of their speeches. I understand that to-day, while we have no hard-and-fast rule, we shall attempt to allow as many Members as possible to join in the Debate and for that reason make our speeches short; but I must claim a special dispensation in opening the Debate, for last year when we had an ordinance and I tried to adhere to it and keep my speech within 20 minutes, I was criticised, and perhaps fairly criticised, for being too sketchy in my presentation of the Estimates. While I cannot hope to cover the whole ground in my talk, because the work of my Department is so varied, I shall ask the leave of the Committee to take a little longer than 20 minutes.
      Let me deal first with the figures. Again this year the amount asked for the work of the Department is increased. The net increase is a sum of over £270,000 and that brings up the total Estimate to over £4,000,000. Housing accounts for the greater part of the increase, but hon.
      1144
      Members will have observed that among the other items showing increases are the maternity services, the Highlands and Islands Medical Services, and several others which I shall mention later. Items that show the more important decreases come under the head of National Health Insurance, and these decreases are due partly to a windfall from the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund and in greater measure to the lower rate of sickness among the general insured population in 1938. There is a new item this year, namely, the grants to local authorities for cancer treatment—the beginning of what I hope will be an effective aid in the fight against this disease.
      Before I discuss the health services generally there is one point on which I shall say a word. Hon. Members will realise that the Department of Health for Scotland, like many other Government Departments, is working at high pressure on emergency work. The Scottish Departments are all affected to a greater or less extent by this emergency work, but none more so than the Department of Health. While the Agriculture Department and the Education Department also have duties of a special nature to perform just now, the Health Department is especially called on for very heavy work in connection with emergency preparations. This emergency work, the Civil Defence work of the Department, includes the organisation of the emergency hospital service, nursing, dental and other personnel, the approval of first-aid posts and ambulance schemes made by local authorities, the evacuation scheme and the provision of camps. The Estimate for that work is not before us to-day and so I cannot discuss it in detail and shall merely give an indication of its scope. There will be coming before the House Supplementary Estimates of upwards of £2,000,000 for that special work in the Department of Health alone. Salaries have increased by some £24,000, and part of that increase is due to emergency work.
      I ask hon. Members to remember that background of high pressure on emergency work in relation to the normal work which we are also carrying on. I would not like to put a percentage on the time which the officials of the Department spend on emergency work, but it is a high percentage. That is true of

      1145
      local authorities as well. I think, however, that the Committee would wish this to be a review of the normal peace-time work of the Department in improving the health and social conditions of the Scottish people. I want, in passing, to assure hon. Members that the Civil Defence work is being pressed forward with speed and thoroughness. It is involving heavy burdens on the local authorities and their staffs and I want to say how grateful I am for the splendid way in which the local authorities have responded to the special demand which has been made upon them. But these burdens are being made easier to carry because of the ready and enthusiastic co-operation of the various voluntary organisations. I say in all sincerity that in Scotland there is nothing wrong in the spirit of the people in answering this very heavy call upon them.
      I have said that we must set the fact of this pressure alongside the usual facts and figures by which in these Debates we endeavour to assess the work of the Department. On no previous occasion has that pressure been anything like so great. Our work in the Department is directed to an endeavour to improve the social conditions of Scotland and to bring more security against sickness and other hazards. Let me give one or two figures to illustrate certain trends. There can be no doubt now that our health and other social services are returning a substantial dividend in the form of improved health standards for the people generally. I do not suggest that we have not still a long way to go or that the rate of improvement is as fast as I should like to see it. Nevertheless those who are accustomed to painting the picture as black as black can be ought occasionally to be shown the brighter side of it and to be told that even in these difficult times there are many trends which are not unsatisfactory.
      The general death rate, the infant death rate and the tuberculosis death rate for last year, as shown in the report of the Department, were all the lowest recorded in Scotland. Our infant death rate I still regard as too high. In Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen it is now less than half what it was at the beginning of the century. The rate in Glasgow has been reduced from 121 in 1910 to 87 in 1938. Some may say that that is
      1146
      not as low as the rate in some parts of England, and I agree, but none the less we must bear in mind that the problem is yielding to the treatment which is being applied. In Glasgow alone, which is indeed a great part of our problem, the rate has been reduced from 121 to 87. These reduced death rates do not mean, as in some quarters it was at one time feared they might mean, that the weaklings were being helped to survive and that in consequence the racial stock would be weakened. That is not the fact. Our school health records show that in height and weight and general vitality the children at different ages are better physically than their predecessors. In Glasgow the boys of 13 are 7½ 1b. heavier and two inches taller than the boys examined in 1920; the girls are 9 lb. heavier and two inches taller. That is a cheering fact, and shows that in spite of all the difficulties and the need for improving housing conditions the physical standard of our children has improved. I was proud the other day when I heard that the high physical standard of the militiamen who came up for medical examination was as general in Scotland as in England and Wales. We should look at these facts and take from them the cheer that is our due.
      Other evidence presented by the Department points in the same direction, but I need hardly assure the Committee that this all-round improvement does not justify complacency. It must be an encouragement to continued effort, and that is how I regard it. I want to mention one or two Measures which Parliament has authorised to strengthen and extend our health services. First, there is the Maternity Services Act, which Parliament passed in 1937. The initial difficulties are now being overcome and the Act is being brought into operation in different parts of Scotland. Schemes under the Act are in operation in the areas of 14 local authorities, another nine schemes have been approved and are to come into operation shortly, and the schemes of the 30 remaining local authorities are being considered. Many of these are at an advanced stage. We look to those schemes to reinforce our efforts to reduce maternal mortality and to improve generally the health services for mothers and children.
      Mr. West wood: Are these mainly schemes that are approved merely, or are

      1147
      they schemes that are working as a result of an arrangement come to with the medical profession?
      Mr. Colville: As hon. Members know, a difficulty has been the reaching of an agreement with the medical profession in certain areas. The schemes I have mentioned are in fact in operation.
      Mr. Kirkwood: What is the trouble with the medical authorities?
      Mr. Colville: It has been spoken of in this House before. There was a disagreement as to the rates which should be paid, but that is being overcome and I hope will be completely overcome as a result of friendly negotiations. We must take the medical profession with us and get their wholehearted co-operation. I do not want to say anything here that will exacerbate feeling. The figures for last year show that the maternity rate was 4.9, not quite as good as the figure of 4.8 in 1937, but still the second lowest figure in our records. I should like to see the percentage moving the other way, and I hope that the schemes now coming into operation will soon begin to tell.
      There is another Act I must mention, the Population (Statistics) Act. We are looking to that Act to provide us with material necessary for study of the vital problem of population trends. Hon. Members know how important this matter is in nearly all branches of our administration. It affects all our social planning—our schools, the provision of social services for different classes and age groups and so on. We must know exactly these trends if we are to plan correctly. I have to make an announcement of special interest to hon. Members. It is that the population of Scotland has now passed the 5,000,000 mark. That is according to the provisional estimate of the Registrar-General for Scotland. Of course, the estimate is subject to revision. Only an actual census can give us complete and accurate figures, but, according to our estimate, the population has reached the 5,000,000 mark. I am not going to analyse the parts of the country that show an increase and those which show a decrease in population. That would be a subject for a whole speech. In these days, when there is general talk of a decline in Scotland it should be remembered that we have
      1148
      passed this important milestone. [Interuption.] An hon. Member asks me where all these people have come from. A number of English people have set up residence in Scotland or have taken up business or employment there. It is a drift which I, for one, would do nothing to discourage.
      Size of population is not everything, but the quality of the population, its age-grouping, and so on, are very important to us. For instance, we think that the increasing number of old people partly explains the increased incidence of cancer. This is one of the stubborn problems with which we have to deal in Scotland, and one reason advanced for it is that people are living longer. Parliament in May passed the Cancer Act. I hope very shortly to issue a preliminary circular to local authorities on the Cancer Act, but the full operation of the Act will depend upon exact knowledge, among other things, of the existing facilities in Scotland and what developments are desirable and where. For that purpose, I have set up an advisory committee and I hope to have its report soon. The report will be of great assistance in bringing the Act into full operation.
      Workers in this field have been inspired by success which has taken place in related fields. I can give the Committee some idea of those technicalities with, of course, the help of my Department. Last year there was recognition of the therapeutic value of the sulphanilamide compounds which open up new vistas in the treatment of certain diseases that have for a long time been the active concern of health authorities. These compounds have had a very marked success against puerperal fever, which is one of the main causes of maternal death, and there seems good promise in them that a means has been found of controlling not only that scourge but the scourge of pneumonia. I hope, now that research has come to our aid, that we may be able to use new scientific methods to grapple with some of the subtle problems with which we have had to deal, including those of maternal mortality.
      I would just like to refer to the Highlands and Islands medical service. Neither Lowlander nor Highlander will deny the excellence of that service. It was established just before the War, and it now

      1149
      requires £106,000 this year, which is two-and-a-half times the amount originally voted. The amount last year was £96,000. The work done by this service is very valuable in the Highlands and Islands. I am glad that £10,000 more is to go into this fund. The two principal reasons for the increase are that it is wanted for assistance towards the cost of a general hospital at Lerwick, and for additions to the general hospital at Stornoway in Lewis. These two hospitals are essential links in the chain of medical services, comprising doctors, nurses, hospitals and specialists, that now serve the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I think hon. Members who know the area will agree that it is admirably served. I should like to mention the air-ambulance service between the Western Isles and the Renfrew Air Port. It continues to prove a boon in urgent cases. In 1938 36 patients were transported by air to hospital at Glasgow under the grant-assisted schemes of the county councils of Argyll and Inverness. This is a type of health service which I should like to see developed and extended wherever possible. The swift and easy flight in the aeroplane as compared with the long journey from the Islands to hospital in the old days, may very well make all the difference between life and death in urgent cases.
      In regard to the hospital services of Scotland generally I can say that progress is being made. A great deal of emergency work is done in the hospitals, but there are still deficiencies. Schemes for repairing those deficiencies are under way in several areas, and include a large new general and maternity hospital, a new fever hospital in Lanarkshire and schemes for co-operation among local authorities in other parts of Scotland for new and extended hospital services. In this, as in some other branches of the public service, the grants available under the Special Areas legislation have been of considerable help.
      Now I would say a word about National Health Insurance. The number of persons, apart from juvenile contributors, coming within the scope of this scheme increased last year by nearly 200,000. The contribution income for full insurance increased by £34,000, bringing it to £2,913,000. On the other hand, the expenditure on cash benefits per head declined from 4.89d. in 1937 to 4.40d. in
      1150
      1938. That increase in numbers and income reflects the improved industrial position in Scotland. The decline in expenditure on cash benefits reflects a lower sickness rate. Those are both gratifying trends, due to the improved industrial position. The average cost was the lowest since 1934. I am glad to say that Scotland shares in the drop in unemployment to the extent of 22,000. Irrespective of party we are all glad that there has been this improvement in Scotland. We have not always shared in improvements, for other reasons, but I am glad that we are getting our share now and I hope that it will be reflected in the figures in time to come.
      Mr. Maxton: What does "per head" mean?
      Mr. Colville: Per head of the insured population. It would be dangerous to build too much upon this improvement. Our old enemy influenza has been busy during the middle of the winter months of 1939 and sickness expenditure has been increased accordingly. An idea of the scope of this scheme may be gathered from the fact that the total amount paid out in benefits amounted in 1938 to over £3,500,000. Under the related scheme of contributory pensions, a sum of £8,500,000 a year is paid out in Scotland in the form of pensions and allowances. The voluntary pensions scheme completed its first year on 3rd January, 1939, and so far some 41,200 persons have been admitted.
      Now let us turn to milk. I would say a word about our various milk schemes. Good progress has been made in the efforts to improve the quality of milk in Scotland. A point of special interest is that nearly half the liquid milk consumed in Scotland is the produce of graded herds. It was less than a quarter the previous year. The schemes for the supply of milk at reduced prices to children attending school have been continued, and there is a new scheme for milk at reduced prices to nursing and expectant mothers and children under five years of age. The intention of this scheme is that one pint of milk a day free, or at a price not exceeding 2d. a pint, should be supplied. I have brought this scheme to the notice of local authorities and the reception has been favourable. Proposals by Glasgow to give effect to the scheme have been approved and several other areas have

      1151
      submitted draft proposals. Others are formulating them.
      In order to give a complete picture of the activity of the Department I must deal with the biggest social problem of Scotland, that of housing. I have always said since I had anything to do with the work of the Scottish Departments that housing is our greatest problem. In some areas of Scotland I see that it is yielding to treatment, but in other areas the difficulty is almost as great as ever. Local authorities last year completed 19,160 houses. That is the highest number of houses built in any year by the local authorities of Scotland and that alone is matter for congratulation. Last year was in some ways a difficult year. Owing to Defence demands there were many new issues to be faced, and the fact that local authorities were able to build a record number of houses in that year should not be lost sight of; praise is due to them to that extent. The number completed in the previous year was 13,341. Hon. Members will see that local authorities had therefore increased by 43 per cent. their building of working-class houses between 1937 and 1938.
      Mr. McGovern: Is it not the case that some of those houses were passed years ago?
      Mr. Colville: I am just coming to the number under construction now, in order to show that there will be a steady improvement from now on. The hon. Member knows that various factors have held up the building of houses. During 1938, private enterprise built 6,900 houses, making a total of some 26,666 for the year, the highest figure ever recorded.
      Mr. Buchanan: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that 6,900 working-class houses were built by private enterprise? Does the figure exclude those which were not built for the working class?
      Mr. Colville: I am speaking of the working-class type comparable with houses built by local authorities for that purpose. I am sorry to say that that effort is not general. It is rather localised in the eastern areas round about Edinburgh. The 6,900 are working-class houses as we know them.
      Mr. West wood: Were the 6,900 houses built to let?
      Mr. Colville: A considerable number of the houses are being built to let, in the schemes in the Edinburgh area. I quite recognise that from the working man's point of view the fact that houses are to let is of primary importance.
      Sir John Train: Are there any owner-occupied houses in that figure and, if so, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the proportion of owner-occupied and the proportion of those built to let?
      Mr. Colville: I do not think I can give my hon. Friend those proportions. Perhaps at the end of the Debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may be able to handle those figures. I know from experience that a fair proportion are to let besides those which become the property of a man by instalments. The point that I am putting is that the total was some 26,000 for last year.
      Mr. McGovern: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee where the 26,000 are?
      Mr. Colville: I am going to speak about some of the areas where these houses are, but if I went over the whole of Scotland giving details I should be talking until Eleven o'Clock. The rate of completion has been more than maintained in 1939. During the first five months of the year, local authorities completed 8,160 houses. That compares with 7,341 in the corresponding five months of 1938. That is quite an improvement. If this output is maintained, last year's record ought to be exceeded in 1939. At 31st May this year 26,600 houses were under construction and 8,800 were awaiting commencement, making a total of 35,400 in hand. I have no doubt that those given as awaiting commencement at 31st May have been mostly started by now. The improved rate of progress has been made possible by an increase in the available supply of skilled labour and materials. The effect of the agreement reached in 1937 through the Joint Consultative Committee of the Building Trades is now being felt. That agreement provided, among other things, for increasing the ratio of apprentices to journeymen in the trades where there was a shortage. That housing has shared in the increased supply of operatives is shown by the fact that the number of bricklayers engaged on local authorities' schemes rose from 2,637 in December, 1936, to 3,810 in December, 1938, and

      1153
      the number of joiners from 2,220 to 4,058 in the same period. Therefore, there is a gratifying improvement in the number of these tradesmen coming into the work of the local authorities on housing schemes.
      Mr. Max ton: The right hon. Gentleman says that an agreement was made in 1937 to increase the number of apprentices, and then he says the number of skilled people in the building trade two years later has increased by 1,000. Obviously it could not be additional apprentices since 1937, because they would not have completed their apprenticeship until 1938. How has the increase come about?
      Mr. Colville: The figure includes apprentices working. I think that is correct, but if I have made a slip, I will correct it later in the Debate. Coupled with this increase in the labour supply, there has been, on the whole, an adequate supply of building materials. Occasionally there are local delays through late deliveries, but there has been no complaint of any general shortage of materials for some time now. Despite the many difficulties that have had to be faced, much has been achieved. Since 1919 a total of 313,000 working-class houses have been built by local authorities and private enterprise in Scotland. That is to say, one working-class house to every four in Scotland is of post-war construction, with all modern conveniences. Inroads are being made into slum clearance and overcrowding. Local authorities have dealt with a total of 73,000unfit houses, from which 330,000 persons have been rehoused, and in. addition, since 1st April, 1936, 43,000 families have been rehoused from overcrowded accommodation.
      So far so good. But I do not want to fall into an easy optimism, because we have slum areas where still very great progress is required. We still need in Scotland some 230,000 additional houses to clear the slums and overcrowding. In Glasgow alone about 60,000 are needed. There was a question on the Order Paper to-day that was not reached asking the present rate of housing progress in Glasgow, and if my remembrance of the figure is correct, the anticipation of the corporation is that they will build some 3,000 houses this year. That is an improvement on last year and on the year before, but, as hon. Members will see, it will take
      1154
      20 years at that rate to meet the deficiency.
      Mr. Stephen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the wastage in Glasgow?
      Mr. Colville: I understand that it is about 2,000.
      Mr. Buchanan: Does that allow for an increase of population?
      Mr. Colville: That is taken into account. What we are doing now, even if better than we have done in the past, is not good enough, and difficulties are looming ahead. As I said earlier, the Defence programme is making very heavy demands on the building industry in Scotland, and it is against this background—and here I come to a point which has been the subject of Parliamentary questions lately—of a clamant need for 230,000 houses to clear the slums and overcrowding, which is so inadequately being met, that we must consider the proposals that have recently been renewed for reconditioning and the provision of houses for general purposes, for young couples and so on. It is a demand which is strongly put forward, but I have to consider it in relation to the general problem. I told hon. Members, when the subject was last discussed in this House, in November, on the Housing Bill, that I do not seek to minimise the case for reconditioning. I am aware too of the demand for accommodation, particularly for young married couples, and I showed my sympathy with that demand by certain administrative changes which I made. I have already indicated to local authorities that they might allocate to such couples a proportion up to one-third of the existing houses falling vacant each year. Whether they do that or not depends on how they have been able to meet the demand for slum clearance and overcrowding. I cannot at present promise to introduce legislation on these points. Apart from the fact that housing subsidies as a whole were only recently renewed and in certain cases substantially increased, any enlargement of the field of subsidised building at this moment would, with the present difficulties about the supply of labour, merely result in the slowing down of work under the Slum Clearance and Overcrowding Acts. At the same time, I am arranging to meet representatives of

      1155
      the Convention of Royal Burghs in Edinburgh, on 14th July, to hear their views of the whole subject, and I shall, of course, carefully consider what they say.
      As hon. Members know, the policy of building by alternative methods, mainly timber and poured concrete, was adopted as one of the measures to solve the problem of shortage of materials and labour. These alternative methods are a supplement to, and are not intended to supersede, the traditional methods or to cut into their maximum capacity. The housingposition in Scotland is such as to remove any danger of that kind. The danger at the moment is all the other way. Those who employ the traditional methods were a little doubtful and suspicious of our experiments with timber and poured concrete, in case they would cut into their livelihood, but, as I see it, there is no such danger in Scotland. The local authorities and the Scottish Special Housing Association have placed contracts for 3,195 timber houses. They have also placed contracts for 3,896 poured concrete houses. The rate at which the houses are completed, should, in the ordinary course, accelerate rapidly now, and we might in ordinary circumstances anticipate rapid progress in the Special Housing Association's programme of about 33,500 houses by alternative methods.
      Mr. Buchanan: Are any of these new contracts for Glasgow?
      Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir. The trouble is that the circumstances are not ordinary. There is an abnormal demand for timber, for example, and for joiners for the building of school camps, emergency hospitals, and camps for the Militia. There is some risk of a shortage of joiners and of timber. I am carefully watching the situation. It has not become acute up to now in our timber housing programme, but I can see a possible difficulty there. On the question of the supplies of timber, I am in touch with the Board of Trade and the suppliers and with the building industry on the question of labour supply and doing all that is possible to plan ahead. The Committee will remember that as a result of the passing of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, the Association were authorised to build
      1156
      a number of demonstration housing schemes outside the Special Areas. The Committee will also remember that previously they confined their operations to the Special Areas and that last year we enabled them to build in any part of Scotland, and I would like to report some progress there. The association have made offers to 25 county councils and 53 town councils to build a total of some 8,000 houses in their districts—demonstration houses. Of these, 3,550 have been offered to the four cities, namely, Glasgow, 1,750, Dundee 800, and Edinburgh and Aberdeen 500 each.
      Mr. Buchanan: When was this offer made?
      Mr. Colville: Within the last month, I think. Endeavours are being made to spread the remaining houses widely over the country, and they have been offered to authorities as far apart as Lerwick in the North and Dumfries and Jedburgh in the South.
      Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can my right hon. Friend recall what are the conditions under which those houses are offered to the burghs?
      Mr. Colville: There is no charge to the burghs at all. They are built entirely by the Housing Association, so that from the point of view of the local authorities they are indeed quite a useful assistance to their housing programmes. They are to demonstrate in the particular area the use of alternative materials, and no charge falls on the local authorities.
      Mr. West wood: Does it assist the local authorities to meet the normal development of the population? Is it not merely an addition to the local authorities' programme to deal with overcrowding and the unfit houses?
      Mr. Colville: That is true.
      Mr. West wood: Would it not have been advisable, in the interests of housing success in Scotland, to remove that condition and enable something to be done to deal with the normal development of the population in each area?
      Mr. Colville: I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The difficulty is that still the great problem of overcrowding remains. Up to date the association's offer has been accepted by

      1157
      nine authorities, covering 1,730 houses as follows: Edinburgh has accepted 500 houses, Dundee 800, Dumfries 60, Camp-beltown 35, Prestonpans 20, Tranent 20, Stranraer 20, West Lothian County 250, and East Lothian County 25. Ten other authorities have indicated their willingness to accept the association's offer.
      Mr. Buchanan: What is Glasgow doing?
      Mr. Colville: I do not know, but, as I said, the offer in the case of Glasgow was of 1,750 houses.
      Mr. Buchanan: Has it been accepted?
      Mr. Colville: I do not know, but my anxiety is that it should be accepted at once. I should make it clear that these houses are to be built by the association for demonstration purposes. They will, of course, make a contribution towards the local housing needs, but the local authorities' duty of providing the houses needed will continue. The point is that the association will help those authorities which are also helping themselves.
      Mr. Westwood: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he tell the Committee whether, in the construction of these houses and of the 3,896 poured concrete houses, they are erecting wooden windows or iron frame windows, particularly in view of the fact that, from information that I have, none of the iron or steel windows can be made in Scotland by private work?
      Mr. Colville: I think perhaps the hon. Member might leave that point to be answered later in the Debate. Hon. Members will recall the time that was taken up last year in the discussion of high building costs and the need for additional subsidies. Specific action has since been taken on both points. Following the Debate on the subject, I appointed the Committee on Scottish Building Costs:
      "To inquire and report as to the reasons for the increase in the cost of building working-class houses in Scotland."
      The Committee submitted their report in March, when it was published. They classify the causes of the increased building costs under three major heads, namely:

      (i) The overloaded market, with the attendant rise in the cost of both labour and materials.

      1158

      (ii) The improvement in the standard of house provided.

      (iii) The lack of efficient organisation.

      Figures which the Committee quote show that the average tender costs of houses of all types and sizes rose from £282 at the end of 1934 to £436 at the end of 1938, and they allocate this increase in the proportion of 50 per cent. for increases in building costs, that is to say materials, wages and profits, and 50 per cent. for the improvement in the standard of house provided—improved finish, a larger proportion of big houses and of cottages, and extra floor area. The Committee conclude that the weight of evidence submitted to them shows clearly that the increase is the cumulative result of many factors, most of which, if taken singly, would not be of much significance, and their investigations have not confirmed the view that the rise in housing costs is mainly attributable to a ramp in price
      The Joint Consultative Committee of the Building Trades have been asked to consider the comments of the Committee on Scottish Building Costs with regard to maladjustment between the different trades, which are stated to be disproportionately manned in relation to each other over the country as a whole. They have also been asked to consider the question of a further increase in the supply of building labour, the maintenance of an even flow of building contracts, and the lack of co-ordination between the different trades engaged on housing schemes, all of which matters have a bearing on building costs. I have also asked the three associations of local authorities to furnish me with their observations on what the committee say in their report with regard to the standardisation of fittings, the question of the bulk purchases of material, and the use by neighbouring authorities of the same type plans to secure keen tender prices. I shall consider what further action should be taken on the report when I have received replies from the Joint Consultative Committee and the associations of local authorities on the various points. I should like to take this opportunity of publicly expressing my thanks to Mr. James Barr, the chairman, and the other members of the Scottish Building Costs Committee, for the comprehensive and illuminating survey which

      1159
      they made of the causes of the rise in building costs, and for the work which they put in.
      Mr. Stephen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the committee were not asked to inquire into the dearness of houses in Scotland as compared with England? I raised this matter last year in the Debate, and thought it would have been referred to the committee. Would not the right hon. Gentleman now, in addition to the questions which have been put to this committee, ask them to compare the respective figures for Scotland and England, and the reasons why houses are so much more expensive to build in Scotland?
      Mr. Colville: It was within the general cope of the committee to make what inquiries they thought necessary for the purposes of their report. If I thought that any purpose would be served at this date by looking into that matter, I should not hesitate to do so, and I shall certainly bear it in mind. I did not lay it down that the committee should not examine the relationship between costs in Scotland and in England, but I wanted them to report as early as possible, and such an investigation might have entailed considerable delay.
      Mr. Stephen: The terms of reference did not definitely include that matter, and possibly the right hon. Gentleman's Committee thought that it would not help, but it is the fact that in England they have been able to get the houses, and one reason for that is that they have been cheaper than in Scotland.
      Mr. Colville: As the hon. Member knows, there are a number of reasons why house-building in England has been more rapid than in Scotland, but if I followed that up I should keep the Committee too long. I will bear the problem in mind.
      With regard to the question of subsidies, the demand for higher housing subsidies which was made during the Debate last year was met in the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act passed in December. That Act, which improves the rate of subsidy, has been generally well received and has been operated by the local authorities. As regards rural housing, two Acts were passed last year
      1160
      for the improvement of rural housing conditions. The first provided special grants for new houses to meet the needs of the agricultural population, and under this Act every county council but one has adopted a scheme for the assistance of private owners in the building of new houses. In addition, county councils are at present making surveys of their districts to enable them to form schemes for the building of houses themselves in those localities where they are needed. The other Act continued the grants available for the reconstruction and improvement of existing houses. Under these powers, about 29,000 houses have been reconstructed in Scotland.
      I think I have been able to show that, in the matter of housing in Scotland, the past year has not been an idle one, either in the matter of legislation or in the matter of administration. We have been urging and assisting local authorities with varying degrees of success in their problems. In 1938, a record number of houses was constructed, and the trend in the early months of 1939 was still in an upward direction.
      In the matter of town planning, we were slow in Scotland to start, but, having found a good thing, we are applying ourselves to this work with vigour. Last year the area of land under planning control was nearly doubled. At the end of May this year, the area under control was further substantially increased to over 1,800,000 acres, or more than three times what it was at the end of 1937. We can look forward to a further advance this year, and within a comparatively short time fully three-quarters of the land in Scotland that is likely to be developed or redeveloped, including nearly the whole of the industrial belt will be under planning control.
      I have been able to cover, in the time at my disposal, only a part of the work of the Department, but the Debate will provide opportunities for raising many questions. The work of the Department of Health is generally appreciated by the people of Scotland, irrespective of party. As in past years, I have no doubt that in this year's Debate the criticisms that may be made will be concerned less with what is being done than with something more which hon. Members may consider should be done. I welcome such criticisms, but I would ask hon. Members to keep in

      1161
      mind the very abnormal conditions under which central and local government is working to-day. It is not the least of the evils of the present state of international tension that we have to divide our minds and to divert our energies to so large an extent from the constructive work of peace. But I submit that the Department of Health has made, and is making, a notable contribution to the health and happiness and well-being of our people, and the fact that we have been able, in these difficult times, not only to maintain but to extend the services for which the Department is responsible in Scotland, is no small tribute to the resource of our nation.
      4.55 p.m.
      Mr. T. Johnston: In the last analysis, the great test of the success or failure of the efforts of our Health Department in Scotland must be found in the physical condition of our people. Do they eat more? Do they eat more food of better quality? Do they live longer. Do they live healthier? These factors we can measure year by year and decade by decade. Judging by these tests and standards, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that our efforts have not been in vain. We arc improving, and, while there is a great deal to criticise and there are many changes still which ought to take place, no good purpose is served nationally by crying "stinking fish" at every effort we make. It is less than 100 years since a sanitary report was made by Lord Playfair on Buckingham Palace, which, if it were published today, would result in a closing order being made. Scurvy has gone. It is true that Townshend's army at Kut had to surrender because of scurvy, but scurvy has gone as a disease among our people. Typhoid has gone as have infantile diarrhoea and smallpox; and even rheumatism, which killed Burns at 37, does not affect us now on an average at such an early age. People live 15 years longer, on an average, than they did half a century ago. We eat food of better quality due perhaps to refrigeration, and I would repeat the plea I have made to the right hon. Gentleman to consider urging local authorities to provide small refrigerators in many of our new housing schemes. In my view a refrigerator will be one of the necessities of the future— as great a necessity in every home as a separate water-closet. We eat better,
      1162
      owing, perhaps, to sanitation and better water supply, perhaps in part to American devices in canning fruit and the preparation of fruit juices, and even, it may be in part, to milk bars. We are changing our diet, and eat food of better quality.
      But, when that has been said, we must recollect that there are great differences in clinical tests, and we need not be so simple as the Minister of Labour, who cries whoopee so gleefully when he gets figures of the results of the militiamen's examination on entering the Army. He gets figures showing that 92 per cent. of the young militiamen are fit, and he thinks all is well, but it all depends upon the clinical tests in these examinations. I was with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour), the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter) and others a fortnight ago at Stirling Castle, examining the medical records of the young men who had joined in the ordinary way in the ranks of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, and beyond all doubt these young fellows, in their first 16 weeks in the Army, added on an average 9 lbs. to their weight. I say nothing about their educational standard; I will say something later about the number of illiterates in Scotland; but that they added 9 lbs. to their weight on an average is an undoubted fact. Indeed, there were extreme cases where they had added a stone and a half to their weight in 16 weeks.These figures indicate that there is an insufficiency of food, and a wrong kind of feeding, outside, and we shall have to pay more attention to that.
      The Scottish Health Services report said that our figures were disquieting compared with the Welsh and English figures, and I think that that epithet is justified. The rejection rate was 35 per cent. for recruits for the Royal Air Force. We have appalling National Health Insurance figures. While it is true that they are better than they were last year, they still show 417,000 cases of sickness and incapacity in Scotland in the course of the year, and 31,000 of our insured population were out of work for a whole year because of sickness. There must be a tremendous avoidable sickness and suffering in the ranks of old age pensioners. Everybody knows that the allowance of 10s. a week is insufficient and that nobody can live on it, and everybody knows that these amounts have to be supplemented in thousands of cases from public assist-

      1163
      ance sources. We get the borough of Coatbridge requiring to levy its ratepayers over is. in the £ to make good the deficiencies in the nutritional standards of old age pensioners. That gives some idea of the picture of the suffering which must be inevitable on a large scale all over the country. Certainly Coatbridge is our worst, but we have Airdrie with over 11and Hamilton with 11d. In England they beat us hands down on this. Merthyr Tydfil has actually to levy a rate of 3s. 4½ in the £ to supplement the necessities of its old age pensioners. With these figures before us we may at least guess that there is a tremendous amount of suffering and under-nourishment among the aged sections of our population.
      I come for a moment to another source of under-nourishment which is not so obvious. It is a matter which I raised in this House a year ago, and to which I beg again to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention. Over a year ago there was published a report by the Council for Art and Industry on the furnishing of the working-class home. It is one of the most remarkable documents I have ever seen published by the Stationery Office. It is a remarkable economic and artistic document. Here is a committee which is unanimous that, paying trade union wages, they can furnish a home at £52 10s., and they have done it. We know that this can be done, and we are all aware of the practice that is common in our land to-day of taking thousands of poor people out of the slum dwellings and giving them the key to the four- or five-apartment house and leaving them there to furnish their homes as they choose, not caring two-pence what happens as long as they pay the rent. We know that they are hardly in these homes before they have to get furniture on the hire-purchase system, which is the most costly method of getting it, and we know that there are many cases where they can furnish only one room and provide one bed, and where all the family congregate in that one room to sleep. We know that their bed is often taken from them because of their inability to pay the weekly or monthly charges, and we know that they have to take the payments out of the stomachs of their children.
      1164
      We had one test in Cardiff where every house in the municipal schemes was tested, and we got 15 per cent. of these houses without any liquid milk going into them in the course of a year. We know also that something pretty similar is happening in large areas of our public housing schemes. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider and strengthen the circular which he sent out, I think in 1936, to the local authorities in Scotland telling them that they have powers under the Act of 1925 to provide furnishings and fittings for all the homes, urging them in the national interest to do it and urging them to buy in bulk. The recommendation of this committee is that you should buy in bulk and that the £52 cash price for furnishing a home can be steadily reduced if you buy in bulk. If you urge the local authorities to do that, my view is that we shall have a vastly better standard of health in our new housing schemes. What I am proposing is nothing very revolutionary. The Prime Minister's own town of Birmingham has gone to great lengths in what it provides. I find that it provides chests of drawers, oval mirrors, kitchen tables, Windsor armchairs, adjustable armchairs, and so on.
      Mr. McGovern: Is that a Tory Council?
      Mr. Johnston: Yes, I think so. Birmingham has gone further in this direction than any city council with which I am acquainted, but there are other councils which have made, at any rate, a beginning in this matter. There are places like Leeds and Chesterfield, and there are also places in Scotland.
      Mr. Buchanan: Glasgow has done it.
      Mr. Johnston: I think there are 19 authorities in Scotland which have done it.
      Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether any increase is made in the rent to include these extra facilities?
      Mr. Johnston: I am coming to that in a moment. In some cases they provide these things free. Glasgow provides certain things free. In other cases there is a charge made weekly, without interest, to meet the cost, and I am happy to say that in Birmingham the report is, after experience of some years, that they have not lost a farthing. That is also the case

      1165
      in Stirling County. I believe it is also the case in Kilsyth, where they have lost nothing at all. In Kilsyth they supply one bedstead to each room if the tenant desires. They are provided free. In other cases spring mattresses, sheets of felt and pillows are provided, and the total charge is 1s. a week for 38 weeks, and there is no charge for interest or collection. All I am insisting upon is this: It is rendering vain half our housing effort, so far as public health is concerned, if we simply give these people a key to the door and leave them thereafter to the mercy of hire-purchase firms who charge almost inevitably very high prices to cover risks and collecting, and so on. We know that these people have to take these charges out of their stomachs, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to take what steps are open to him to impress upon the Scottish local authorities the fact that they have these powers and that it need not cost them anyhing to better the health conditions of their people by exercising them. The people themselves would reap almost incalculable benefits by a wide development of this municipal supply system.
      Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee if the Co-operative Wholesale Society provide this furniture for £52 on the hire-purchase system?
      Mr. Johnston: The Co-operative Wholesale Society offered the Council for Art and Industry to fit up a house at £52 10s., and they have done it. The Council for Art and Industry got all the manufacturers' associations together, and. they have all agreed to provide these commodities through retailers at £52 10s., and the committee have added that if you buy in bulk you get them very much cheaper than that. In the rural parts of Scotland there is work to be done almost beyond description. In Wigtownshire, where we are trying to evacuate children, there is neither sufficient water nor sanitation. I have a report here from the Rev. Mr. Shearer, of Kirkmaiden, who says:
      "At present 70 per cent. of the houses in my parish have no form of sanitation, neither outside nor inside, wet or dry. Twenty per cent. have erected dry water closets for themselves. Only two houses out of 400 have been brought up to the standard required by the Acts."
      1166
      I hope that the Under-Secretary, when he comes to reply, will be able to say that steps will be taken by the Department to impress upon the county of Wig-town the necessity of fulfilling its obligations under the Housing Acts.
      5.14 p.m.
      Mr. Allan Chapman: If I do not follow the subject matter of the interesting speech which we have just heard, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous, because I want to concentrate on the purely housing aspect of the Debate. I found the right hon. Gentleman's speech most instructive and, at the beginning, generous. I think the whole Committee enjoyed it.
      I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving a record in the output of houses in Scotland, despite the extremely difficult emergency conditions under which we are living—conditions during which there has been a great demand on man-power, materials and finance. I was pleased to hear of the vigorous way in which my right hon. Friend has attacked the question of alternative types of houses. I trust that he will continue to press this. I am a little uncertain how far to turn on the butter for my right hon. Friend, and how far to turn on the guns. I propose to try a little of each. After all, my right hon. Friend himself has stressed how far we are from our goal. It was only on 21st February, 1935, that the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the late Sir Godfrey Collins, who is still remembered affectionately in this House, said that well within five years all the slum property in Scotland should be a thing of the past and the families so displaced moved to better homes. At that time over one-third of the population of Scotland were living more than two to a room, and 750,000 were living more than three to a room. In June, 1938, my right hon. Friend informed me that we required 250,000 houses for slum clearance and overcrowding, and, as the result of a series of questions, I learned that 300,000 houses were without separate water-closets and 400,000 houses without baths. If we could have details of what progress has been made under those two headings of sanitation since then, the Committee would be interested.
      Four years have passed since the statement of the late Sir Godfrey Collins

      1167
      to which I have referred. I put a series of questions this afternoon to measure progress and, as a result I learned that during these four years we have achieved 23 per cent. of our programme— 56,705 houses. Although I think my right hon. Friend was able to point out that requirements were now 230,000, he qualified that by saying that there were other general needs which had to be considered. If we take these into account then 250,000 is a fair constant of our housing needs. Making allowances for what has been achieved since 1935, we still need from 173,295 to 193,295 houses —and they are not going to be put up before the five years end. I realise that that five-year period set an ideal of achievement; but it is seldom given to us to achieve our ideals. Neither do I minimise what has been done in dealing with a most difficult problem.
      The population of Scotland is some 5,000,000. One-quarter of that population is concentrated in the small area in and around Glasgow. If I refer to Glasgow, it is in no carping spirit. Here you have the greatest and most difficult housing problem in the British Isles. If the Glasgow housing problem is solved, there is no excuse for any other city or town not being able to solve theirs. Success or failure of Glasgow's housing schemes affects those in constituencies and boroughs in the immediate neighbourhood. I do not minimise the immense difficulties that Glasgow has to face; but I suggest that there is something wrong, in view of the figures I received this afternoon in answer to questions and later inquiries. In 1935 it was estimated that Glasgow required 65,000 new houses—61,000 for slum clearance and 4,000 for general needs. At the end of May this year, they had built 7,472 houses, or only 12 per cent. of their needs, while Scotland as a whole had built 23 per cent. of her needs. There is a serious disparity between these two figures. Whereas in Scotland as a whole the local authorities are building 10 houses per thousand of population, Glasgow is building only six per thousand of population. But what struck me most was the information I got as to the rate of building at the present time in Glasgow. I was cheered up on hearing from my right hon. Friend that Glasgow hopes to pass the 3,000 mark of completed houses during 1939,
      1168
      but my information is that in the first five months of 1939 Glasgow has built only 858 houses.
      Mr. McGovern: The Minister said that Glasgow had on hand 8,160 in the first five months of 1939.
      Mr. Chapman: I am referring to completed houses. In the first five months of 1939 Glasgow has completed 858. I presume there will be a great rush of completed houses between now and the end of the year to reach the point which has been suggested.
      Mr. Colville: Is my hon. Friend quoting from the answer I gave to-day?
      Mr. Chapman: Yes, answers to questions which prompted further inquiries. This is in some aspects a national question. Does the difficulty relate to labour or to the difficulty of obtaining sites or of obtaining the materials? I hope we shall be told.
      The Under-Secretary of State in the Debates on the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill set us the high ideal of turning out 35,000 houses a year for seven years for the whole of Scotland. We have got the figure up to 19,000, but there is still a considerable way to go. In Lanarkshire we require 16,000 houses; but it will be 16 or 17 years before the people of Lanarkshire are properly housed. I shall be very glad if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will inform us exactly what the Scottish Housing Association is doing. I understood him to say, when we were discussing the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, that the association hoped to build 20,000 houses inside, and 8,500 houses outside, the Special Areas, in addition to 5,000 houses already approved by the old Special Areas Housing Association. Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the figure at present is 1,750?
      There is one point that I should like to bring to my right hon. Friend's notice. It is a case that was brought to my attention as I entered the House to-day, and I do not suppose that it is an isolated case. It relates to boys who go south over the Border to the Ministry of Labour training centres, in order to become bricklayers. When their course is over, they manage to get employment in the South, but when they come home they are unable to do so. I should like the Under-

      1169
      Secretary to tell the Committee whether there is any real difficulty about that. Many boys are anxious to become skilled in a trade, but it is very discouraging if, when they have trained, they cannot get a job on returning home.
      Sir J. Train: Are they trainees or have they studied to become journeymen?
      Mr. Chapman: Trainees. I could give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary particulars if he wants them.
      If I have given my right hon. Friend the guns rather than the butter over housing, it is not because I wish to minimise what he has achieved in face of great difficulties, but I still think we are not tackling the problem on a broad enough front. We have still to face things like reconditioning, and to review our rating system; we have to encourage people to make use of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, and, above all, to get private enterprise going. Private enterprise has made a striking contribution in the South. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) last year drew attention to the fact that in England private enterprise had built 74,000 houses for letting to the working class, whereas in Scotland the number was just over 1,000. I have made inquiries, and find that, although the number built for letting has risen, it is still under 1,500. That is a negligible quantity.
      There are one or two other points I wish to put, but, like some other hon. Members, I am in danger of exceeding my time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I would like to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend a case which I believe to be symptomatic of the feeling among many of our people. He may have seen in the "Glasgow Herald" a report regarding the seizure of some new dwellings in Blantyre. Four men in my division occupied houses, which were very nearly ready for occupation, in contravention of the Trespass (Scotland) Act, 1865. Of course, they were apprehended, and when they were brought before the court an agent on behalf of the four accused pointed out that the offence was committed more as a protest than anything else. One man had been applying for a house for the last 10 years, and the other three had been doing so for approximately five years, each without success.
      1170
      The accused were now willing to give an undertaking that the attempt would not be repeated. The sheriff imposed a fine of 10s. or five days' imprisonment, and a month was allowed for payment. I cite that case because I am convinced that those men did not set out to break the law. This was an expression and an act of exasperation. When someone has been trying to get a house for 10 years, it is not surprising if he does things of that sort.
      I could tell the Committee of a case of a man with a wife and four children all of whom are living in a tent in a back garden in my division, after having shifted from pillar to post. As soon as I knew I telegraphed the county council who are doing their best. I sincerely believe that the county council, which has a tremendous task, and the Scottish Office are doing their best in housing matters but their task is gigantic and urgent.
      I would remind my hon. Friend that he has received, as I have received recently, a resolution from the Town Council of the Royal Burgh of Ruther-glen, which brings home yet one more aspect of this housing problem. The resolution reads:
      "That the Town Council is of opinion that a well-balanced housing programme should include provision for the erection of houses for occupation by tenants who do not come within the scope of the provisions of the Housing Acts relating to slum clearance or overcrowding, and they strongly urge the Government to make a subsidy available for that purpose; and that copies of this Resolution be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Department of Health, and the Member of Parliament for Rutherglen."
      I mention the resolution for this reason. I believe that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will agree with me that there is a rising feeling amongst those whose houses are above the slum clearance limit and whose houses will come into that category in the course of a few years. They are getting restive that there seems to be no provision made for them under the existing Housing Acts so that they can get the houses they want. My right hon. Friend should note this as a growing discontent.
      I conclude as I began. Leaving the guns, I come back to the butter and say to my right hon. Friend that, despite all the criticisms he will hear this afternoon, he can take confidence in the fact that he has established a record in the number of

      1171
      houses completed in a single year in Scotland. If I have emphasised what remains to be done rather than what has been achieved, it is because of my impatience with the intolerable conditions under which so many of my fellow-citizens are living at the present time.
      5.33 p.m.
      Mr. Kirk wood: I have not listened to this Debate with any great pleasure, and I do not think that the report that has been submitted by the Secretary of State for Scotland is a very cheering one. It is the usual sort of report which we have received from every Secretary of State for Scotland who has sat on that bench ever since I came to this House. I am anxious to be as nice to everybody as possible, but I must face the facts. I am sent here to state the conditions of Scotland as I see them, and the position is not that all is well, as has been represented. The Secretary of State tried to qualify that, but the picture should not be represented as a beautiful one. The right hon. Gentleman possesses information which indicates that there are conditions in Scotland which are a disgrace to Christianity. According to his own statement, 230,000 houses are still required for slum clearance and overcrowding alone. When this agitation was started just after the War the number of houses required was what it is now, roughly, 250,000. If any improvement has been made in different parts of our native land it has been because of the activities of the Socialist movement. The Secretary of State smiles, but proof is to be found in the fact that most has been done in the industrial belt of Scotland where we have got the pull. What about the conditions in rural Scotland to-day? What about the report we got from Wigtownshire?
      Mr. Colvill: What about Glasgow?
      Mr. Kirkwood: The finest rehousing scheme in Britain is to be found in Glasgow adjoining where I live, where the City of Glasgow has housed 30,000 people, and where there is no public house or pawnshop, and there is only one policeman. They have proved up to the hilt that the housing of people along those lines is a considerable asset to the city. Glasgow is not as bad as some folks would try to make out. It is endeavouring to get over the housing
      1172
      problem. I wish that the Secretary of State for Scotland was as anxious as Glasgow to get over it. When Earl Baldwin was Prime Minister he came to see the conditions in Lowland Scotland, after which a grant of an extra £1 was given. If the Secretary of State for Scotland would make up his mind, the officials at the Scottish Office would be capable of tackling this problem, but it requires money. The housing problem, as I have said time and again in this House, has to be tackled in the same way as the making of munitions. There is no other way. If anything has proved private enterprise to be a failure, it is the housing of the people of this country.
      The Secretary of State stated to-day that the infantile death rate in my native city of Glasgow in 1910 was 121, and that in 1938 it was down to 87. The excessive death rate is to be found in the working-class parts of Glasgow, and not in the well-to-do parts. That is not because well-to-do mothers are better than working-class mothers. The latter are not given a dog's chance of rearing their children properly. The death rate of children in Glasgow is alarming compared with that in the City of Birmingham. Birmingham has never had to contend with unemployment to the extent to which it has existed in the west of Scotland, where the housing conditions have also contributed to the higher death rate. It has been mentioned that the children attending elementary schools were 7½ lb. heavier and 2 inches taller in 1938 than was the case in 1920. I should like to have figures along these lines relating to Dumbarton and Clyde-bank. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) mentioned that some of the ordinary Army recruits increased in weight by as much as 14 lb. in 16 weeks, the suggestion being that it was due to better feeding. But that does not infer that working-class mothers are not feeding their sons as well as are the mothers of the middle class.
      The report of a medical officer of health in the south of Scotland stated that many of the children were reared on tea and bread, but such a statement ought to be withdrawn. The impression is created that working-class women do not know how to cook and that other individuals are required to come and instruct

      1173
      our girls in the working-class districts how to prepare a decent meal. That is pure presumption on their part. It is our lasses who cook their meals. To maintain a soldier costs £1 a day all-in, and they are improved in physique because the money is there and is used to feed, clothe, and shelter them properly. That is the whole secret. Give the working class proper housing conditions and a decent wage and working-class mothers will buy the proper food. They would not desire to buy margarine if they could afford to buy butter; they do not desire to rear their children on tea and bread. If they do, it is because they have not the wherewithal to buy anything else. If we were not the descendants of a very hardy and intelligent race we should have been wiped out long ago.
      I do not know whether this matter is within the purview of the health report, but some time ago we had the report of an investigation into tuberculosis, housing and schools in Wales. It was a staggering report, but I am satisfied that if the Secretary of State set about investigating along the same lines in Scotland he would not find anything upon which to congratulate himself. The conditions are as bad in Scotland and in England as they are in Wales. Nobody would be more pleased to shake the Secretary of State by the hand than I, irrespective of any party feeling, if he would make a determined attack on the housing conditions and the poverty conditions of Scotland, conditions which need not be. We have appealed from these benches; some of us have been appealing for more than 30 years, drawing attention to what is going on. The best blood of the British Empire is being destroyed, it is gong to waste, before our eyes, and then we are told by those who think they have all the brains, all the intelligence and all the statesmanship, that nothing can be done because it means money. Of course it means money, and the money, we have always maintained, is there. An individual asked me where the money was to come from, and I said that if there was a war looming on the horizon to-morrow there would be thousands of millions of pounds available to defend ourselves from an unknown foe.
      Here we are faced with a known foe which is murdering the children of the working classes. I can take you to my
      1174
      own constituency and show you people who are living in hellish conditions. You are asking these folk to defend the British Empire. They say to me, "Do you want us to go and fight for these conditions?" I say certainly not. It would be a good thing if Germany would come over here and drop a bomb on Burnside in Dumbarton and blow it to smithereens if we could only get the women and children out of the place first. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the House of Commons?"] I do not want the House of Commons blown up; I think it is very essential. The British House of Commons is one of the best institutions in the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Lords."] I do not know why I should be dragged on to that topic. I hope that English Members will gather round Scottish Members and support us in order that in our time we may get something done. I have been able to do very little since I came here; there are still as many houses wanted to-day as on the day I came. I cannot get away from that fact. Poverty is still rampant in the midst of plenty. We said the same thing to the Labour Government about putting people into better houses; it was only making the conditions harder; they had to starve to pay the rent. I am sure that, irrespective of party, Scotsmen are all united on the importance that something has got to be done.
      I have no desire to occupy any more time of the Committee, but something must be done regarding the Highlands of Scotland. It is a tragedy. Large parts of the Highlands are being left practically derelict, and every year I visit the Highlands I find the conditions are getting worse and worse, bracken crawling up the hillside and overwhelming what was once tillable soil. That is what is going on. I want the Secretary of State to do something. He knows that I am in earnest and would support him against the Cabinet in order to get something done for our country in our day and generation, and not leave it to somebody else to come along later on and do what we should have done in our time.
      5.52 p.m.
      Captain W. T. ShawOur attention has been directed to foreign affairs so much of late that it is pleasant that this afternoon we can give some attention to Scottish affairs. I was very interested in

      1175
      what the Secretary of State said about the increase in the population and particularly about the number of Englishmen who are going north of the Border. I hope that more English Members will make use of the educational facilities afforded by a journey across the Border; we could do with more of them. In one respect I was disappointed with the speech of the Secretary of State. He said very little about the housing conditions in rural Scotland. He spoke for about 54 minutes, and devoted only four seconds to the housing conditions of rural Scotland, which, I think, are very bad indeed. In 1937 we passed an Act called the Agricultural Population (Scotland) Act, but I seem to notice that in the Estimates for 1939 we have only expended about £160. I know that the Act has only just started to operate, but I should like to know from the Under-Secretary of State when he replies whether the Act has, in fact, been stillborn. We have been told that since the War one in four of the working-class houses in Scotland has been renewed. I should like to know what proportion of the houses in rural areas has been renewed. It is a fact that the speeding up of building in rural areas has been very much slower than in the urban areas, and I think that something should be done to improve conditions in the rural areas.
      Mr. ColvilleI pointed out that about 29,000 houses have been reconstructed in rural areas.
      Captain Shaw: I know, but I want to know how many houses have been built under that Act. There is also the question of reconditioned houses, and I should like to know how many houses have been reconditioned under the 1935 Act. Very likely the slowness in working the Act is due to the want of facilities for water supply in many of these areas. It has been stated that it is essential something should be done to provide water in many of the rural areas of Scotland, and if you look at the election manifesto of 1935 you will see that our leaders said that something would be done to help to provide rural districts with water supply. We are getting nearer another General Election, which will take place before long, and I hope that before then that promise will be redeemed.
      5.58 p.m.
      Sir Archibald Sinclair: I listened with great interest to the speech of the Secretary of State this afternoon, and I am very sorry indeed that I was called out before he finished. I left with very great reluctance, and I am sure that I express the opinion of the Committee when I say that we are glad indeed he gave us such a comprehensive speech. It is important that we should have a full statement on the Estimates from the Secretary of State. I propose to confine myself to three subjects.
      The first is the general question of public health. I am sure that no one will demur to the Secretary of State's congratulations to Scotland on the improvement in public health, on the fact that the general death rate, the infantile death rate and the tuberculosis death rate, are the lowest on record. The maternity death rate is the lowest except that of last year, and it is only slightly above that. Nevertheless, we are all equally impressed, as I am sure the Secretary of State is impressed, with the fact that there is an immense amount of leeway to be made up. Infantile mortality is still 70 per thousand as compared with 53 in England and Wales, and, while the other rates still compare unfavourably with those of England, we must be thoughtful and vigilant in considering what action can be taken to make up the leeway.
      There are three points in relation to public health which I want to mention. First, I should like to say a few words about my native Highlands. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) speak up for the Highlands, as he very often does, for he is one of our most faithful champions in the House. I was the more glad because, besides the hon. Member for Kinross and Western Perth (Mr. Snadden), I am the only representative of Highland constituencies present at this Debate. I must therefore take this opportunity of speaking on one or two questions affecting the Highlands. The Secretary of State was right when he said that we are fortunate in having the Highlands and Islands Medical Service. I am very glad that the Estimate for that service is being raised by £10,000; but that is not enough. This great service won high praise from the Departmental Committee on Scottish Health Services. The committee pointed

      1177
      to it as a model and exemplar of all that a State-aided medical service should be; but they also pointed out that its task and the task of the Highland local authorities was greater than they could perform because of the low rateable values prevailing in the Highlands, and they urged that special assistance should be given. The Committee recommended that a special grant of £50,000 a year should be made in aid of statutory health services in the Highlands and Islands. Since that time, increasing burdens have been thrown upon the Highland local authorities on the one hand, while, on the other hand, the principal industries on which the Highlands depend, agriculture and fishing, have reached even lower depths of depression than prevailed at the time when the committee reported. Therefore, a grant of £50,000 towards the statutory health services in the Highlands and Islands is even more urgently required now than it was when the Committee reported. I ask the Undersecretary of State, when he replies, to answer particularly the question whether the grant is to be given, whether a decision has yet been reached, and whether that recommendation of the Committee is to be carried out.
      Still on the question of public health, let me refer again to the leeway that has to be made up. First of all, in the Highlands we need a special grant. Secondly, when I seek for some of the causes for which our public health statistics are worse than those of other countries, I look to Appendix 15 of the report of the Department of Health for last year, in which is given a summary of the inspections of school children. It is evident from a glance at that table that one of the worst aspects of the health of school children in Scotland is the condition of their teeth. The report shows that 56.5 per cent. of the school children have from one to four teeth decayed. In Aberdeen, Glasgow and some of the counties of Scotland, more than two-thirds of the children have from one to four teeth decayed. It is shown that 14.5 per cent. have five or more teeth decayed, and in Banffshire 35.6 per cent.—more than one-third of the children inspected— have more than five teeth decayed. These decayed teeth are the seed-beds of ill-health in future. I suggest to the Secretary of State that the question of dental health needs to be vigorously tackled and
      1178
      that greater provision ought to be made for the inspection and cure of these bad teeth.
      The third important cause of bad health in Scotland is bad nutrition. It is very disappointing to read what the report says about the difficulties encountered with regard to the milk scheme, and the difficulties in the way of children taking advantage of the facilities available to them. I hope the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give an assurance that the Government are determined to overcome those difficulties and to increase the consumption of milk as much as possible. The fourth reason for our bad health statistics brings me to the second subject on which I wish to address the Committee. It is housing.
      Undoubtedly the housing progress is disappointing. It is natural that the Secretary of State should say—but it does not carry us very far—that the 19,160 houses built last year was the highest number built in any year, and was a 40 per cent. improvement on the previous year. But the previous year was a very bad year. The significant thing which strikes me is that the number of houses built last year was only 346 more than in 1935. When one thinks of all the legislation that has been passed since then, and all the conferences that have been. held in Scotland, it does seem rather disappointing that there is an improvement on the figure for 1935 of only 346.
      Mr. Colville: The point I wanted to bring out was that the improvement on the previous year, which was a very bad year, was gratifying in that some of the factors which made the previous year a bad one were still prevailing, and therefore, the 40 per cent. improvement was gratifying in itself.
      Sir A. Sinclair: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to create a quarrel about the use of this particular figure, or to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman was misleading the Committee. I did not in the least intend to do that. However, the fact remains that, when one looks into the figures and considers that after all the efforts that have been made by Parliament, the local authorities, the Secretary of State and his Department, there were only 346 more houses built than in 1935, it is a rather disappointing result. Indeed, when the hon. Member for Ruther-

      1179
      glen (Mr. Chapman) was at pains to say that everybody was doing his best, that nobody could do more than the Secretary of State was doing, that nobody could do more than the Department was doing, or more than the local authorities were doing, I could not help thinking that was rather a pessimistic view to take. If we can give a little impetus to the Government and the Department to-day, they may be able to make greater progress in future than has been made in the past. I should not be fair to the Secretary of State if I did not add that he indicated to-day that he hopes to achieve a figure of 26,000 in the present year.
      Mr. Colville: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the figure for last year of 26,000 took in the houses built by private enterprise as well as by the local authorities. I have not given an estimate of what we hope will be built by the local authorities, although I have in mind what I hope the figure may be.
      Sir A. Sinclair: I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman on that point. I hope there will be a greatly improved figure in the present year. I wish to refer to one point that was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw), on which I hope the Under-Secretary will enlarge in his reply on the Debate, namely, the effect of the Agricultural Population (Scotland) Act and the Housing (Rural Workers) Act on housing in rural areas. It is perhaps a little early to tell what the effect will be, for these Acts have not had much time to operate, but if the Under-Secretary could give an indication of what progress is being made, it would be of great interest to the people in the rural districts of Scotland. It seems to me that the progress is very slow. I will mention one or two cases in my own constituency. In Helmsdale, 12 houses were available and there were 40 applications. In Wick, a new R.A.F. aerodrome is being built, and I understand that 80 families are coming to Wick in connection with the aerodrome, for whom no provision is being made, although one would have thought it would have been made by the Air Ministry. That really does present a very difficult problem about which the Provost of Wick was speaking to me only a day or two ago. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider
      1180
      these very difficult cases, and see that the provision of houses is pushed on in the small burghs and rural areas.
      The main point in regard to housing that I want to make this year, as last year, is the provision of houses for young married couples. The Association of County Councils, the Convention of Royal Burghs and the local authorities are all pressing this point very hard. The only provision that is being made now is that where the house in which they are living is overcrowded, the married couple have a claim for another house, and are put into perhaps another old house from which some other family has been decanted into a new house. That is not enough. This decanting process is too slow. It discourages these young people when they do not get a new house in which to start their married life, but some old house which may be, and in many cases is, a poor type of house. Moreover, the whole thing is very uncertain. Surely, it cannot be expected that these young people will marry and live with their families in overcrowded conditions in the hope—by no means the certainty—that eventually they may receive better accommodation. I urge the Secretary of State to consider whether some scheme cannot be devised whereby houses can be built for these young married couples, for it will aggravate the condition of rural depopulation in the Highlands of Scotland if the young married people find that they cannot get houses in their own counties when they want them.
      I come lastly to the question of water supplies. There has been a long campaign for better water supplies in the rural districts of Scotland. At last, at the General Election, the Government published an election manifesto containing a paragraph with reference to Scotland in which they promised that the provision of water supplies and drainage would be the subject of special care and attention especially in sparsely populated districts. But we are still at the stage at which the Government are talking of these schemes, appointing committees to consider them and consulting the local authorities, and in no case that I know of is there any county in Scotland, certainly in the Highlands of Scotland which is in touch with the Department of Health on the details of a concrete scheme for regional water

      1181
      supplies. I am not saying that nothing has been done. The Secretary of State, and successive Secretaries of State, have been very sympathetic and shown an interest in specially hard cases that have been brought to their notice by some of us and in some cases there has been a water supply for some little village or township; but all over the Highlands, in my own constituency and I believe in other rural districts, there are families, villages and townships which lack what the Department of Health itself has described as a cardinal necessity of public health. Here again, the Association of County Councils, the Convention of Royal Burghs, and innumerable local authorities have joined in the campaign. We have been fortified, too, by a report of the Highlands Sub-Committee of the Scottish Economic Committee, which referred to this as one of the important aspects of Highland reconstruction, I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us what the Government intend to do about this part of the report. It is not that I think the report should be dealt with piecemeal. I hope we shall have an opportunity of hearing what is the policy of the Secretary of State on the whole range of that report, but in this Debate I can speak only of that part which refers to housing and to water supply. The report emphasises the vital importance of a better water supply in the interests of local people who, in many cases, have to walk long distances to get water, which is often filthy and full of insects.
      Consider also the effect on the tourist traffic. I get letters from people from the South who visit my constituency as tourists, and who are shocked at the conditions which they find and the lack of water in the country districts. We ought to have regional schemes in the Scottish counties and abolish the local district water rates which are, in some cases, as high as 6s. in the £ and even higher. Even the most prosperous counties in Scotland get grants of 75 per cent. for the reconstruction of roads. Surely, we ought to be able to get 90 per cent. grants for such a cardinal necessity of public health as water. Last year we were told that a Departmental Committee had been set up to study the problem and that the local authorities had been asked for reports and were to be taken into con-
      1182
      sultation. How is the work of that committee progressing and when will its report be published? I would also ask the Under-Secretary whether he can give us any particulars of the reports made by local authorities, and whether he will be able to let us know the results of the consultations with the local authorities. If any of us put down a question before Parliament rises at the end of this month, or next month or whenever it may be, will he be able to tell us what progress is being made with plans for regional water supplies? My time is up and my last word will be to impress upon the Secretary of State the necessity for prompt action to enable people living in the country districts of Scotland to enjoy the blessings of an ample supply of pure water.
      6.18 p.m.
      Mr. McGovern: The Secretary of State has given us what I would term a very gloomy report. I am not taking the report at its face value. I am taking account of a number of things which were very lightly glided over by the right hon. Gentleman and of the fact that certain conclusions which he drew, were not justified by the statement presented here. We all agree that most Secretaries of State are very genial as individuals, but we are not here to discuss that to-day. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) was Secretary of State for Scotland, I interviewed him two or three times and he was very genial but geniality was all I ever got out of him. That does not apply only to Tory Secretaries of State but to Liberal and Labour Secretaries of State as well. They are all alike.
      I wish to deal with the facts of the report and with some of the tragedies which are being enacted in the life of the people of Scotland. I could forgive any Government or any local authority for many things, if they could only solve the housing problem. But the Government of this country cannot protect the people from the effects of war, and they cannot protect the people from the effects of peace. Millions die in war and millions die during periods of peace. It is no use making the excuse that the energies of the State are being used to-day to construct war machines for an emergency. Since 1918, when the late War was adjourned,

      1183
      this problem has been living with us. Tens of thousands of homes have been wrecked and hundreds of thousands of children have been done to death by the economic system under which we live. Housing is a question of poverty. The man who has money to build or buy a house has no problem. The problem exists only for the person who has no money to build or buy a house, and who is dependent on the State and private enterprise to provide him with a dwelling.
      As to alternative methods of building I do not care how you provide houses, whether they are made of concrete, or brick, or blocks, or timber or steel. I am not concerned, at this stage, about the lifetime of the house. I am mainly concerned with giving the people who have no dwellings to-day a place to live in now, with some measure of comfort and decency. Every Government and every local authority share in the responsibility for the failure to provide houses. I hear from time to time about the need for underground shelters. I am not concerned about underground shelters. I want above-ground habitable dwellings for the people, and ask the Secretary of State to say what he intends to do to deal with the present housing situation which is so serious. He has given figures which show that, in Glasgow, even with the housing construction this year, according to the modest estimate which he made —and with which I disagree as one who knows something about housing in Glasgow—it would take 25 to 30 years to solve the housing problem and meet the city's requirements. Even then that would not deal completely with the wastage. That is a serious state of affairs.
      If we are going into war between now and the end of August, as most people seem to think, there will be a stoppage of house-building because the whole energies of the State will then be directed to constructing death-dealing weapons. It is an amazing thing that when the possessions of the rich are in danger we can get a Ministry of Supply and the organisation of raw material, machinery and labour, but when the lives of the working-class are in danger from bad housing there is no mobilisation for the purpose of providing the necessary accommodation for them. Thousands of
      1184
      millions of pounds can be thrown together to defend the bond-holding interests of the rich, but a poor mouth is always made when we plead for homes for the working people and we are told about the great increases of taxation which would be required to meet the needs of the people.
      To show that there is no exaggeration in my statement about the present conditions in Glasgow, let me give some figures supplied by the right hon. Gentleman himself some time ago. These all relate to single-apartment houses. In Glasgow there are 6,617 houses with two and a half persons to the apartment: 6,694 with three to the apartment; 2,523 with three and a half to the apartment; 2,027 with four to the apartment; 868 with four and a half to the apartment; 791 with five to the apartment; 567 with five and a half to the apartment; 296 with six to the apartment. Do hon. Members realise what that means—296 with six persons to the apartment, and children under 10 are not counted? There are 92 with seven to the apartment; 15 with eight to the apartment, and 10 with nine to the apartment. Last week a young man of 36 or 37 years of age in my own division, told me that he had had a claim in for four years with the Glasgow Corporation for a house. The birth of a child was expected next month and then there will be 10 people in a single apartment house in that case. Can any human being conceive a worse state of affairs than that? There are two cases mentioned in this report of 10 people in a single apartment with no bath, no lavatory accommodation, just a sink and a cold water tap. There is a case of father and mother, and eight children, the eldest of whom is 16. living under those conditions. That is a scandalous state of affairs. There is in this report a statement to the effect that 257 cases of tuberculosis have occurred in one-apartment houses. There were 190 cases where children were suffering from tuberculosis and the single-apartment was overcrowded.
      I have been in these houses and I wish that some artist would paint a picture of the conditions and hang it up in the Lobby and let Secretaries of State who come and go, see there a representation of the living conditions of the people in those areas. Members here congratulate the Secretary of State on the work that he has done. I could not honestly con-

      1185
      gratulate the Secretary of State or the Department or the local authorities while conditions of that kind are rampant. Bad housing destroys the happiness of young couples. They go into rooms, often with a mother-in-law, and a mother-in-law in many cases is a bigger menace than Hitler. The children are born in rooms and these people are driven from one set of rooms to another, and ordered about, and very often cannot get a home at all. There are people with four or five children who have never had a house of their own. What marriage could happily survive conditions of that description? Is there any opportunity there for happiness and romance, for cleanliness or morality?
      When I see cases time and again in the courts and I hear the condemnation of individuals, I often wonder what vicious environment they have sprung from; and I say to the Secretary of State that, so far as he is responsible, both he and his office have been a failure in providing housing accommodation in Scotland. The economic system which he defends is largely responsible for that failure. We used to have a song during the War, and if I were permitted I would sing it to the Committee:
      "Fight for the land sharks, toiler;
      They own the land.
      Fight for your kind employer;
      You are his hand.
      Slay for your pious landlord, till your life is spent.
      While you raise your deadly rifle, he will raise your rent."
      The landlords and capitalists who have been on the local councils and have occupied benches in this House are responsible for the degradation of the people. They have extracted untold wealth which the workers have created, and they have refused to give them in return even what they give to their cattle, a decent proper place in which to live. I am demanding that the Secretary of State for Scotland should appoint a Minister of Supply to mobilise the whole of the forces of Scotland with a view to providing houses for the people. That ought to be the insistent cry of every individual because we cannot go on complacently while these tens of thousands of tragedies are being enacted in our midst.
      Mr. Colville: Would the hon. Member take housing out of the hands of the local authorities?
      Mr. McGoveriu: Yes, I am prepared to do that. Shortly after I came to the House I introduced a Bill to provide a sum of £500,000,000 to set up a national housing department to get on with the job. I said then, and I say again, that if I were given the powers of housing dictator in Scotland I could solve the housing problem in less than ten years or give up my life, so confident am I that this can be done. All the arrangements for building houses can be mobilised. We hear the excuse that it is a tremendous job. It is not a tremendous job. When it comes to defending the interests of the capitalist class, it can be done because you are serious minded about it. The risk is great and the effect of the disaster in war would be a tremendous thing to the ruling classes, and therefore they face up to it with courage and ability and with the necessary energy.
      If the right hon. Gentleman were anxious to solve the housing problem it could be solved in a short space of time. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Chapman) told us, what the late Sir Godfrey Collins told us in 1936, that in five years we can clear away the whole of the slums of Scotland. He must have known that was not true. The present Secretary of State knows that with the methods he is employing to-day he will not solve the problem in 25 years. There is not the will in the Government to solve it as it could be solved. I am challenging them to do something more. I am not interested from a mere party point of view. If the Government will do the job I will hand out the bouquets. I am not so narrow that I would grudgingly give a bouquet to an opponent who will do the job. I am not concerned about who does it. But up till now they have all played with the problem.
      Then we see a rise in costs from £286 to £400 and £500 because of the building ring. If you send out a schedule of baths, sinks, rainwater pipes, ranges or grates to six or eight merchants, you will get the same prices quoted to a penny. The ring of merchants and manufacturers is operating and they are seizing the nation by the throat, and every additional pound or two of subsidy which is given goes to the building ring and not to the local authorities and those who are trying to build houses. If you want to deal drastically with the problem you would put the ring, as Hitler has put it in

      1187
      Germany, at the service of the State, and limit its dividends, as Hitler has, to 6 per cent., and say to it that everything over that amount must go in improved conditions for the workers or in cheaper housing.
      There is only one disease in life and that is poverty. Most of the other diseases spring from poverty. We were told today something about the increase in weight of children and so forth. Dr. Wilson, of Manchester, told us many years ago that if he were allowed to take the ages and weights of children he could tell to what class they belonged. He put them into four categories—the child of the labouring class, the child of the tradesman, the child of the shopkeeper, and the child of the middle-class. He found that the child of the working class of 13 was only equal to the child of the middle-class of nine. He took 120 children out to the outskirts of the City into the open air. They were called mentally defective or backward children. He put them for six months in camps with good food, good medical attention and good physical exercise, and in six months time 80 per cent. of the children had been restored to normal. That shows the tremendous effect of the slum environment, of the evil dwellings and of the overcrowded homes of the children. There are children who rise in the morning in these houses after sleeping on boxes which they push under the bed. I was in a house six months ago in which I saw three shelves constructed on the bed. The father and mother slept in the centre and the children on the top and underneath because they had no other place in which to sleep.
      The children rise in the morning in the evil conditions such as we read of in the "Thetis" submarine disaster. We read of how the men succumbed to the evil atmosphere. While not so extreme, that is typical of the conditions in which these children rise in the morning—unslept, un-rested, going to school unable to take advantage of the education, and stunted in mind and body. Nothing is too drastic to solve this problem. I say it can be solved. It is not being solved now. It is not being tackled in a proper way with the mobilisation of all the forces in Scotland. With the money and material and with the energy and driving force of a man who is determined
      1188
      to get the job done, we can clear these evil dens out of Scotland and give men, women and children a chance to live as they have never lived before.
      6.39 p.m.
      Mr. Erskine Hill: The Secretary of State said that the question of housing was the chief social problem in Scotland, and that has been emphasised by the number of speeches in which reference has been made to the housing question. In fact, this Debate has centred almost entirely round this question. It is not difficult to define the nature of the problem because when one reads the reports or listens to my right hon. Friend and learns that nearly 250,000 houses are required in Scotland merely to replace people who are overcrowded or who have to be removed from slum areas, no one with imagination can fail to picture something of the real problem of the poorer classes who are in such a position. Therefore I do not propose to waste time in emphasising what has been said. Cases have been given by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) and by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Chapman). The problem is there and the question is how are we to face it? The hon. Member for Dumbarton said we must face it as Scotsmen. The problem does call for an effort all along the line by all of us to see in what way it can be solved. In searching for a solution we must consider every possible remedy.
      The first remedy which I should like to mention is that of doing what we can to recondition present housing. The hon. Member for Dumbarton referred to the fact that in 1919 250,000 houses were needed and that that is the position today. I think that if the great number of houses which could have been reconditioned then had been reconditioned, there would have been an improvement in the figures. The Secretary of State must know that he has the Committee solidly behind him in anything he can do to increase the grants for the reconditioning of houses. Another problem is that of building houses by private enterprise. It is true that all these are not houses to let, but I know that in Edinburgh a great many of the houses that have been built by private enterprise are let to members of the working class. The

      1189
      figures show what a substantial contribution can be made in this way. From 1935 onwards the number has averaged 2,400. Last year there were 2,375 built in Edinburgh by private enterprise, a large proportion of which were for the working class.
      Mr. Buchanan: Can the hon. and learned Member give any idea what rent is charged?
      Mr. Erskine Hill: I made inquiries and I was told that the rent was very close to that charged for corporation houses. We want to see every method tried, and, while encouraging private enterprise, to encourage the building of corporation houses also. I am not by any means satisfied, but the figures for Edinburgh do show a substantial improvement. A great deal has been said about not being content with the figures as they are, but I think we can congratulate ourselves when any improvement is made. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend what is the position with regard to private enterprise building in other cities in Scotland and whether more might be done for the whole of Scotland along the lines that have been tried with a large measure of success in Edinburgh. I should like to know how the figures for Edinburgh compare with the figures for other cities in Scotland.
      Mr. Buchanan: Perhaps the Secretary: of State could let us know also how Edinburgh compares with Scotland generally.
      Mr. Erskine Hill: I should like to know the figures, because this does seem one way in which we can get something done. In the whole of Scotland there were 6,904 houses of five apartments or less—
      Mr. Colville: Was the hon. and learned Member asking me for the figures of houses built by private enterprise in the Edinburgh district as compared with Scotland generally?
      Mr. Erskine Hill: Not in Scotland generally, but in the other cities in Scotland
      Mr. Buchanan: And can you let us know how housing in Edinburgh stands as compared with other cities?
      Mr. Erskine Hill: I read in the report that the number of houses that were reconstructed or improved in 1938 was 2,646, compared with 2,568 in 1937. The proportion of increase is much less than the proportion of increase in the number of houses built, and that gives force to my submission that the reconditioning of houses ought to be assisted. The hon. Member for Shettleston seemed to suggest that all that was required was money. I do not suggest that money does not help, but there are many other problems connected with the housing question. There is the problem of labour. A great deal has been done to assist the provision of labour, for which, as a Scotsman, I am grateful, but I think we ought to get together more and go not only into the question of money to be obtained from the Government but into the question of persuading municipal authorities to do more and also to encourage the private builder. Last, but not least, we should try to make arrangements for using to the best advantage the labour that is available.
      So much for housing. Another matter on which I should like to say a word concerns the camps which are to be used in case of emergency but which have a permanent value in peace-time. One of the camps has been set up at West Linton and seven have been promised for Scotland. I should like to congratulate the Government on this step. People are encouraged to find that we can utilise some of the provisions which are necessary for Defence purposes for their benefit in peacetime. But while congratulating the Government on what they have done so far I would express the hope that it is only a beginning, and that we may see more of these camps. They will serve a useful purpose if there are air raids as a clearing station for children, and will in time of peace make a valuable contribution to the health of the people of Scotland.
      6.49 p.m.
      Mr. Hunter: I was pleased to hear what the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) said at the beginning of this Debate. He pictured the great advance which has been made in the health and the general standards of the people of Scotland during the past half century, and I think it was very wise of him to do that, but those who have followed have led us to believe, or would lead others

      1191
      to believe, that Scotland, instead of advancing, as it has been advancing, is slowly but surely falling back. I think public opinion is in advance of the Scottish Office and the Department of Health, and so are the burghs in Scotland, and if they had a freer hand I am confident they could solve a great many of these housing questions without much difficulty. It was a good report which the Secretary of State was able to submit but it was in many respects disappointing to me. While we ought to welcome the advance it is not right that we should be content with the position in which we find ourselves. There are ample statutory provisions under which progress can be made in dealing with overcrowding and slum clearance, but not a single step is being taken to provide the houses required for the normal advance in population.
      The work of slum clearance is being carried out with vigour and success, but a point to be remembered is that in many of those slum houses there are two overcrowded families, and a local authority has to build two houses in order to provide for the occupants of one slum dwelling. That is probably why the number of houses we require to-day is exactly the same as it is said to have been during the four years in which I have had the honour of being in this House. Although we are providing many houses we seem to be making no advance at all. Grants should be made available for the erection of houses to meet the normal growth of the population, more especially for young married persons and for those who would marry if they could get a house. I was pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) lay stress on that point, and I will give an illustration from the city which is part of the constituency which I represent.
      Although Perth has a record second to that of no other large burgh in Scotland for the number of houses erected and for the manner in which it is dealing with this problem, there are at the moment 1,815 applications for houses before the town council, and no fewer than 645 are from young couples newly married. An analysis of the figures shows: Couples staying in furnished rooms with no family, 334; couples in furnished rooms with a family, 311; applications from occupants of slum houses, 260; applica-
      1192
      tions from those who wish for houses with modern requirements, 490; applications from those living outside the town while working in the town, 150; applications from those who wish to get married if they can get a house, 160; applications from elderly people wanting smaller houses, no. It will be seen that there are 645 young married couples living in furnished rooms. A proportion of those cases may be dealt with under the overcrowding provision, but it does seem rather illogical that two young persons wishing to get married can only get a house in the first instance by going to live with their parents or in furnished rooms and then invoking the aid of the law relating to overcrowding. Surely it would be more satisfactory for them to start off with a house of their own.
      Complaint is made that the lives of some of these young people are being wrecked because they have not houses to themselves. One young man pleaded for a house on the ground that his young wife had told him that if he did not get one she would leave him, because she could not get on with her mother-in-law. I think that is not an isolated case. Then there was a young couple living in furnished rooms who said that whenever a baby arrived they were told to get out, and they had no house to go to. Quarrels also start over the difficulty of getting houses. I know of two young ladies who were engaged. The fiance of one of them through influence or in some way or other had got a house, and immediately the other one went to her fiance and quarrelled with him because she said he had not been so active about getting a house.
      Every local authority, without exception, strongly desires powers to recondition houses. There is no doubt that public opinion is solid on that point. I need hardly remind the Secretary of State that "A stitch in time saves nine." It is a very sage proverb. A comparatively small expenditure upon introducing water closets, baths and a few other modern conveniences will make an old house as good as new. Local authorities have power to order some of those improvements to be made, but in most cases they find that the owners have no money to spare, and that nothing can be done except to allow the houses to drift into becoming slum property. I recall the

      1193
      case of one elderly lady, 80 years of age, whose sole source of income was the rent from some slum property. The town, council had no desire to see her deprived of her independent position and allowed the property to remain until she passed away, but when it came into the hands of her heirs they found themselves in the same position, and ultimately the property had to be demolished.
      How can the reconditioning of these houses be achieved? One way would be for local authorities to purchase old property which has not yet fallen into the condition of slum property at a valuation to be placed upon it by the Department concerned, and then get a small grant in order to recondition it. Another way would be to give local authorities power to lend money to the owners of the property, the loan to be repaid with interest within a prescribed number of years. If it should happen that there were mortgages on the property that could not be done, but in such a case I think the owner would be glad to sell at a very low price in order to get rid of what must be to him not an asset but a serious liability. The Department of Health must think about the welfare of the young men and women who are the potential fathers and mothers of the future. They have given concessions to local authorities to aid old folks in getting better houses, but that is entirely wrong, because most of the old folks wish to remain in their present homes. It sems wrong to put old folks into modern homes and young ones into old homes. It is turning nature upside down. The younger generation should be provided with the most modern type of houses, with all modern conveniences, because only in that way can we make it certain that the health and strength of the Scottish race will be maintained.
      I was glad to hear that the Secretary of State proposes to meet representatives of the Convention of Royal Burghs on the 14th of this month. I was disappointed when he added that he did not see any hope at the moment of legislation for young people or to give local authorities power to erect houses otherwise than in connection with slum clearance or overcrowding conditions. I hope he will change his mind. I am not here to apportion the blame between the Treasury and the Scottish Office, but there is someone standing in the way of progress. As far
      1194
      as it has gone, the Scottish Office has done well, but it must consider the question of providing funds to get houses for the growing population, especially for the young couples. If that is done, the Secretary of State may be sure that he has behind him solid, not only the Scottish Members of the House but every city, burgh and county council. He can do a great deal, and if the expression of opinion in this House or elsewhere can help him, we are anxious to do all we can. We hope he will not cease pressing the Treasury and pointing out that Scotland is not going to develop in the way it could and will be developed until the housing problem is solved.
      7.1 p.m.
      Mrs. Hardie: I hope the Scottish Office will never spend public money in taking over old and derelict property to patch it up and try to make it what is considered good enough for the workers. I hope they will go on providing up-to-date houses for all who require them. I want to deal particularly with the question of health. We are all grateful to know that the infant death rate is falling, but I think the Secretary of State will agree that it is too high. It is the more tragic because we know that in districts where the conditions are good, the people are comfortably off and there are good houses, it is fairly low. Unfortunately, I suppose we cannot yet look forward to the time when no babies will die even under the best conditions, but in Glasgow the average rate is 87 per 1,000 and in some parts of the City it is under 30, while in the poorer districts, where the housing conditions are bad, in some of the wards we have a rate of over 100. That proves that the bulk of it is due to poverty and bad housing conditions, and is preventable. That is a terrible reflection on a wealthy nation, as we are, that year after year we still allow this slaughter of babies. Where you have a high infant death rate you have a terrible amount of preventable sickness amongst those that survive. They never grow up strong and healthy and able to fight the battle of life.
      We regret to see that the maternal mortality rate has slightly gone up. I do not mean this to be unkind, but the Secretary of State said it had gone up from 4.8 to 4.9—" nothing to mention." What occurred to me was, "just a few more women's lives." I am not saying it in a

      1195
      nasty way, but we are apt to think of statistics as statistics, and forget that there are human beings behind them. It means that a few more women lost their lives, and often they are young women leaving children behind them.
      Mr. Colville: I was anxious not to leave any impression that I was dealing with the matter callously. I said I was sorry that a small percentage increase had taken place, but I hoped that legislation that had been passed for the purpose of helping maternity work would make for an improvement in the near future, and I explained some of the difficulties of getting the work under that legislation going.
      Mrs. Hardie: I quite understand that there was no callousness meant but it is a serious thing, though the figures may appear to be small. With regard to maternity institutions, housing conditions are so bad that many of the homes are quite unsuitable for babies to be brought into the world, but I still believe that, where home conditions are good, there is no reason why women should not have their babies at home, and I believe most Scottish women feel that way. But the bulk of the people are not living under those conditions. A good many babies are born in the kitchen bed, with all the surroundings that obtain there. I am sure that has a lot to do with the high death rate. We learn from the report that there are only 1,430 beds provided in public maternity institutions. A few others are provided in voluntary institutions, but that does not amount to very much. That is totally inadequate. We ought to have far more, in order that a larger number of women should be encouraged to go to institutions.
      When we come to the question of school children, there again there is a great difference. I was on a school board many years ago, about 1898 and onwards, and I knew the prevalence of rickets and the terrible plight of the children in Glasgow. It was during that period that we started the feeding of school children. Rickets is pretty well stamped out now owing to giving the children milk and food. Many of them are still living in bad housing conditions, so it is not only due to that. They now have better food, and so rickets is not the terrible scourge that it was then, but we still find that there is a good deal
      1196
      of bad health in the schools. I notice that there is a great prevalence of skin diseases, and I do not know why teeth should be so much worse than in England. I believe those defects are largely due to defective diet. No doubt skin diseases are due to a great extent to the fact that the bulk of the children do not get enough fruit and greenstuff, and that also applies to teeth. The only thing that seems to be suggested is that the children should be taught to brush their teeth. I know how beneficial that is, but a lot of the bad teeth is due to the fact that masses of the poorer people cannot provide the proper food that the children should get. There is too much starchy stuff, because they cannot afford the necessary greens, fruit and other nourishing food. It is not enough to provide dentists to stop teeth. You want to build the children up, and then you will not have this large amount of skin disease and bad teeth, and all the rest of it.
      With regard to malnutrition, I do not like the classification. You get in the report the classifications "good," "fair" and "bad." What is "fair"? If a child is not properly nourished, it is surely "bad." There are 60 per cent. classified as "good" and "fair," and so on, and very few are "bad" and "very bad." If you cannot see that the child is properly nourished it is "bad," and something ought to be done to bring it up to the proper standard. These problems are largely poverty problems. The people do not earn enough to provide the food and shelter that the children require. The Secretary of State spoke about the fall in the number of cases of tuberculosis. The conditions are still very far from being satisfactory. The fall has been from 74 per 100,000 to 69. That looks very satisfactory but, if we realise the large numbers of young people still suffering from the disease we cannot feel too satisfied about the conditions, especially when we realise that the disease is one which strikes at young people and that the highest death rate is between the ages of 15 and 25. Think of the tragedy of the young lad or young girl stricken down at the very time when they should be at their happiest and healthiest. Over 3,685 people died, in addition to many who have practically lost their youth and are struggling along in a very defective state. The real cause, again, is bad housing and bad working conditions, because

      1197
      the conditions in which many people carry on their work ruin their health, and very often they work too hard and earn such low wages that they do not get sufficient nourishment. The Secretary of State congratulated himself that so few militiamen were turned down because of bad health. No one is more pleased to know that than I am, but the Unemployment Assistance Board states that 22 per cent. of the young unemployed lads who wanted to go to training centres could not be passed as medically fit, and a number of them would, of course, come from Scotland. In the report Glasgow is singled out as an illustration of the bad health of young women. They say:
      "The low standard of health and energy amongst some of the young applicants to the Board is a cause for anxiety, and the prevalence of minor defects concerned with eyes and teeth raises once again the difficult question of medical treatment for unemployed persons. In large cities like Liverpool and Glasgow the standard of employability amongst the large group of unemployed girls falls very low."
      Altogether you have a not very reassuring picture of the state of health among the young men, and particularly among the young women, in Scotland. It is admitted that institutional accommodation for cases of tuberculosis is insufficient and in some cases very unsatisfactory. The least you could do with those who are suffering from this disease is to see that they get the best possible treatment so as to give them a chance of recovering.
      My next point relates to the conditions of health of the insured population. We are told that there is a tremendous amount of sickness among the insured population. The latest report for this year is not yet issued, but the Department have been kind enough to give us a few figures which will appear in the report. We are told that for the year ended 19th July, 1938, there were 417,000 separate cases, 31,000 of them incapable of work throughout the entire year. A large proportion of those cases were young people. There is the report of an inquiry which was set up into chronic cases. I have been waiting to get a copy of that report to find out of what it consists. We learn, from the short mention of it which is made, that 23,736 cases were dealt with. Of course some investigations are yet to take place. No action seems to have been taken to deal
      1198
      with sickness and incapacity among the insured population. Nothing has been done; they have been left to be dealt with under the usual health insurance.
      Take the question of rheumatism. A large number of people are ill for more than half the year from this terrible, crippling disease. We know to-day that the new and up-to-date treatment for rheumatism is by clinics, baths, massage, electrical treatment and all that kind of thing. Nothing of that kind is provided for the insured population. They are simply left to the ordinary practitioner, who may give them a bottle of something. No definite attempt is being made to treat this disease on modern lines. We discover that the rheumatism rate is higher in certain industrial areas and occupations. We ought to have clinics and to give the insured population the up-to-date treatment which would do such a lot to remedy rheumatism. People work too long hours; their home conditions are not what they ought to be. Taking occupations, the largest number of sufferers from rheumatism were among miners.
      I noticed that a Question was asked in the House regarding some experiment in Durham, where some kind of clinical treatment is being given to miners. Why have we to wait for welfare schemes or to see what the result of the experiment in Durham will be? Why cannot we go ahead nationally to provide clinical treatment, with baths and all the rest of it, which we already know will benefit these people? Rheumatism is caused among young people by their being worked too hard. The cure for them is rest and proper food. These are questions with which the Secretary of State might deal in a more drastic way than has been done in the past. There is a great need for the extension of enlightened health services and for an improvement in housing conditions. A great deal also has to be done in improving working conditions, shortening hours and seeing that people get a bigger return for their labour— which does not come under the right hon. Gentleman's Department. In addition to pushing on with improvements in housing conditions, I hope he will see whether something cannot be done for the young people.
      The tragedy is that some of these young people are not so bad when they leave school, but between the ages of 15

      1199
      and 25 they contract these various diseases. I am convinced that the reason is that many of them live under poor conditions and are not able to carry on with the work that they are asked to do. Often there is unemployment in their homes, in which a rigorous means test is applied. The result is that these young people do not get the nourishment that they need. The Minister of Labour will tell us that enough is left with which to provide food; that may be so, but I am referring particularly to the young women, amongst whom the tuberculosis figure has not fallen to any great extent between the ages of 15 and 25. There have been certain improvements in wages and conditions of employment, but we are not getting the results that we ought to get. I believe that is due to the fact that other members of their families are unemployed and that the means test is applied and leaves very little to these young women. The Minister of Labour may say that it leaves enough for food, but these girls have to go out to shops, offices and factories and they have to be well dressed. Every young woman wants to make herself as attractive as possible. If she cannot otherwise get a dress or her hair "permed," or whatever it may be, she will go without her food. Young people have a right to these things. I am not blaming the young woman; I would have done exactly the same myself.
      Those are the conditions under which most of the people have to live. We have nothing to be proud of in Scotland. My colleague talks about the land of the free, but I never forget that it is Scottish people who inflict these terrible conditions upon other Scottish people. I worked for 15 or 16 years for a Scottish employer, and I do not think you will find anything worse on the face of the earth than a Scottish employer. Our housing conditions are due to neglect by Scottish local authorities in the past. When houses could have been built at economic rents the matter was neglected and left to private enterprise. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will see what he can do to improve the health of the people of Scotland.
      7.24 p.m.
      Mr. Henderson Stewart: Anyone who has listened to this Debate, and particularly to the interesting and knowledgeable
      1200
      speech of the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mrs. Hardie) must come to the conclusion that the title "Health" is a very comprehensive one, as it affects Scotland. The more one examines the matter the more extensive it seems to become. The Department of Health embraces almost every branch of Scottish life, urban and rural, industrial and agricultural, personal and communal, domestic and the life controlled by local authorities. Almost every function that one performs in every general walk of life is affected by this Department. All the things that interest us, health, education, sanitation, transport, housing and so on, are here. And I should add it is almost impossible to consider any of these problems without at some point examining the system by which the health services are administered. Later on I want to say a word or two on this topic.
      My right hon. Friend started off quite fairly, as was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), by reciting some of the advances that had been made. To compare Scotland to-day with the Scotland of 50 years ago is to see an immense change. No one has described it in more graphic terms than the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I glory with my right hon. Friend in the fact that we have improved; but, with it all, with all the last year's work which my right hon. Friend properly recited to us, what position have we reached in Scotland? Here is a problem to which Members of Parliament must find an answer. Look at the position, after all that has been done. Has poverty been removed from Scotland? Has ill-health disappeared? Is the waste of human and material resources ended? Are our social and economic conditions to-day such as we, as Scotsmen, can be proud of? Unfortunately, the answer to all those questions is definitely and emphatically "No." The more we examine the position the more definite that negative becomes. Poverty is still there, as the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) pointed out. One-fifth of the population are so poor that they scrimp themselves of the very necessities of life. Ill-health is still there. The report of the Committee of Health spoke of
      "a large mass of sickness and physical defects of many kinds."

      1201
      We have heard to-day that of every 1,000 babies born 70 die before they are a year old; of every 100 houses, 23 are overcrowded, and 66,000 families still dwell in homes condemned as utterly unfit for human habitation. On account of lack of water we have most shocking conditions in our rural districts. I see some of these houses almost every time I go to my constituency. I read in the reports of the county councils presented to the Scottish Office:
      "The bulk of the rural population still depend for water supply on wells, springs and burns, primitive sources of supply unprotected for the most part from contamination. Every drop of water has to be carried often for the most part a mile."
      I have seen it: no water inside the houses; old women, mothers and children having to walk 100 yards to the nearest lavatory and that no more than a dry closet. The waste of human life and health continues in Scotland, despite all that we arc doing. If once we could appreciate the position it would make us all stagger from the very thought.
      That is not all. The recuperative blood of the nation that once circulated through its farms and fishing villages and that coursed through Highland glens, is drying up. One in every six of the insured population of Scotland is unemployed and is drawing the dole. What is wrong? It is very necessary that we should answer that question. The hon. Member for Shettleston blamed what he called the economic system. Scottish Nationalists blame the present form of Government. To my mind, neither of those answers is satisfactory. Scotland is living under the same system, is governed by the same Government, as England, and yet conditions in England are very much better. Unemployment in England is one-third less than in Scotland, overcrowding in England is four-fifths less, infantile mortality is many points less. Why is that? There is nothing about England in the way of natural conditions that should account for that amazing improvement upon our conditions. England was not always in advance of Scotland in these matters. Forty years ago its infantile mortality rate was 151 per 1,000 births, while ours was only 120. To-day, as a result of persistent action, the English rate has been reduced by 93 points, ours by only 50. Scotland lags
      1202
      behind in the race for health, for better housing, and for better employment.
      I wish I had time to develop this matter. It is baffling to me that we should be in the rear in regard to these matters. Our climate has nothing very much wrong with it, our workmen have been described as among the best in the world, we have medical officers and medical services than which none are better in England or anywhere alse, we have local councillors who are as anxious and as able to perform their work as are the London County Council, and yet, for some reason, we lag behind. Partly, I know, we have inherited these awful conditions. My right hon. Friend and his predecessors in the last 10 or 20 years, are to be pitied—they have inherited housing conditions such as no English Minister of Health has ever known. It would have taken a giant, a miracle, to have removed those conditions within any brief period. But, making all allowances, I am forced to the conclusion that one of the causes, and may be the chief cause, for Scotland lagging behind in this race for health is to be found in the inefficiency of our Scottish administrative system.
      I will try to explain what I mean. It is no good blaming the local authorities and saying to them, "You ought to build more houses," though I myself would blame the Corporation of Glasgow. I do not think any blame can be too great for a corporation which admits that 60,000 houses are needed and which builds only 3,000 per annum. But it is no good blaming them entirely. They have their difficulties, their rates are high enough already, and they do not want to add to them.
      Mr. Colville: The Glasgow housing rate is very small.
      Mr. Stewart: So much greater then the blame. I do not think either that it is much good blaming the industry of the country. It seems to me that the present condition of Scotland and the constitution of its government are such that we are entitled to look to the Scottish Office for leadership, direction, and drive to make up for what is lacking elsewhere in the country and that that leadership is not now forthcoming. Of course, I need hardly say that I do not criticise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. No personal reflection enters into it at all. I

      1203
      am criticising a system of government. My right hon. Friend has told us to-day of the emergency work which he and his officers have had to perform. One knows about it, and one is amazed at the energy which they have put into their work. One knows of civil servants in the Scottish Office working until all hours of the night, day after day. That is perfectly true, but is that to be the answer to Scotland's demand for still better conditions? Last year there were built 19,000 houses.
      Mr. Westwood: It is not correct to say that 19,100 houses were built last year. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were completed last year, though some of them were started three years ago.
      Mr. Colville: Yes, I made that plain. They were completed during the year, and in answer to a question, I repeated the word "completed." In addition, there were some 6,000 and more private enterprise houses, or a total of about 26,000 completed in the year.
      Mr. Stewarts: Let us put it at the round figure of 19,000. I am trying to get at the atmosphere in which we stand, the scope of the task with which we are confronted. Last year the local authorities produced 19,000 houses, but we need a quarter of a million. It is no use saying there were really 23,000 or 25,000 houses completed. We should be dealing in terms of 50,000 or 70,000 houses per annum. Is it to be Scotland's lot that not until 1952 are we to look for an end of slums and overcrowded conditions? I submit these facts as an indication that an entirely new conception must be taken of the scope and character of the Scottish Office.
      Here is my right hon. Friend, responsible as a Departmental Minister for all that happens with regard to Scotland— practically all. He is overburdened with the work of at least four or five different Departments, so overburdened, I imagine, that he cannot possibly find the time to sit back, as he would desire to do, and think of the big problem of Scotland. My right hon. Friend is a Departmental Minister multiplied by four. At the same time, he is regarded by Scotland as its Prime Minister. Scotsmen look to him to deal with all matters affecting the life of Scotland. The doubling of the role of Scottish Prime
      1204
      Minister and Departmental Head is quite impossible to perform, and as a result my right hon. Friend, like all his predecessors, is left to go through his official life never reaching anywhere, never attaining the performance, the achievement, that he himself would desire and indeed ought to reach. So it happens that one Scottish Secretary after another, finding his task impossible, or giving up hope of succeeding, throws up his office. I discovered the other day that the average term of office of the Scottish Secretary is no more than 14 months. My right hon. Friend has been there for 15 months.
      Mr. Chapman: The hon. Member said that Scottish Secretaries of State have thrown up their office. Can he give an instance?
      Mr. Stewart: Perhaps I am putting it too crudely, but the right hon. Gentle man knows what I mean. If I were hedged in by impossible conditions, un able to achieve what I desired to achieve, I would accept, no doubt, some other office where there seemed to be greater opportunities for doing that which I would like to do for my country. We desire much greater things for our country. They can never be done until the Scottish Office is so reorganised that the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, is provided with further assistance in this House and in his Ministry so that he may take thought of the wider needs of Scotland, passing on to juniors the detailed work with which he is over burdened at the present time. I am not a Scottish Nationalist, but when I look at the Scottish Office and see the slow pace at which we are moving, when I see the awful conditions that are still to be found in our country, in the Highlands, in the lowland towns, and in the rural areas, I do not wonder that a man sometimes tends to be a Nationalist and asks for anything other than it is. I do not think there is any need for Scottish Home Rule, but if my right hon. Friend would take a suggestion from me, as a friend, I would urge that the time has come for a committee of inquiry to be set up to examine the whole system of Scottish government. Till that time has come—
      Mr. Colville: My hon. Friend must remember the committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the

      1205
      Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow (Sir J. Gilmour).
      Mr. Stewart: I am aware of that committee, but what I want is an inquiry into what the Secretary of State does, what his office permits him to do, how he is circumscribed in his duties. I put that suggestion seriously to him, in the belief that by so doing Scotland may yet reach, in our lifetime, some higher standard of living.
      7.42 p.m.
      Mr. T. Henderson: I have listened nearly all the afternoon to this Debate, and I have heard rehearsed on every bench the evils that afflict the country from which we come. I want to get back to the practical side of the house-building industry in Scotland, through which most of these evils spring, and I want to begin by disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), because I am not one who desires any kind of a house for the working-class people of Scotland. I demand what the working-class people of Scotland are entitled to—good houses. Therefore, I am going, as I did a year ago, to discuss in a practical way the houses that are being built in our country now, and I want to begin by saying to the Undersecretary of State—and it has been stated already from different benches—that the 19,000 houses built in 1938 are simply the arrears arising from the lack of building in 1936 and 1937, as the Department's report proves, so that we are not willing to give the Department a great amount of credit for the 1938 results. On page 22 of the report dealing with slum clearance, there is a statement to the effect that 74 more houses were dealt with in 1938 than in 1937, and I would ask the Undersecretary to turn to Appendix No. 2, on page 178, and explain, if he possibly can, how it is that we have had 74 more houses from slum clearance schemes in 1938 than in 1937, when in the table on page 178 it is stated that in 1936 there were 12,187 slum clearance schemes, in 1937 there were 3,505, and in 1938 there were 650. It is quite possible that with the 650 schemes you might be able to clear away more old property and re-house more people, but I would like the Under-Secretary to explain what has actually occurred from that point of view.
      1206
      Now may I ask the Committee to look at the present position from the point of view of the alternative methods of building and their cost? I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman last week, and he gave me this reply, that a timber house—and I do not care who attempts to reply, because what I am saying now I know to be true—costs £458. A timber house, which is put down to-day as costing £458, could not be made comparable with a brick house, which now costs £466. If a timber house is wanted of the standard of a brick house, it is necessary to spend from £100 to £130 to bring it up to that standard. There is only a difference of £ between the cost of a timber-built house and a brick-built house. An hour or so ago I was talking with a colleague of mine. He used to disagree with me on this question of timber houses, but he now tells me that I was perfectly right. He went down into the country and examined timber houses that had been completed only three months, and they were well on the way to what I described last year as the making of shanty towns in Scotland.
      Then we have what in my opinion is the worst of all, that is to say, the poured concrete house. I see opposite to me a very eminent engineer, and I should think he will agree with me on this subject. The price of the poured concrete house is £515, or nearly £50 more than the brick-built house. I want to ask the Under-Secretary whether any regulation is issued by the Department to the local authorities who accept these poured concrete houses from the company or association that builds them, to the effect that no tenant should be allowed to occupy a poured concrete house until six months after its conclusion. No matter what fires you put into a poured concrete house at the back end of the year in Scotland, you could not get it dry. It is, in fact, a barometer. Of all the housing abominations that could be given to our people to dwell in, it is the worst. It costs £515, and a comfortable brick house costs £466.
      We are told in the report that brick houses cannot be obtained because of the shortage of labour. I said last year, and I say it again, that whatever trade is responsible for keeping the working class of Scotland from obtaining good houses is as much to blame as any Secretary of State for Scotland could be. I am a

      1207
      member of the building trades operatives' association; I am a carpenter by trade, but I am opposed to the building of timber houses. Only the best of houses, in my opinion, are good enough for Scottish working people, and I maintain that the building trades operatives, if they so de sired, could find a method by which labour could be supplied for building the best class of houses in Scotland. But what has happened? Scotland was the home of the mason, and Scotland sent masons to every country in the world. Now, how ever, you could take all the masons in Scotland in one liner—
      Mr. Buchanan: You could take them in a ferry boat.
      Mr. Henderson: That is worse. If it is not possible to use the plentiful supply— I think I am right in using that expression—of stone that there is in Scotland to-day, why could not that valuable stone be used in conjunction with brick? It would certainly produce finer houses from the point of view of appearance, and it would case the trouble due to the shortage of bricklayers.
      Sir Edmund Findlay: No; the masons do not exist unfortunately.
      Mr. Henderson: I agree; they are all gone. I have been told by a very eminent builder, who is a Member of this House, that what is happening now is that a lad comes to him, he engages him as an apprentice, but after five years the lad goes and he just has to train another.
      Sir E. Findlay: Where do these apprentices go?
      Mr. Henderson: Where the money is.
      Sir E. Findlay: Where is the money?
      Mr. Henderson: Here, in England. That is the reason for the shortage of bricklayers. Reference has been made to the City of Glasgow, but it must be remembered that Glasgow is the very centre of armament production, and the bricklayers are going where they get the higest pay, which is outside the building trade. Therefore, Glasgow is in a hopeless position. If any place is suffering for want of bricklayers, it is the City of Glasgow, and it is grossly unfair to make an attack upon the City of Glasgow under those conditions. But, while Glasgow has been struggling to produce houses, it
      1208
      refuses to have either timber houses or poured concrete houses. There is no record of that in the report. It is true that the association in question has grown up in Lanarkshire, and I hope it will remain in Lanarkshire building its timber houses and its poured concrete houses. I hope it will never get a hold in the City of Glasgow. It is possible that a time will come in Scotland when those who are refusing to find a scheme that will solve the problem will, because of these timber houses and poured concrete houses, which can be erected by semi-skilled labour, find themselves without a job. I ask the Under-Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman to make another appeal to the operatives. It is possible to do all the building that can be carried through if they will refrain from taking the attitude that, so long as their men are employed, nothing else matters. That is rather a disgraceful attitude, and I hope an attempt will be made to get some new effort from the building trades operatives that will allow more men to be put on the job and decent houses to be built for Scotland.
      7.55 P.m.
      Mr. McKie: I am very glad to have the opportunity of intervening in this, if I may so express it, very practical Debate which is being conducted by Scottish Members, and also of following the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson), who has made such a practical plea that we should once again utilise, at all events in building our houses, some of the stone which we have in such large quantities in Scotland. I fully sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman said about the lamentable disappearance of the stonemasons. My hon. Friend who interrupted him said that they had vanished, and I am sorry to think that that is almost an accurate statement of the case. We have had speeches dealing with both the great subjects that are down for discussion this evening, namely, the health services and housing conditions in Scotland. The hon. Lady the Member for Springburn (Mrs. Hardie) gave us a most excellent speech, showing very practical knowledge of many aspects of the health problem in Scotland. I myself should like to make a few remarks about three points connected with the housing problem. I think they have all been touched upon already, but that is no reason why I, coming from a different

      1209
      part of the Northern Kingdom, should not say a little about them as well.
      First, with regard to the eloquent plea that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter) as to the growing scandal, as I would call it, of the lack of suitable housing accommodation for young married couples and those who wish soon to get married. I feel a little diffident in embarking on this subject, because I might myself be charged with remissness so far as marriage is concerned. [Interruption.] I am delighted that my hon. Friend thinks I am still young enough to be included in the category of young men wishing to marry. Without having had practical experience, I know how this scandal is developing in Scotland, not merely in the great centres, but also in the small burghs throughout the land. During the last few weeks I have had half-a-dozen representations from young married men about the terrible conditions under which they are forced to live as the result of their not being able to find suitable housing accommodation for themselves. Not merely are the conditions impossible as regards overcrowding, but, as this sort of thing goes on and develops even more, it is bound to result in the evils which must arise from family friction in these very bad conditions. In addition to the personal representations I have had from constituents of mine, a question was addressed to me only three weeks ago, at a public meeting which I addressed at Stranraer, by a member of the town council, who impressed upon me the necessity of doing my duty by bringing this problem to the notice of the Scottish Office, and I am endeavouring to do that now. Since then I have had communications from the burghs of Kirkcudbright, Wigtown and Stranraer in my constituency, enclosing copies of two resolutions which the Convention of Royal Burghs, at its recent assembly in Scotland, recommended the various burghs to forward to the Scottish Office, dealing with the need for making possible additional revenue for the reconditioning of houses where reconditioning is a practical policy.
      I think it was the hon. Lady the "Member for Springburn who expressed grave doubts as to whether money spent on reconditioning would be a profitable thing, but we are all agreed about the second resolution, that the Scottish Office should
      1210
      have impressed upon it that the local authorities are unable to provide houses for newly-married couples at the rate they ought to do. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when he comes to reply, will have something to say on this all-important document. I also want to say something about the question of rural housing. Being a Member for an agricultural constituency I have the opportunity of coming into contact with the housing problem as it confronts the worker in the town and in the rural area. I cannot claim to have the knowledge which some hon. and right hon. Members above the Gangway have of the evils of the housing conditions, but I can assure them that I have in proportion similar knowledge to theirs.
      Both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to conditions which exist in a district in one patch of my own constituency, namely, the parish of Kirk-maiden which includes the most southerly point in Scotland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling, when he spoke so eloquently, did not think that I am unaware of the conditions which exist there. I know very well indeed—he is a personal friend of mine—the minister of the parish whose letter they have both had in their possession. As I have lived all my life in that constituency I think I can claim to know something about it and to be as fully alive to the position as the right hon. Gentleman. Further, I am quite sure that if the right hon. Gentleman were to search his own division, which is somewhat similar to mine, containing large tracts of agricultural land, he would find some very bad conditions in his housing.
      Mr. Westwood: Is the hon. Member actually attempting to defend in this House the conditions which were referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston).
      Mr. McKie: No, we all condemn them. I should think that the right hon. Gentleman would resent it very much if I were to paint a very gloomy picture of the conditions, but he has suggested that I was ignorant of the facts.
      Mr. Westwood: I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman thought that the hon. Member was ignorant of the facts. He can rest assuror$—and I think I am

      1211
      speaking for my right hon. Friend as well—that I would not resent any criticism which the hon. Gentleman might like to make of housing conditions in my constituency, if they were bad.
      Mr. McKie: The Debate has shown that we all realise the conditions, and are all determined that as speedily as possible they shall come to an end. I have no wish to be in any way disrespectful to the right hon. Gentleman. We are all united on the question of the bad conditions of housing in the rural areas. In a Debate like this, from whatever part of the Committee we rise to speak, it is our duty to impress upon the Scottish Office the necessity of being up and doing in these matters. Not that they have not done so. I know of what some of the town councils in my own area have done. It is no fault of theirs that they are unable to provide houses for the young married couples in the quick way that they would like to do. We hear a great deal of the sins of omission, but we do not hear very much about what has been done by many people, landlords and others, who are responsible for the housing of the rural workers. I wish to be absolutely fair and I am not in any way making excuses for those who have not done their duty, but in the last five years I have had only £100 put into my pocket from rents, and £20 a year is quite a common sum for a landlord to put into his own pocket. That means, of course, that all the money received from rents goes back into improvements. I am not complaining, but I ask the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) to take a comprehensive view of the picture and remember the good that has been accomplished.
      The hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill) spoke about the intention of the Scottish Office to erect in various parts of Scotland seven holiday camps, which would be used for housing the evacuated children if a war emergency should arise. I am in communication with the Scottish Office at the present time regarding a communication which has been forwarded to me from the borough of Dalbeattie recommending that in their area, which is scheduled as an invulnerable area, in other words a part of Great Britain where one can expect to be reasonably immune from air raids, the Scottish Office should
      1212
      consider erecting a holiday camp. As we are considered to be so very safe I would suggest that the Scottish Office should consider more than one camp in this area, which possesses great health-giving properties and scenes of great beauty. We have an extensive coast-board, and inland much of the country provides sites admirably suitable for erecting holiday camps. I hope that my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary, may have something to say about this question of holiday camps when he comes to reply. I cannot expect a specific answer to the point I have raised but I hope that he will be encouraging in what he has to say.
      I remember the Minister of Health, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, speaking of housing at a public ceremony, and of the terrible conditions which then existed and still exist, saying, "There is muckle to do." I know that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee realise this. The shadow of possible war hangs over us, but that does not mean that we have not to be as vigilant about our domestic concerns as ever. The housing problem is certainly one of those. Long ago one of the greatest leaders the Conservative party ever had, Benjamin Disraeli, said that the first consideration of the Government should be the welfare of the people. It should be the first consideration not only of Ministers but of every Member of this House. Bismarck followed on the same lines. I know that we have not much good to say about the present regime in Germany, but so far as their domestic economy is concerned those responsible for the Executive have seen to it that the housing of their people is one of their first concerns. In this country we who are making all these preparations for any eventuality in which one day we may find ourselves, have to see to it that along with the exacting demands which are being made upon us we endeavour as best we can to place our people in favourable housing conditions.
      8.12 p.m.
      Mr. Leonard: I should like to say a word about housing, without entering into any arguments about it. There has been a statement to-day comparing the position of housing in the present years as against the past years. I should like to make the suggestion that that attitude is not a proper one to take, because the

      1213
      houses of to-day are not comparable with those which have been built in previous years. I am pleased to note that the Department accepted my suggestion that in future statistics they should not content themselves with columns dealing with houses but should also have a column dealing with apartments. Not only is that important, but the question of capacity is important when you are comparing what has been done to-day with what has been done previously. On page 25 of the Department's report there is this statement:
      "According to our calculation the 19,160 houses completed in 1938 were equivalent to an output of 25,550 houses of the pre-1935 standard."
      Therefore, counting houses alone, it does not give a proper view of the amount of work involved. I want to refer to the nutrition part of the report and to the advance which has been made in regard to weight and height of boys and girls in Scotland. There again, however, I suggest that it would be very enlightening if the Department could make an investigation into the changes in height and weight which take place in boys and girls according to whether they live in one-, two-, or three-apartment houses. The British Medical Association a number of years ago performed a great service in showing quite conclusively that the incidence of air to those young lives is one of the most important factors in their growth and weight. The experts who went into the matter were quite specific that the change in height and weight was due to the fact that they had air to breathe in their homes. I should like to see a further survey, if possible, covering the height and weight of children, and I should like to see it sectionalised in respect to the one, two and three-apartment houses. With regard to the health of militiamen, I do not think any statisticians are needed to give us guidance. All that is necessary is to go through the working-class districts of any town in Scotland, and one can see quite clearly that the boys and girls in those congested districts are not the boys and girls they should be; they are not the boys and girls they would have been if they had been brought up in any other part of the town. That guidance from the eye is as important, in my opinion, as any statistics. I should have expected to find that there had been some great advance in
      1214
      the machinery for dealing with dental defects, in view of the importance attached to it in the 3938 report. But the report shows that only 29 per cent. of the children examined had sound teeth, while 56.74 per cent. had one to four teeth decayed, and 14.52 per cent. had five or more teeth decayed. The suggestion contained in the report is that the education of the children and their parents in dental hygiene is still very incomplete. I am not prepared to say that such education is not important, but I do lend support to the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mrs. Hardie) that the question of dental hygiene is less important than that of attending to expectant mothers and their dietary, in order to lay the basis of the teeth formation of the child. I notice that there were 97 dental officers last year, and that there are 97 this year. It is true that there are fewer part-time dental officers and more full-time officers; but last year there was a suggestion that some of the full-time officers did not give all their time to dental work, but did other work besides. I wonder whether all the 72 whole-time officers now are attending to nothing else but the requirements of dentistry in Scotland.
      It is appalling to read in an appendix to the report that, while there are 2,000 children per dentist in some parts, the number is increased to 20,000 children per dentist in Edinburgh and Glasgow. The school medical service in England provides for one whole-time dentist to about 6,000 children. The Department would be well advised to act on the suggestion in their own report, that conditions in respect of this type of work are not satisfactory. Pressure should be exerted to see that the matter is attended to much more effectively than it has been up to the present. We have come through a few months of national emergency, and all the experts who come along and give their advice about the emergency find that their advice is acted upon. For years highly placed experts have been advising on nutritional questions in Scotland, and very little action has been taken on their reports. When we are spending money upon what is termed national security, Scotland should receive a greater amount than it is receiving at present for nutrition. Especially at a time when we are giving aid, and rightly, to other dis-

      1215
      tressed countries, there is no excuse for shutting our eyes to the need of our own citizens.
      This is an age of abundance. Even if there is poverty, there is no shortage of food. It is rather amusing to read the terms of the Immature Sea Fish Order, which lays down that if a person on holiday, when fishing off the end of the pier, catches a fish, and, on measuring it, finds that it is not of the proper length, he has to put it back into the sea. It is paradoxical that if the fish then reaches maturity and is again caught, and on being put on the market it injures the price which may be charged for fish, it can be taken back and dumped into the sea again. Nor is fish the only commodity that I have in mind. The action of the Department in relation to their authorities over the supply of milk has been commended, but milk is not everything. There is the question of fruit and green vegetables. The people of my division have to take the cast-offs of the shops and present them in the form of salads. That should not be necessary.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has in the past made reference to the question whether we need to be looking for new industries. The old industries have still a big field to supply, in Scotland and elsewhere. With regard to housing, why should we not encourage the production of refrigerators, and make them an essential part of the fittings of houses, especially in tenement buildings, which do not provide proper facilities for the storage of food? In hundreds of houses in St. Rollox there are no places to put food except on the tables, and that is where the food has to remain. The cost of small refrigerators could be reduced to £5 or £6, and that would be a great saving to the people living in those dwellings. Waste in a poverty-stricken house should not be condoned in any circumstances.
      I would like to see the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary take unto themselves a standard of nutrition that has been laid before them by the International Committee of the League of Nations. The diet of the children of this country should be brought up to this standard, and the agricultural policy should be framed so as to produce sufficient food to enable that standard to
      1216
      be attained, and the extension of the work of public authorities in the distribution of food should be one of the main objectives.
      There are one or two other points upon which I want to touch. There is the question of the possibility of evacuation. I am pleased to note that the local authorities have been asked to provide details, and I am informed that action has now been taken by the Department which makes the matter complete. But that still leaves the question of the many people who have to remain in the tenements of Glasgow, and I trust that this problem is being discussed and that further attention will be given to the evacuation of these people.
      My final point deals with milk The Glasgow Corporation a year or so ago, presented a Bill asking for the compulsory pasteurisation of milk because of the conditions in the homes and the general aspects of life in Glasgow. It was presented as a Private Bill, but it was withdrawn by the Glasgow Corporation on the assurance given by the Government that they contemplated bringing in a new Milk Bill which would provide for machinery such as the Bill of the Glasgow Corporation aimed at. That new Bill has been presented. I do not know that it is the one that was contemplated, but it does, not touch this question at all. I shall be very grateful to the Under-Secretary if, in his reply, he can find time to say something as to why, in view of the promise given to Glasgow, this important need of the city with regard to pasteurisation was not attended to, and that he will be able to say that it is proposed to give them the power they so much need.
      8.29 p.m.
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: It is not my custom to intervene in any Debate in which I have not heard all the speeches, but, unfortunately, on this occasion it was not possible for me to be here, and therefore I hope that hon. Members will forgive any repetitive requests that I may make to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have read those parts of the report which are of peculiar interest to me, and, on the whole, I think that it is encouraging, except in one respect, which has been touched on already many times today, and that is, the question of housing.

      1217
      I have repeatedly spoken in this House on housing, and I am still faced with the question that constantly faces every Scottish Member. Why is it that we lag so constantly behind England in this matter of housing? We have a Parliament that means well, a Minister who means very well, and local authorities who mean well, and I believe that we have a public opinion that is solidly behind any efforts we make, and which also means well. Why, therefore, in spite of all this support and the enthusiasm, which, I believe, exists to try to rehouse the people of Scotland as they should be rehoused, does it seem to be impossible to make the progress that we want?
      I know that there are difficulties. There are the difficulties of obtaining sites adjacent to the places of employment, of obtaining land by compulsory powers and of getting enforced demolition before alternative accommodation has been provided. But all these are difficulties of timing and of method, and are easily overcome provided the administration from the Scottish Office is sufficiently determined. There is, however, the difficulty of building costs. We all know that when building costs were fixed, the cost of materials was lower, and we know that possibly the reason is the tremendous armament programme which has been undertaken; but whatever the reason subsidies or grants must be brought into more immediate relation to building costs. We are spending at the present time something like £2,000,000,000 upon armaments, but what is the use of spending all this money upon weapons of war— ships, tanks, and guns—unless you can, at the same time, and concurrently, provide alert minds and active bodies to operate these weapons?
      Good health and happy conditions of housing provide one of the main methods by which we can provide healthy bodies and healthy minds as well. I am particularly interested in the fact that we have heard in the last few days that something like 93 per cent. of the militiamen have passed the medical test, and I wonder just how that has come to be, because a great number of these boys must have been brought up in conditions which did not particularly subscribe to good health. It occurs to me that possibly the medical treatment and skill which have been available for so many of our
      1218
      young people for the last 15 or 20 years may have had a considerable amount to do with it, but there is something more. Although the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) may not agree with me, I think that milk has undoubtedly had a great deal to do in bringing about this state of affairs. Milk has become more systematised and publicised as a method of building up body and brain, and for that reason I was particularly sorry that the Financial Secretary to the War Office stated in this House to-day that it was not the intention of the Government to have milk bars in the new Militia camps. The Militia camp for the whole of the Militia of Scot land has been built in my constituency. When I was passing there last week I thought to myself that in a few weeks' time there would be thousands upon thousands of young men and boys, many of them still in an adolescent stage, whose bodies would be capable of receiving great sustenance by good food, open air, and, in my opinion, milk. I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will not reconsider the question of ensuring that in all these Militia camps, and especially at this very big Militia camp—
      The Temporary Chairman (Sir R. W. Smith): I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot discuss the question of Militia camps on this Vote.
      Mr. Johnston: Is it not perfectly within the power of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland to assist in the supply of milk in any part of Scotland, and to do it through local authorities or otherwise, and I suggest that you should consider allowing the hon. and gallant Gentleman to proceed with his remarks in this connection?
      The Deputy-Chairman: It is not in Order to deal with the supply of milk by the War Office.
      Mr. Johnston: But the Secretary of State for Scotland can take any steps that he feels to be necessary in the interests of public health to aid the distribution and better sale of milk, and I suggest that you should permit, within limits, the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) to proceed.
      The Deputy-Chairman: The supply of milk to Militia camps is an Army

      1219
      question, and it is not possible to deal with this matter through the Secretary of State for Scotland.
      Mr. Kennedy: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman able to use the War Office as an illustration?
      The Deputy-Chairman: I allowed the hon. and gallant Member to make use of the illustration up to a certain point, but we cannot consider the whole question of the supply of milk to Militia camps, which is a question for the War Office.
      Sir T. Moore: I accept your Ruling, and I shall not labour the point any more except to say that this camp, as well as other camps, will now be the permanent home of successive numbers of these young men, there will be a permanent population in these camps, and it seems to me that it is the duty of the local authority and the Secretary of State to see that they have the kind of sustenance which builds strong and healthy bodies, which is one of the chief ideals for which the Militia Act has been passed. I should like to stress the importance of the question of subsidies and grants for houses which are at present being built. From all I can gather, the £2 10s. grant under the 1930 Act has not proved sufficient, in view of the fact that the grant was fixed at a time when building costs were lower. Also the £6 15s. subsidy under the 1935 Act does not seem to have worked out as the Minister hoped, and I think it would be advisable to reconsider these two sums which were fixed when costs were considerably lower than they are now.
      I would like to reinforce what has been said about some statutory encouragement being given to the building of houses for a class of people not affected by slum clearance or overcrowding legislation, that is, young people who want to get married. There are some rather pathetic cases in my own constituency. They do not want to be forced to live under conditions which may be described as a sin just because there is no housing accommodation for them, and they have no desire to have children until they are in a financial position to support them. I think the Secretary of State should give some financial encouragement to the erection of two-roomed houses for these people, and also for those elderly couples
      1220
      whose families have grown up. A young craftsman from one of the towns in my constituency wrote telling me that he was ashamed to go home at the week-end and see the conditions under which his family have to live; he was ashamed to undress before his sister of 17 years of age. They all have to live in one room. If the people of this country realised the conditions they would say, "Tax us further, demand anything you like as long as our fellow human beings are relieved from these miserable conditions." And that is not an isolated case; there are many more who have to live under the same conditions.
      I suggest that a somewhat less cumbrous process should be arranged for the acquiring of land. We have heard from some people who are not, perhaps, so sympathetic as one would like, something about the slum mind, that if you have a slum mind it is no good to put that slum mind into new houses because you will only be creating slums over again. Whose fault is it that there is a slum mind? It is our fault, and, therefore, it is our responsibility to cure that slum mind. The only way it can be cured is by education and giving an opportunity to the slum mind to be taken out and put in better and more wholesome accommodation. I hope, also, that something will be done in connection with miners' cottages which are at the moment a scar on our countryside. The long dreary lines of houses which were, no doubt, erected by the big ironmasters and coal-owners many years ago for foreign cheap labour, are now occupied by Scotsmen, and the best thing that can happen to those houses is that they should be pulled down altogether, and even tents and timber houses should be erected in order to get away from the squalid conditions which now obtain. We have the skilled workmen, the eager tenants, public opinion, and a Secretary of State with one of the most sympathetic minds that has ever been found on the Front Bench. With the co-operation of all these aids surely we can raise the standard of housing in Scotland.
      8.41 p.m.
      Mr. Westwood: When the Secretary of State for Scotland presents the Estimates which are under discussion to-day he is not faced with an easy task on account of

      1221
      the multiplicity of the subjects which are dealt with and the many difficulties associated with the administration of the Board of Health, which is so intimately connected with so many aspects of our national health system. We are right to-day in complimenting the Secretary of State upon the things which have been done, but he has studiously avoided dealing with the things which ought to have been done and which it was quite possible to deal with under the existing laws. The report with which we are dealing enables us to discuss almost every aspect of administration under the Department of Health. The task of the Secretary of State is made quite easy because he has an efficient staff behind him in the Department of Health and, therefore, through this House I think we are entitled to compliment the staff on the report which we are discussing to-day, which makes it so easy to follow the administrative work of the Department, and also to make what I hope will be useful criticisms on the methods which have been adopted.
      The Secretary of State dealt with this comprehensive report under eight headings. I propose to deal only with two, and to make some brief reference to one or two others. Special emphasis has been laid on the fact that the departmental work has been made exceedingly onerous and difficult during the past year by the large amount of emergency work which has been caused by the international situation and the work what it is absolutely necessary should be done because of the threat of an attack from an enemy. One of the points made was that Civil Defence work had been pressed forward by local authorities. I wish every local authority had given anxious thought and consideration to the problem, and had dealt with it with energy and enthusiasm, but I am afraid that cannot be said to have been the case. I know local authorities in Scotland who have not faced their responsibilities in the matter of providing protection for the citizens in their own areas in the case of an outbreak of war.
      We were told that the health services in Scotland are paying a good dividend. That is true. We ought not to be so niggardly in providing money for those services, for money wisely spent either on preserving or restoring the health of the community undoubtedly gives to the State
      1222
      a good dividend by providing it with healthy people better able and more willing to carry out those duties which are part of the ordinary life of the citizen. It was also emphasised that hospitals are included in the general improvement which took place in Scottish health administration. Before concluding my remarks, I shall deal especially with the question of hospitals and the need for a really effective organisation in this connection, not merely for peace-time purposes, but because of the desperate international situation, although, of course, there would be many peace-time advantages resulting from a really effective organisation.
      The problem of housing has been dealt with by most, if not all, of the hon. Members who have spoken. I think it would be true to say that, despite the fact that 19,160 houses were completed last year, the Secretary of State himself is not satisfied with that progress. The problem is so great, the housing conditions are so intolerable and indefensible, that even if we reached the figure of 25,000, which I think was the ideal set up for the purpose of trying to deal with the housing problem, we could not be satisfied, seeing that so many thousands of our people arc living in conditions that are a disgrace to civilisation, conditions for which no one can take credit and towards the removal of which, both in the rural and urban areas, every possible effort should be directed. We were told that 19,160 houses were completed last year. We have received some indication of the number of houses for which estimates have been accepted and which are either in course of construction or for which plans have been approved.
      It would give us some indication of the progress that is likely to be made in 1939 if we could be given some estimate of the number of houses which it is expected will be completed in 1939. From the limited knowledge which I have of local administration, I know that, in a place which I could name, for at least three years in succession houses have reappeared in the estimatesas being houses under construction. If we took as actual figures the figures of houses under construction that appear each year in the Department's report, there is no doubt in my mind that we should have practically solved the housing problem by this time.

      1223
      In the case which I have in mind, a housing scheme was started almost three years ago, and the houses that were approved of have not yet been completed. There is a special point that I want to raise in dealing with the problem of housing. Several hon. Members have referred to the need for grants to be paid for the reconstruction of existing houses. I am rather afraid that many local authorities do not realise the power which they have under Acts already in existence. A special reference is made on page 21 of the report to a power which the local authorities have, but which I am sure not all of them, and perhaps even not the majority of them, realise they have. That paragraph reads:
      "In 1938 the Department approved proposals under Section 35 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, for the reconstruction or improvement by local authorities of 76 dwellings belonging to themselves, with the aid of grants under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. Since the Act of 1935 was passed, the Department have approved proposals for the reconstruction of a total of 135 dwellings in this category, of which the reconstruction of 64 has been completed"
      I think that the attention of local authorities should be specially drawn to the power which they have under that Act. It may be said that the Act does not allow them to reconstruct or improve privately-owned property, but there is no reason why they should not do as the local authority I have in mind did. They had the power—and to the best of my knowledge the Department have placed no obstruction in their way—-to acquire existing property that is well constructed, but has no modern conveniences. The town council which I have in mind bought 12 houses which were perhaps better property than is being built to-day under municipal schemes, but which had no modern conveniences. At very little cost, it will be possible to turn those 12 houses into three blocks of four and make really modern dwellings of them. Under the section of the Act to which I have referred, it is competent for the town council to reconstruct those houses under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act and to make application for a grant, and there is nothing that will keep the Department from giving the grant, provided that, when constructed, the houses are let to people in a similar economic position to agricultural labourers.
      1224
      Here is a glorious opportunity for the reconstruction, not of derelict property, but of well-constructed property, and for putting in the houses all that is required to bring them up to modern standards. Such houses, in the case I have in mind, are available for the old people and, if necessary, for the young people who are desirous of getting decent, modem houses instead of the old houses which they have only a limited chance of getting at the present time. In this case, the town council was able to purchase these three blocks of property at a maximum of seven years' purchase price based on the rental which was being paid for the property at that time. It was a good business proposition, and I think the same sort of thing could be done in many other parts of Scotland. Again, I would emphasise the need for drawing the attention of local authorities to this power which they have.
      Mr. McGovern: Am I to understand that the hon. Member is advocating that old property should be bought at a seven year valuation? Is he aware that such a valuation in the case of most of the tenements in Glasgow, which have a rental of, say, £100, would amount to £700 for property which, when new, cost only £1,000?
      Mr. Westwood: I am not advocating that at all. It is within the competence of the local authorities themselves to determine whether the property is reasonable. I am not using the word "reconstruction" in its widest sense, but in a limited sense. No external reconstruction is necs-sary. All that is required is the installation of a hot water system and a little internal reconstruction. I am speaking of the large burghs and not of the city of Glasgow, but some of the houses in those burghs can be adapted in various ways and the little porch at the entrance from the street can be used for lavatory accommodation. These are well-built houses and in various ways can be brought up to modern standards. I am not suggesting, however, that the Glasgow Corporation should waste money in buying property which could not be reconstructed on the lines I have suggested.
      Mr. McGovern: How old are these houses?
      Mr. Westwood: The property to which I am referring is about 35 years old and

      1225
      it is well constructed of stone. It is far better constructed and will have a longer life than some of the municipal dwellings which are being erected at present. In connection with overcrowding, it is clear that the Department is not satisfied with the progress which is being made and that dissatisfaction is shared by the Secretary of State and by every Member of the House. The Act dealing with this problem has been on the Statute Book for four years and only the burghs of Old Meldrum, Bonnyrigg and Lasswade, Ellon and Cupar, the district of Kennoway in the county of Fife, the Dysart Ward of Kirkcaldy and South Queensferry have been able to satisfy the Department that they have successfully overcome the problem of overcrowding.
      Mr. Colville: There are 13 authorities altogether.
      Mr. West wood: If I have missed out any, perhaps they will have the satisfaction of being mentioned later by the Secretary of State as being among the 13 authorities who have tried to tackle this problem and have partially succeeded in dealing with it. But something more and better ought to be done by local authorities in Scotland and I hope that when we discuss this report next year we shall find that further progress has been made in this respect. I wish to make a special reference to the question of water supplies, partly because of the possibility of an emergency. In the first place I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Department for their courtesy in providing me with a very good and useful statement of the work which has already been done in this respect. I must say, however, that what has been done scarcely satisfies all the requirements for dealing with this problem. We are faced with the possibility of a grave emergency and every effort should be made by every local authority in Scotland to see that the various water supply systems are connected. In many instances, these connections could be made at little cost. To-day, if a bomb were to fall upon a particular water system, it might mean chaos in that area of supply, but if there was a system of connecting up different systems, two or more bombs would have to hit their targets before the water could be completely cut off
      Mr. Stephen: That is in the report.
      Mr. Westwood: There is a brief reference to it, but I am not satisfied with the progress which is being made and I hope that the Department will press on with the necessary arrangements. If we had had these water supplies connected during the year of drought, the results would have repaid the expenditure of the local authorities, and I need not emphasise the value of such a system in case of emergency. In connection with our Defence plans would like to hear something about hospital arrangements in Scotland. Last week in the "Times" there appeared two very important statements, one a letter written by some leading medical man in London and the other an editorial upon this subject. The letter dated 29th June states:
      "We are convinced that the present unsatisfactory state of preparedness is due to the lack of direction by a responsible authority. There is at present no person charged with effective responsibility for the whole of the London area and decisions even of a minor character require reference to various officials at the Ministry of Health and elsewhere."
      Are we facing that problem in the right way in Scotland? The report deals with emergency hospital arrangements and I would like to know whether the Department are advising local authorities to acquire a number of ambulances of the type of the splendid ambulance which has been prepared by one of the large bus companies. Secondly, I would like to know whether at the Department there is someone directly responsible for hospital organisation in Scotland to meet any emergency that may arise in the unfortunate event of war.
      There are many other points with which I should like to deal, but my time is drawing to a close. I would point out that it is now two years since the Maternity Act was placed on the Statute Book and as yet only a limited number of authorities have put forward their full scheme. There is a tremendous lag in dealing with this and other problems. In some districts medical men have not helped the local authorities to deal with this problem, and despite the fact that negotiations were carried through with the central authority of the medical bodies, local branches have created all kinds of difficulties. The lives of our womenfolk are involved in this matter, and it is time that we were engaged, with the medical profession and the hospital authorities in

      1227
      dealing with it. We have not yet provided an adequate number of beds to deal with maternity cases in. Scotland. I understand that we have only 800 beds to deal with 88,000 maternity cases. I hope we shall soon have some extension of the hospital services. One thing I would say in conclusion is that, no matter what we do, all our efforts will be useless unless we provide adequate food and decent habitations for our people. Unless we provide them with the clothing that we can produce in abundance for our people, unless we organise our hospital services and make provision for all that they require, we shall never attain that ideal of a health service of Scotland that we are entitled to and that we are striving for.
      9.5 p.m.
      Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I do not think that any hon. Member of this Committee will quarrel with the last sentence of the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood), but it is not upon that subject that I want to dwell. I would rather call the attention of the Committee to something that he said about the maintenance of water supplies in times of emergency. It is true that this question is referred to in the report, and the recommendation is there made that local authorities would be "well advised "—that is the term used—to have such connections made where they are practicable, although in normal circumstances water would not be transferred from one system to another. The question I want to ask the Secretary of State, in the hope that the Under-Secretary may give the Committe some information in his reply, is whether anything more has been done since this recommendation that local authorities would be well advised to make such connections, because this question is so important that we want a very strong direction from the Department of Health in order that local authorities may now, if they have not already done so, be making these preparations for an emergency.
      There are other ways in which our country can be prepared, and the Committee will be pleased, I am sure, with the steps which have been taken and which are detailed in the last chapter of this very interesting report, to make our country ready to face an emergency which we all hope may never eventuate. I ventured to interrupt—and I was sorry
      1228
      to do so—the most interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston)because I genuinely wanted a little more information about his desire—a desire which I am sure will be shared by all Members of this Committee—that when we provide houses for the urban population we should, it possible, be able to provide them with certain essentials of life. He mentioned the provision of furniture, and he and the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) mentioned refrigerators. It seems to me that we must look upon these matters in the sombre light of the dangers with which we are surrounded, for in consequence of those dangers it is very difficult indeed 'to obtain money from the Treasury for such things as these. In the circumstances of the existing financial stringency the test must be whether those services—furniture, refrigerators and so on—are economically self-supporting. There is a question of priority in these matters. It seems to me that priority at the moment must be given to the things which make our country safe, and then to the building of the houses that we so much need, and after that let us get on with the other things.
      Many hon. Members have; referred to the question of housing, and I only intervened in this Debate to make some remarks on the rural aspect of that subject. I think we in Scotland can congratulate ourselves that our legislation is in advance of English legislation in that by the terms of the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, which received the Royal Assent last year, it is possible now for us to obtain grants for new houses for rural workers in addition to the powers which were contained in the Housing (Rural Workers) Act for reconditioning existing houses. That Act of 1938 has, it seems to me, one main defect, and that is that grants can only he obtained by private individuals in respect of houses which are to replace those which are unfit. I think the exact wording of the Act is that houses "which, being unfit for human habitation and not capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered so fit" are to be demolished or closed. That does seem to me to be a grave defect, because the first step is the condemnation of the house. Not by this means can private enterprise help to make up the very real shortage of houses for rural workers.

      1229
      Of course any change in that respect would involve new legislation, but I think the second suggestion that I have to make would not. I want to urge the Secretary of State to do what he can to promote uniformity between county and county in the drawing up of the schemes under the Act to which I have referred. I have found that in one county, the name of which I will not give, it is possible to obtain a grant for reconditioning or, in the case of the most recent Act, for rebuilding houses on much easier terms than it is in the neighbouring county- I would urge the Secretary of State to examine these county schemes, not to see where they can be tightened up, but to see where they can be widened to permit the building of houses in far greater numbers. What we have been trying to do is to build rural houses by town standards, and I think that is a mistake, not because we do not want to put good houses in rural districts, but because if we insist too much upon bringing those houses up to town standards we shall make the expense in these days of high building costs impossibly high for many people who otherwise would like to make these improvements.
      I had not intended to intervene in this Debate otherwise I would have provided myself with some data which I think might have interested this Committee. I have in many cases been taking advantage of the facilities offered by these Acts to improve the houses on the estate with which I am connected and I have found that in many small and irritating and and seemingly unnecessary ways lairds are having to spend a lot of money in order to comply with rather unreasonable and unnecessary regulations. There was one case in which, by having the height of the treads and risers of the stairs just half an inch less than is laid down in the regulations, it would have been possible to save something like £35. By having those stairs a little steeper the width of the house could have been narrower and the roof and everything would have been cheaper. I am not saying that the stairs would have been made too steep, because they would have conformed to the by-laws of many local authorities in England which I have taken the pains to look up. That is one example of a rather unnecessary waste of money—£35 on a little thing like that. I could give other examples of regulations dealing with the height of ceilings, and so on, laid down not in the
      1230
      Act of Parliament but in the county scheme. I ask the Secretary of State to examine these county schemes to see whether (something cannot be done to cheapen the requirements, because I know for a fact that in many cases lairds who want to do what they can to improve housing standards on their estates are unable to do it on account of the expense in which it involves them. If we could make things easier for them we should do much to solve the difficulty of housing rural workers.
      I was glad to see in the Report a reference to the splendid initiative of Mr. Russell of the Burn in providing for a competition among the architects of Scotland in drawing up plans for cottages for rural workers. I was glad to see that during the year which this Report covers 3,800 applications were made for these plans. I have armed myself with a set of the plans and have found them very useful, and I was pleased to see the reference to them made in the Report. By getting the cheapest kind of building, in these ways and by encouraging people to build without insisting upon unnecessary things, much can be done for the housing of rural workers in Scotland.
      9.19 p.m.
      Mr. McLean Watson: We have listened to a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), but I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will not consider some of the proposals which he has put before him. He complimented Scotland on having an Act for rural housing which was superior to the English Act, but went on to argue in favour of the Scottish standard of housing being reduced to astandard which he has seen somewhere in England. I hope the Secretary of State will not seek to reduce housing standards in the rural areas of Scotland. I remember the discussions in Committee upon the Act which provides houses for the agricultural population in Scotland and those who are in a similar economic situation, and a considerable amount of attention was given to the question of water supplies. Water supplies in the rural areas have formed a considerable part of our discussion this afternoon and it would be interesting to know from the Under-Secretary, when he replies, the number of houses which have been erected or which it is proposed to

      1231
      erect under that particular Act. The Government attached a great deal of importance to that Act, and we should like to know whether anything has been accomplished under it. Many of us prophesied that little would be done in the rural areas because of the difficulties of water supplies, and argued that before it was placed on the Statute Book a comprehensive system of water supplies for the rural areas ought to have been secured. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us whether the Department have yet had any schemes for the building of houses under that particular Act in the more outlying areas.
      Mr. Colville: The hon. Member means the Act of last year?
      Mr. Watson: Yes, the Act of last year for the housing of the agricultural population. Many hon. Members have referred to the conditions in their constituencies, and I should like to refer to some conditions in mine. It may seem rather extraordinary, but I should like to compliment the Secretary of State for Scotland on being a fairly decent property owner. He has not had many compliments this afternoon—he has had a number, but he did not get many from the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) —and I should like to pay him a little compliment for something he has done in my area. Some months ago there was a rather alarming situation at Rosyth owing to the reopening of the dockyard. More than 400 tenants in Rosyth were served with notices to vacate their houses, and it looked as though there would be a very serious housing situation. I want to compliment the Secretary of State on the part he has played in easing the situation. It is a remarkable thing that, despite the fact that those notices were served some months ago, no tenant has been evicted from his house. I do not think there is a prospect of many being evicted from the Rosyth housing scheme, and for that situation the Secretary of State is entitled to some gratitude.
      The houses are supposed to be owned by the Scottish National Housing Company, but that company is simply a piece of camouflage for certain Government Departments. The Department of Health in Edinburgh has a direct control over the Scottish National Housing Company,
      1232
      and the Department of Health is simply a shield for the Admiralty. The Admiralty have the first claim on those houses, and they were acting within their rights when they asked the Scottish National Housing Company to serve notices on the tenants. It is true that the tenants received with the notices a nicely-phrased letter to tell them they could apply for monthly lets instead of the yearly lets which had existed in Rosyth up to that time. I am pleased to say that all the tenants in the Rosyth houses took the opportunity to sign the missive for monthly lets. With the exception of some tenants who left after the notice had been served, no tenant has been evicted from his house.
      I also want to pay a little compliment to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, because I have found him a perfect gentleman so far as this problem is concerned. The fact that tenants have not been evicted up to this time is due to the Secretary of State, the Civil Lord, and the Dunfermline Town Council, who have played a very large part in getting us out of that difficulty. Fortunately, the Dunfermline Town Council were building a large number of new houses on the outskirts of Rosyth and tenants are being, or will be, removed during the next few weeks into these new houses as they are completed, and great credit is due to the Town Council, the Civil Lord and the Secretary of State for getting us out of that difficulty. But while that is the situation at Rosyth, there are other parts of my constituency which are not in the same fortunate position. The area that I live in, for instance, has a difficulty which is not unknown in mining areas. We have the greatest difficulty in finding suitable sites. There is continual undermining going on with the consequent wrecking of houses, and in many cases houses which have not long been erected are wrecked. The local authority have the greatest difficulty in getting suitable sites.
      The Department of Health very rightly tries to insist upon safe sites for houses, but they are faced with a situation which requires exceptional treatment. A little Measure has been passed dealing with mining subsidence and proposing to give some little compensation to owners whose property has been damaged, but I am pretty certain that very little benefit will

      1233
      come to the great bulk of owners of private houses in these areas from that Act of Parliament. It has been pared down during its passage through the House, and I believe very little more than the name of the Measure remains to be placed on the Statute Book. At least I will not hold out any prospect of very much compensation coming to property owners in my area as the result of that Measure.
      The Secretary of State has a very considerable area to cover and many Departments to look after and the problems of the Highlands and Islands, as well as the problems in the area that I have been describing. In the Highlands he has peculiar difficulties to face. The hon. Member who preceded me told us about the difficulties of the landowners and farmers in providing suitable housing accommodation for their workers. He can cheer up. There are good times coming for the farmers and for the landlords. We have been giving them subsidies in almost every direction, and in the hon. Member's own area, where there are oats and barley growers, there is a good time coming for them. We are busily engaged in passing through Committee upstairs a Measure which is going to bring prosperity to oats and barley growers, so the hon. Member need not be very much depressed. Farmers and landowners who may be responsible for providing houses for their workers will ere long be in a position to provide all the accommodation that their workers will require. Evidently the Government has made up its mind that prosperity has to come to the agricultural industry. I am not sure that it will come to the worker, but there is a good deal for the farmer and landowners and they may be able to meet, to a large extent, the difficulty outlined by the hon. Member.
      I want to compliment the Secretary of State on his report. It is true, as he said, that there is a general improvement in health conditions but, as he also pointed out, much remains to be done. I hope he will take a lesson from the little experience that he has had in connection with Rosyth housing, because the Scottish National Housing Company is going to build new houses—as a matter of fact it has started to build them—at Rosyth. There will be very little difficulty about that. He did not want to go to the Treasury and ask for more money, but
      1234
      there were other means by which money could be got and the work has been speedily undertaken. The corporation's plans have been taken up by the Housing Company and without any delay at all new houses are to be erected. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman do that in other parts of Scotland? I suppose it is the difficulty of getting the money. If the Treasury would only give him the money he would provide the houses. All of us would welcome the day if houses could be provided as speedily for the rest of Scotland as he has undertaken to provide them to meet the difficulties at Rosyth. At any rate, the Secretary of State has much to do, despite his efforts during the past 12 months.
      9.34 p.m.
      Mr. Stephen: As I have listened to the Debate I have wondered where was the matter of congratulation to the Secretary of State for Scotland. As I look through the report I find that the Scottish housing position is anything but a matter for congratulation. The position in Glasgow is very bad indeed. I am informed—I would like the Secretary of State to tell me whether the information is correct—that there are 70,000 applications for houses in the hands of the housing committee of the Glasgow Corporation, and that the list has been suspended for three months because the corporation are not willing to take any further names. I want him to give us some information with regard to the number of applications that have been made for houses in Glasgow during each of the last five years, and the number of those applications which have been successful. I put down a question to the right hon. Gentleman on those lines and he told me that the information was not available. I received complaints from constituents that they have had their names down for years and that when they go to find out about it they discover that the list has been lost and the housing department do not know. Their application seems to have gone amiss. I want information of the records that are kept of applications and how people are being treated in respect of their applications.
      The second point I wish to put to the Minister concerns the provision of houses for people who present a medical certificate and who have possibly been in one of the city hospitals and are faced with

      1235
      the prospect of having to go back to a slum house. In such a case it would be only a matter of months before they would be in the same position again, because of the dreadful housing conditions. I received a letter to-day about one of these cases and I have taken up the case with the Secretary of State. He has informed me that in view of the medical certificate the house was to have been provided at an early date. I now learn that the scheme under which the house was to have been provided—the Berry Knowes scheme, Cardonald—has been suspended for the time being because the contractor who was responsible has gone into liquidation. There is no saying when the scheme will be started again. Consequently, the woman concerned is in hospital at the present moment and has nowhere to go when she comes out. She expected to go out of hospital into a house. I will give the Secretary of State the letter afterwards, and I hope that he will see that a house is immediately provided in this case for this woman so that she will have a chance of health and strength.
      Mr. Colville: Is that the case about which the hon. Member wrote to me?
      Mr. Stephen: Yes, Sir, and I will give the Minister the further letter. I would ask him whether the medical officer of health should not have first claim upon houses when he thinks that they are necessary for the health of a family in the city. Ought he not to have definite control over the director of housing with regard to the allocation of houses for people who are in such a state of sickness that a decent house is necessary for them? I would like the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter of whether the medical officer of health should not be the final housing authority in such circumstances.
      I have been looking into the financial account. I find that the 1919 Act provided 27,874 houses at a cost to the Exchequer of £15,772,264. I find that all the schemes since 1919 have provided 218,958 houses which have cost the Exchequer only £12,541,729. So that 10 times the number of houses have cost the Exchequer about £3,000,000 less. I wonder whether one of the reasons why houses are not being provided more rapidly is that the Exchequer is not pro-
      1236
      viding sufficient money to assist the local authorities. I believe that in Glasgow the local authority is afraid of skying the rates if they go in for the development of a housing scheme. Immediately after the War and all the expenditure upon it, 27,000 houses cost about £15,000,000, and yet after all these years and all the time for recovery, the total Exchequer grant has been only £12,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman has to give us an answer to these extraordinary figures. Evidently, in 1919 the Treasury were far more concerned about housing the people and giving the money for it than is the case to-day.
      Now I want to refer to the Poor Law. In the report it is stated that 40 per cent. of the total poor in Scotland are in Glasgow. This is the biggest city in Scotland, with the most tremendous wealth production in the country, yet despite all this capacity for wealth production 40 per cent. of the total poor of the country are located there. The report states that in 1938 the provision for the able-bodied poor was £350,496 and that the comparative figure for 1934 was £2,398,938. The statement is made:
      "These figures illustrate the extent to which local authorities have been relieved by the operation of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934."
      I would ask the Secretary of State whether, in the report, account has been taken of the contribution that has to be made by local authorities to the Unemployment Assistance Board, because when the State took over this responsibility the local authorities were asked to make an annual contribution. Does the figure of £350,496 include the contribution for the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed which is made by the contribution that has to be made by the National Exchequer in that connection? I hope that when he replies the Minister will be able to clear up that point. As it stands, it seems to me to leave things somewhat doubtful.
      In connection with Poor Law and housing it has been pointed out that when a person in Glasgow is in sick poor and has 7s. 6d. a week from National Health Insurance, that 7s. 6d., according to the Statute, should not come into the consideration in assessing the needs of that sick person. In Glasgow the practice is that if that person asks for clothing or boots and is in receipt of 7s. 6d. a week

      1237
      from National Health Insurance he is supposed to get the clothes and the boots out of the 7s. 6d. I do not think that is right and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put a stop to it. On a previous occasion a predecessor of the Under-Secretary, the late Mr. Skelton, stopped Greenock acting illegally with regard to the 7s. 6d. I hope that in this case people will get their clothing and boots when they need them, irrespective of the 7s. 6d. on the National Health Insurance. I hope that the Minister will make an inquiry into that matter.
      The next point that I want to make is in connection with that part of the report which deals with pensions. I have not heard much to-day about pensions, but I see nothing in the report as to whether the Department is making any inquiry into the health and the conditions of the widows and also the old persons who are living on the 10s. a week pension. I wonder whether the Minister would not agree to have a committee of inquiry into the way in which so many of these people are living. Last year we got a committee to inquire into the claims of spinsters in regard to pensions at 55. I do not think that committee reported very satisfactorily, but at least there was some inquiry, and I believe the circumstances of the old age pensioner at the present time are such that a Government that had real concern for the wellbeing of the people would do something to help these people. It is only fair that I should say that in Glasgow there has been a development in the Crookston homes for old people, and I think a tribute should be paid to those homes which have been instituted by the Glasgow Corporation. One of my constituents has become the occupier of one of those cottages and is full of enthusiasm for the comfort and happiness that he and his wife will enjoy in this home. I went to see them, and I think it is well that tribute should be paid to this great new experiment. I hope there will be a development of the provision of homes for old people in this way, with a certain amount of communal life and all the opportunities that it gives to the old people.
      The question of the provision of houses for young married people is also a question in regard to which there must be a general amount of sympathy in this Committee. It is very important that young
      1238
      people should have the opportunity of starting life in a decent house, and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that if this housing question were tackled properly, as the question of providing for the needs of the nation in the face of the enemy from without has been tackled, the money would be found, the labour would be found, and the problem would be solved. If only the Government were prepared to apply the same enthusiasm and imagination as they have applied in connection with their rearmament plans, I am confident that the people in my division would have a much greater hope of a decent house in which to live. The one thing that stands out in the report is the problem of poverty. It is that problem that is responsible for these wretched housing conditions.
      One thing more. I notice in the nutrition paragraphs that there is a certain amount of discomfort because there is the tendency in schools for the children to stop taking milk. Various explanations are given, and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would not try an experiment in some district of providing milk free to all the children who want it. Let him do away with the small fee, try it out in a school here or there, see what the percentage is, and compare it with the numbers given in the report. I am quite convinced that so many of the excuses which are given are the natural excuses that children would give and that they do not like milk because they cannot get the halfpenny. I know it from my own experience in an elementary school and from my knowledge of the child mind, and I give no credence at all to most of the explanations that are given in this connection. I ask the Minister to try it out somewhere as an experiment.
      When the right hon. Gentleman spoke with such complacency about 7½ lb. being gained by the boy of 13 in the Glasgow school, I would ask him to remember also that the report points out that there has been a corresponding improvement in all the other social grades as well, and that the children in the East end of Giasgow are still so much smaller and so much less well nourished than the children in the West end. Is it not a funny thing, is it not a curious thing, that the small children live in the East end, that the

      1239
      small and badly nourished children all seem to get into the East end and that the well grown children get into the West end? Yet the explanation of it is not so very mysterious. It is because in the East end you have the people who are living in poverty, just as you get, in the West end, the people who never know what poverty means. When it comes to providing Militia, you get the militiamen from the East end. I hope the day is coming when there will be a new spirit, a new imagination, in the Scottish Office and that the East end of our great cities will have social justice and money spent upon it in order that these people may have a square deal in life.
      9.53 P.m.
      Sir Murdoch MacDonald: Probably there has seldom been in this House such unanimity in regard to any one subject as there has been throughout the Debate to-day in saying that the people of our country must be better housed than they are to-day and that housing must proceed at a greater rate than it has done. The Secretary of State represents the collective views of Members of Parliament. The Government represent the House of Commons, and when the House of Commons disagrees with the Government, they have to retire and give place to some other Government that will be more in accord with the general feeling of the House. To-night the general feeling of the Members is that far greater progress must be made with housing than has hitherto been made. I therefore have to say to myself, Why is it that housing is not proceeding at the rate at which it ought to proceed? As I see it, the Secretary of State for Scotland is very willing and indeed anxious that housing should proceed. I do not believe for a moment that through the work of his Department in passing schemes submitted to them there is any undue delay. There must be some other regulating factor. I have heard it suggested to-night that the contribution that is made is not sufficient, that the £6 15s. is not a large enough sum to allow housing to proceed at a proper rate. I do not believe that that is really the true answer. I agree that it may be a part of the answer, and, as far as I am concerned, if it is shown that the grant is not sufficient, then I shall be prepared to support any movement to press the Government to give a
      1240
      greater sum, so that adequate housing may be provided for the people.
      I remember that last year the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) spoke on this identical problem, pointing out clearly and concisely the terrible conditions in Glasgow, which, after all, as far as Soctland is concerned, is the major problem. He showed how badly people were housed, and I felt moved to ask myself whether the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Glasgow Corporation should not get into touch with the trade unions and see whether it was pot something in connection with them that was retarding the progress of housing. I really believe there is something in that. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson), in the Debate to-night, mentioned that there are practically no bricklayers free in Scotland at the present moment. He also spoke about stone masops, and, knowing something about masonry, I deeply regret that stone houses are not being built more in Scotland than they are to-day. The hon. Member, in answer to a query from this side, said that the masons have left Scotland to go to England, but I doubt whether that is the real explanation. The real explanation must be that young men have not been entering either the bricklayer's or the stonemason's trade in sufficient numbers to allow of proper progress being made with our housing.
      The hon. Member said that he himself was a carpenter by trade, and, as such, he was bound to know a good deal about the circumstances of that trade. He deprecated very strongly the building of wooden houses, and I, like him, should be very sorry, as a matter of principle, to see a vast number of wooden houses built in Scotland, if we could possibly get, preferably, stone houses, or, in default of stone houses, brick houses. We ought not to adopt timber houses until we have exhausted the possibilities in regard to workmen, of getting the other two classes. I hope, therefore, that to-night, when the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary replies, he will say what negotiations have taken place with the trade unions and others in order that additional men may be put into the service of the various trades, so that sufficient houses may be built, because, undoubtedly, nothing like as many houses are being built to-day as are needed. Last year the hon. Member for Gorbals pointed out that in Glasgow

      1241
      they were not building any more new houses than would equal the number required to replace old houses which were falling into disuse. That is a terrible state of affairs, and I hope the Secretary of State will be able to tell us to-night what negotiations have been taking place in order to remedy it.
      Mr. Colville: If my hon. Friend will forgive me for interrupting him, I would point out to him that I said there had been negotiations on that very subject, and that, as a result, the number of bricklayers engaged on local authorities' schemes had risen from 2,637 in December, 1936, to 3,810 in December, 1938, while the number of joiners in the same period had increased from 2,220 to 4,058. Therefore, that question has been fully kept in mind, and it will be followed up.
      Sir M. MacDonald: It is very pleasing to know that, and I hope that in the coming year we shall see, as a consequence, a large increase in the number of houses built. But even the figures which the Secretary of State has just mentioned do not seem to me to be quite sufficient to meet the pressing demand for houses in Scotland. I sympathise with everyone who is living in either slum conditions or overcrowded conditions. The plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter) for the young married people must appeal to every Member of the House. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to push forward with this housing problem at a far greater rate than is indicated by the figures he has just quoted to me.
      The hon. Member for Tradeston also mentioned concrete houses, and he referred to someone on this side who might have some little knowledge in regard to concrete. I think I have some little knowledge with respect to that particular matter, and I would deprecate the building of concrete houses if it could possibly be avoided. It is quite true that they ought to be kept vacant for quite a time after they are built, until they have become thoroughly dry, but, apart from that, the ordinary colour of cement concrete is not pleasing, and it is extremely difficult to make a concrete house of pleasing exterior. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will continue to press for the building of stone houses first in Scotland, if that is at all possible, and, if not, for brick houses.
      10.3 p.m.
      Mr. Gallacher: In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to direct attention to the complacency, not to say self-satisfaction, that has been expressed with regard to the health and physical well-being of the Scottish people. I do not know how anyone can discuss such a subject without shame. Of course, it may be possible to provide figures to show that there has been an improvement in the physical well-being of the people, and that there have been improvements in sanitation and in various other directions, but, if any hon. Member will seriously consider the question of physical or cultural improvement in relation to the advance in productive forces, the advance of medical science, and the advance of culture in general, he will find that the advance in Scotland is far behind the general advance in these matters. It is shameful, when you compare the character of production 50 years ago and the state of science and culture 50 years ago, to find that such terrible conditions exist in Scotland. It is not sufficient to say that an improvement can be seen here and there. If the matter is examined from the point of view of the improvement in production, scientific knowledge, culture and general advance, it will be seen that in Scotland we are not holding our own, and that the capitalist system is destroying more quickly than we can build.
      There has been a pamphlet published recently by Mr. Ferguson, a well known Glasgow Communist, entitled "Scotland." I wish every Member of the Committee would get a copy and read it. It is a terrible indictment of what is happening in Scotland, in area after area and industry after industry. There has been much said about housing to-day. I agree with everything that has been said. Not only have you it in the cities but in the rural areas. I went to my constituency on Sunday, and a friend who came in from the rural areas said to me, "There are housing conditions out there that I am certain people in this country would never believe existed. The water is seeping all the time through the roof, in every part of the house rat holes are to be seen in the walls and rats are running in and out, there is sewage running in front of the house."
      I want to direct the attention of the Secretary of State to another matter which

      1243
      is just as important, and that is rents. In every one of the housing schemes in Scotland there are families who have to go on short rations because of the high rents they have to pay. The Governments policy is to increase rents by cutting down the operation of the Rent Restriction Acts. We can see the effect of this from what happened in Stepney last week, where the same patience and tolerance was not shown to tenants as is shown to the Japanese at Tientsin. In every part of the country the question of rents is a burning question with masses of working-class men and women the main part of whose budget has to be expended in rent. We want to see houses for all—for the young married couples and the elderly people—but at rents that are within reasonable reach of the poorest family.
      I would have liked to have dealt with the general industrial situation. The right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) referred to subsidies for shipping and the fact that they can be used in such a way as to carry out in the shipping industry what has been taking place in other industries. We have discussed many times the transfer of industries from Scotland to England which has left whole areas desolate. You may have a situation in which, because of the shipping subsidies, the whole of the Clyde shipping may be ruined. This process of the transfer of industry from Scotland must be stopped. You can stand on the mountain side in Scotland and look across the wide spreading valleys—-you will not see more beautiful country anywhere. But the one thing you will find wherever you go in the Highland hills is an almost complete absence of people. They have been driven out of the country. You will find them in the far places of the world, or in the cities lined up for public assistance, or in the queues at the Employment Exchanges, but in these valleys there is scarcely anyone to be seen. They are all desolate and deserted; where the clansmen used to live. This must be dealt with. Questions of rents and the industrial centres, housing for young married couples, care and attention for the old folk, these must be dealt with. The question of the Highlands and Islands and the report submitted by the economic committee must be taken up. All these
      1244
      things are clamouring for attention. Scotland is suffering from industrial mal nutrition, from agricultural malnutrition, from depopulation. Monopoly capitalism has played havoc with Scotland. There can be no question of tributes for this Minister any more than any other. Only by getting rid of Ministers such as there are in this Government—
      The Temporary Chairman (Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward): I think the hon. Member is getting rather wide of the Vote we are discussing.
      Mr. Gallacher: I was just going to conclude. If we are going to renew life in Scotland, populate the desolate valleys, and bring back that splendid manhood and womanhood it will be necessary to get a Government of the working class that understands the problem, and is not concerned with rent and profits but is concerned with the well-being of men and women. When we get such a Government we will solve the problems that confront us in Scotland.
      10.12 p.m.
      Mr. Mathers: My feelings have been very mixed as I have heard some of the contributions to this Debate, which I think everyone will agree has been very interesting. In much of the atmosphere in which I have found myself the feeling that has predominated in me has been one of shame—shame that the country from which we come should have such sores, such rags to exhibit to those who listen to these Debates. When I wondered in what way we could apply an effective remedy for the condition in which we find Scotland to-day I thought that no one had boldly stated what might be done in a comprehensive way. Until we have the opportunity of threshing out these matters for ourselves, taking time over them—not simply one day allotted to us among the mass of other business in this House—until we have the opportunity in Scotland of looking after our own Scottish affairs, we cannot expect to alter the conditions in which our people are living.
      That was particularly in my mind when I listened to the doleful speech of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) who recited all the difficulties but said nothing in the way of constructive proposals to deal with the position. It is

      1245
      regrettable that such conditions should still exist in Scotland. I am glad the Secretary of State is not complacent about the position, but, as his speech proves, realises only too well that there is much to be done. In regard to housing, the position of Glasgow has been very much to the fore. There seems to be on the part of many Members an implied criticism of the Labour majority in the Glasgow town council. The bad housing conditions in that vast city are simply a monument to past mismanagement. I believe that those in charge of affairs in Glasgow are as eager as anyone in this House can be to get rid of those bad housing conditions, which are such a disgrace to the second city in Scotland. [Interruption.] Glasgow says it is the second city of the Empire, but there is another city in Scotland which considers itself first in our country.
      I want to clear up a question arising out of the Debate on last year's Estimate. On 20th July last year, I pointed out that the county council of Fife was casting an aspersion on those belonging to my calling—the clerks, and the railway clerks in particular—by saying that they were not members of the working-class, and were not eligible for the special house rent conditions provided for the working-class in the county. Ever since then, I have been following the matter up with the Scottish Office, and I think it very regrettable indeed—to use mild language —that the point has not yet been cleared up between the Scottish Office and the county council of Fife. I hope that very soon the Scottish Office will use its authority, and declare that the county council is not justified in describing railway clerks as not being entitled to working-class conditions in respect of rents of council houses. I hope it will be possible for the under-Secretary to give me some reply to-night on this question, which has been before his Department for nearly 12 months.
      Housing, of course, has been the principal matter with which we have concerned ourselves to-day. A number of Members have referred to the proposition put forward by the Convention of Royal Burghs as to the desirability of favourable consideration being given by the Government to subsidies for reconditioning houses and the provision of houses on a more adequate scale for aged people,
      1246
      single persons and young married couples. The Secretary of State said that on the 14th of this month he will be meeting representatives of the Convention of Royal Burghs, and I hoped that he might have, been able to give us some better indication of the attitude he will take. He indicated, of course, that he has to keep in mind that there are still 230,000 houses required in Scotland for slum clearance and overcrowding. We agree with that, but the time has come when we should no longer be compelling young married couples to serve a period of penance and purgatory with their "in-laws" after they get married before they can become entitled to consideration for a council house. I urge that most earnestly upon the right hon. Gentleman.
      In his speech the right hon. Gentleman made reference to the development of maternity services, which do not seem to be developing rapidly enough. I hope that this is a matter which will have his attention and that it will be pressed forward by him. There is something almost disgraceful in the fact that in Scotland, with an annual birth rate last year of 88,000, we had only 800 beds for maternity purposes provided by local authorities, and an additional 630 beds provided in voluntary hospitals, a total of 1,430 beds. The matter is one that will brook no delay. It is necessary, if we are to save the mothers, and the children them-selves, that more rapid development shall take place in the provision of maternity services, especially in hospitals, where the mothers can properly be cared for and the children be given a better opportunity of surviving.
      The right hon. Gentleman made another reference to the extreme pressure upon his various Departments during the past year owing to the calls of Civil De-fence. We agree that that has meant a very great deal, and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken into account this fact, which is perhaps a little outside his own province, but which bears upon the work that his Departments have to do, and indirectly upon the health services that may be provided and the developments that may take place under the aegis of local authorities. It is the provision of the necessary equipment for De-fence services by the local authorities. I have in mind particularly two small burghs in my constituency—the Burgh of

      1247
      Bo'ness and the Burgh of South Queens-ferry—which are vulnerable areas which feel that the expense which they are called upon to bear is so great that they can hardly stand up to it. I am certain that this will have extreme repercussions upon other work that they ought to do and which comes within the purview of the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will keep in mind the necessity for urging upon the Cabinet that the greatest possible measure of support ought to be given to the local authorities in order to enable them to carry out the work that is necessary, so that it may not hinder or hamper the other work which this Debate to-day has proved to be absolutely necessary in Scotland. Although my remarks come at the end of this Debate, I am not seeking in any way to regard them as anything in the way of a winding-up speech. They must necessarily be sketchy and perhaps rather inadequate and hurried because of the fact that I want the Under-Secretary of State to have a proper opportunity of replying.
      The question of town planning was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and he indicated that we had started too late.
      Mr. Colville: Not too late, but later than others.
      Mr. Mathers: The City of Edinburgh is a standing refutation of that statement. Edinburgh is noted throughout the world as a good town-planned city in part of its area. That was done at the beginning of the latter part of the last century, and it is a standing example as to how to town plan. The regrettable thing is that in the rush for profit the system under which we live has dictated that a much less adequate standard should be proceeded with, and the result has been chaos and slumdom, and the huddling tenement system which we have in Edinburgh as well as in other towns in Scotland.
      I want to make this point—it has to do with housing, and may come under the heading of rural houses—I want to plead with the Secretary of State for the preservation of the small communities which exist in Scotland at the present time. In many cases small villages and hamlets are in process of being wiped out of existence. There is a very great deal of affection for these places in the minds of those who are still inhabiting them, and who have lived
      1248
      in them for many years and brought up their families there. I am also certain that in the far parts of the Empire there are those who turn their minds back with great affection to the small rural hamlets and villages in which they were born and bred. There is too great a tendency to-day to wipe out these areas, to demolish the houses and huddle people together in bigger areas. I want the urge to preserve these places to come from the Secretary of State to the county authorities and to make it possible for their being maintained in existence and not brushed aside by the pressure of the desire for cheapness in the way of providing the necessary amenities which would bring them up to date.
      It is definitely a health matter to speak of the Coal Mines Refuse (Scotland) Act which is now on the Statute Book, an Act which gives to local authorities an opportunity of dealing with these burning pit heaps in a proper way. I want to ask what is the policy of the Scottish Office in this regard? Are they prepared in the interests of the health of the people affected by the noxious fumes which come from these burning bings to support local authorities and enable them to deal with this outstanding menace to the health of the people. I hope we shall have something from the Under-Secretary of State on that particular matter, indicating to us and to the local authorities who desire to use the provisions of that Act that they will have the full support of the Department.
      I will only mention one matter more. The outstanding problem which we are discussing to-day is the poverty of the people of Scotland. Here is one outstanding example of that fact, that on 6th April this year the Secretary of State for Scotland in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) was able to show that in Scotland at that date there were 46,797 old age pensioners having their incomes augmented from Poor Law funds. That is a stigma against Scotland. It is a potent source of malnutrition, poverty, ill health and unsatisfactory conditions. It is something which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State cannot but be convinced he ought to attend to. I hope that, as a result of the Debate that has taken place to-night, any possible idea of satisfaction with the small progress that was made last year compared with

      1249
      the year before will be completely dismissed from the minds of the right hon. Gentleman and those associated with him in the Scottish Office, and that we may look forward to even greater activity and greater efforts being made to bring Scotland up to a better standard than it has ever occupied.
      10.31 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I think the Committee will agree that, after the great diversity of points that have been raised in the Debate, it will be necessary for me, in replying, to make some selection, but, in accordance with the practice which my right hon. Friend observes on these occasions, any questions which have been asked or suggestions made which we do not have time to deal with in the Debate will be dealt with by communicating with the hon. Members who have raised the points. I think it would perhaps be convenient to the Committee if I addressed myself first to some of the questions which are not directly related to the principal theme of the Debate—the housing problem.
      I would like to begin by replying to the rather urgent questions about the organisation of hospitals that were put to me by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood). He asked whether there existed properly coordinated plans for the organisation of a casualty hospital service in Scotland in the event of war, and the answer is "Yes." The hon. Member will probably like to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State propose, at a very early date, to lay before Parliament a White Paper which will give a comprehensive statement of the arrangements made in Scotland as well as in England. My right hon. Friend will also issue, at the beginning of next week, to all hospitals in Scotland which will play an integral part in the emergency hospital service a statement showing the particular role they will be expected to play—and I know they will play it very willingly if the need should unhappily arise—and it will state the approximate numbers of beds which they will be expected to set free for casualties, the ways in which it is contemplated that these beds will be freed, the probable number of patients to be sent home, and the number to be transferred to the institutions to which
      1250
      patients will be transferred from the hospitals. I think the hon. Member will find that the White Paper, together with the memoranda issued by the Defence Division of the Department of Health which was set up last year, will constitute an answer to the very reasonable inquiry which he made.
      I must not neglect to deal with another rather different question which was put to me just now, as a sort of hangover from last year, by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), about railway clerks. I think he is probably aware that the Department of Health did take some steps to further his own views on this subject. The present position is that we are taking legal advice to see what the legal position is and whether local authorities can be obliged by law to treat railway clerks in the way which the hon. Member contemplates. In view of the fact that we are taking legal advice I am afraid that I cannot at present say anything further on the subject or give the hon. Member any reason to expect that that legal advice will necessarily be favourable to his own point of view.
      Mr. Gallacher: Is that advice being taken in connection with railway clerks only, or in connection with other classes as well?
      Mr. Wedderburn: It is in connection with all persons of that description.
      Mr. Mathers: Can the hon. Gentleman say when this opinion is likely to be obtained?
      Mr. Wedderburn: I think it will be obtained very soon, but I cannot say anything in anticipation of what it may be. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) asked questions about water supplies, about dental treatment and also about the Highland medical services. As he reminded me, he brought forward this point about water supplies last year. When I replied to him, I said that a committee of the Association of County Councils had been constituted to keep in touch with the Department of Health on this subject, and that they were expected to furnish us with a practical statement of what they really wanted and the kind of scheme which they thought would be necessary in their areas, together with the probable cost, and a statement of their rateable resources. The right hon.

      1251
      Baronet wanted to know whether they had yet given any information of this kind. I also said then, I think, that in the last resort the question was really one of finance and that in all probability, to provide a piped water supply to all houses, or even to a majority of houses in the Highlands, or in remote districts, would be very expensive, and that the cost must be considered in relation to other demands from all quarters on the Exchequer.
      With regard to the information supplied by this committee, I fear the right hon. Baronet will be disappointed to learn that when the local authorities got down to it, they found, apparently, that the practical details of the schemes were very difficult to prepare and we have not yet received much information from them. There is one item which may illustrate the expensiveness of supplying water to districts of that kind. The Inverness County Council made a survey of those parts of the Outer Islands which are within their area, and according to the estimate of their engineers the cost of supplying water, not to all the inhabitants but to a reasonable majority of the inhabitants of North and South Uist and Harris, would amount to £250,000. I suppose you could, possibly, buy the islands for less than that sum. I speak without any expert knowledge of engineering, but it seems to me almost certain that it would be impossible to supply every house in the Highlands with piped water, unless at an expense which would amount to very many times the value of the houses themselves. Of course this question is not one which concerns Scotland alone. There are many areas in England whose needs in some ways are perhaps even more acute. As I say, it is a question of finance, and while we have naturally every wish to do what we can to improve water supplies, the Department has no funds at its disposal to spend on this object, and I should not be candid if I told the right hon. Baronet that there was any great likelihood of obtaining a large sum of money for this purpose in the near future.
      In regard to his question about the special grant for the Highland medical services, my right hon. Friend has never felt justified in asking for the annual sum proposed in the report on the Health Services to which he referred, but, as he will
      1252
      see from these Estimates, increases have been obtained for a fairly large number of small objects, and the amount of grant payable this year shows an increase of £10,000 on the corresponding figure for last year, having risen from £96,000 to £106,000. With regard to dental services, the Department's medical officer is at present engaged in making a survey of the school dental conditions throughout the whole of Scotland, with a view to making recommendations as to the improvement of those services. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), following up the health statistics which my right hon. Friend had given for Glasgow, was very anxious that we should supply him with similar figures for his own constituency- I can promise the hon. Member to ascertain the comparative infant death-rate figures for Dumbarton County and Clydebank respectively, and I will send them to him; and I will also see whether it is possible to get the other comparative statistics he asks for about height and weight, similar to the figures given by the Glasgow medical officer of health, but such measurements will not necessarily have been recorded in his own area.
      The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) put a question about the sum payable by local authorities in respect of the Unemployment Assistance Board. I think he will probably remember that two or three years ago that contribution was entirely abolished. They do not now pay anything to the Unemployment Assistance Board in respect of the able-bodied poor whom the Unemployment Assistance Board took over on the second appointed day. The hon. Member also wanted an answer to a Question which he put on the Paper this afternoon, but which unfortunately was not reached, about the number of applications which have been received by the Housing Committee of the Corporation of Glasgow from his own constituency. I am afraid that the information on that point is not available, because the corporation have no complete records of the number of applications for houses and the number of people re-housed prior to the 1st January, 1935, and from that date onwards their records only give the information for the city as a whole. All the information I can give is for the city as a whole, and that will be sent to the hon. Member. Over the last seven years the number of applications received was

      1253
      73,201, and the number of families re-housed 28,732.
      Mr. Stephen: I shall get the figures for each year?
      Mr. Wedderburn: Yes, I could read them out, but it is rather a long list. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill) and some other hon. Members wanted some information about the camps and how we are proceeding with the work under the Camps Act. We first asked the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue to suggest sites which satisfied all the necessary conditions, and a very large number of sites were inspected. Sites for two camps to be built in the Edinburgh region have already been acquired by the Association, and negotiations for acquiring three sites selected for camps for the Glasgow area are proceeding with the owners. A site for Dundee has also now been selected. The Edinburgh ones are at Broomlee, West Linton, which the Association has purchased, and at Middleton Hall, which is to be leased by the Association from the Corporation of Edinburgh. Of the three Glasgow sites provisionally selected one is at Aberfoyle, Perthshire, and the other two in Lanarkshire. At Dundee a possible site in contemplation is at Belmont Castle, near the village of Meigle, about 13 miles from the City.
      May I come for a few minutes to the speech of the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston), who opened for the Opposition? If he will allow me to say so, he gave us a very helpful speech, containing many instructive suggestions. He wanted to know about the arrangements for furniture. We fully appreciate the need for securing that tenants who are transferred to new houses are able to obtain furniture on easy terms to enable them to make adequate use of the accommodation provided, and we have, as he knows, drawn the attention of the local authorities to their power under the Housing Acts to supply furniture for the houses which they build. Several authorities supply beds and bedding for their tenants, and a few supply other articles of furniture, such as cupboards, chest of drawers, and linoleum floor-covering. The question of supplying essential furniture has lately been considered by the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, who have just reported
      1254
      on the subject of house management. The committee's report is now with the printers and will be published very soon. In it they suggest that freer use should be made by local authorities of their statutory powers to provide furniture for tenants who need it, and the question of again drawing the attention of local authorities to this matter will be kept in view when my right hon. Friend considers what action should be taken on the Committee's report.
      The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the position in Wigtownshire. I think I can say in general that it is a county which has peculiar difficulties in the way of getting water, and it is not an area where anybody could reasonably expect that all the houses could rapidly be brought up to a very high standard, but I think the complaint drawn against the County Council is rather that they have not tried to achieve the minimum of decency which they might get in existing circumstances. While no doubt the County Council have met with difficulties in regard to water and drainage, the information we have shows that a very great deal of housing work has yet to be undertaken, and my right hon. Friend has arranged for an inspector to visit the county to-morrow, 5th July, to investigate complaints that have been made.
      I have not really enough time left to deal as I would wish with the very numerous questions asked on and criticisms made of the progress of our housing schemes. It is natural that nearly every Member should have spoken on one aspect or another of this problem, because probably the principal reason why our vital statistics are worse than in some other parts of the county is due to bad housing more than anything else, and a great deal of the ill-health and disease which we have to deal with through our health services would be avoided altogether if we had better housing conditions. My right hon. Friend gave the figures of houses built last year, which were a record, and the Committee will see from the report that since 1930 some 71,000 slum houses have been dealt with, and since the overcrowding survey was taken at the beginning of 1936 about 43,000 families have been removed from overcrowded houses which were not unfit.

      1255
      My right hon. Friend has never claimed to take satisfaction in these figures, al though it would perhaps be legitimate for a Minister who has to explain and defend housing policy to dwell on the fact that within the last six or seven years we have removed and replaced more slum houses than were dealt with in the previous 60 years and we have doubled the rate of housing progress which prevailed not many years ago. My right hon. Friend has never taken that line, and the reason is that, although we have achieved a great increase in housing progress, it is his desire to double that rate—
      Sir E. Findlay: It may be his desire but the Treasury decide the problem. He may desire to do a lot but I have no feeling that the Treasury will give any more money to Scotland.
      Mr. Wedderburn: My right hon. Friend is less anxious than anyone in the House to take any satisfaction in the progress that has been made, considerable though it is, because we do not want to say anything which might give anyone in Scotland the impression that there is any reason for relaxation of their efforts. Most Members who have referred to the housing problem have dwelt rather particularly on the Glasgow position. That is not altogether typical of Scotland as a whole. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson) asked why in the total Scottish figures for this year the proportion of slum clearance houses was so much less compared with the number of overcrowded houses from which families have been removed. The answer is that there are a very large number of small or medium-sized burghs which have got on very well with their housing problems, which have more or less finished the worst slum clearance work and are now able to concentrate on overcrowding.
      I want rather to deal with the Glasgow position because Glasgow contains such a very large part of the population of Scot land. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) said that, according to his calculations at the present estimated rate of 3,000 houses a year it would take 25 years to solve the Glasgow housing problem. I should put it higher than that, because the rate of normal wastage is, I believe, something like 2,000—
      Mr. McGovern: I said it was allowing for that, that the 3,000 houses would take 25 or 30 years.
      Mr. Wedderburn: Yes, the hon. Member did say that. If you allow for the normal wastage it would, I think, take something like 60 years. I had a meeting with the Glasgow Corporation on 17th March at which they informed me that it was their intention to build 23,200 houses in the next four years, 1939–43 inclusive. I represented to them—
      Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister think that he will be able to conclude his speech in time for me to move a reduction of the Estimate?
      Mr. Wedderburn: I have done by best, and the Committee have been good enough to allow me a little longer than the scheduled time for other Members; but I still want to deal with certain other matters.
      Mr. Maxton: May I take it that the Minister will not pursue the unprecedented course of talking out his own Estimate?
      Mr. Wedderburn: I am afraid that as a result of this interruption I have hardly time now to say a few sentences about Glasgow. I represented to the Corporation that the figure, although a very great improvement on the rate for the last few years, was not really half sufficient, because they needed 10,000 houses a year to solve their problem in a reasonable period of time. The latest estimate from Glasgow is that they will build 27,000 houses in the next four years. Even that figure is hardly a satisfactory rate of progress. I am convinced that in order to achieve a satisfactory rate of progress the Glasgow Corporation will have to go in, on a really big scale, for alternative methods of construction, not instead of brick-building but in addition to brick-building.
      I would say to the hon. Member for Tradeston that I know he has strong views on this subject, but that it is my duty flatly to contradict him. I do not think it is the case that timber houses are inferior to other kinds. Only recently we sent one of our inspectors from the Department of Health to see what timber houses had so far been completed and inhabited. The inspector reported that practically without exception tenants were

      1257
      delighted with the type of house and the accommodation and convenience provided. The remarks in favour of those houses, of which the inspector quotes a number, were repeated over and over again until it became almost monotonous. Some of the tenants had removed from ordinary houses. One or two stated that they liked timber houses better than their former brick houses. The inspector came upon only one tenant who complained with regard to the arrangements. I think Glasgow has decided, not yet on timber houses, but upon 1,100 concrete houses. There are many more points into which I should very much like to have entered, but in view of the fact that it is now nearly Eleven o'Clock perhaps the Committee will forgive me for not having dealt as fully as I wished with this very interesting topic.
      Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
      Mr. Kennedy: I am afraid that I have not time to make a long speech to-night—
      It being Eleven of the Clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
      Mr. Maxton: On a point of Order. Just before you came to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, we had been doing business which presumably has been reported to you. My point is that the Debate was continued after Eleven o'clock without disposing of an Amendment that was before the Committee. I put it to you that it is a breach of the Rules of this House, for which you, Sir, are responsible, to continue a Debate in this House on any day after Eleven o'clock.
      Mr. Speaker: I cannot interfere with what took place in this House in Committee. It would be entirely contrary to my duty.

  ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to —[Two Special Entries.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

SCOTLAND
  FOLKLORE.
  FOLKLORE.
  HOUSING.
  HOUSING.
  HERRING INDUSTRY.
  HERRING INDUSTRY.
  RHEUMATISM CLINICS.
  RHEUMATISM CLINICS.
  ALBION GREYHOUND RACECOURSE, GLASGOW.
  ALBION GREYHOUND RACECOURSE, GLASGOW.
  CLYDE AND CAMPBELTOWN STEAMSHIP SERVICE.
  CLYDE AND CAMPBELTOWN STEAMSHIP SERVICE.
  BACON INDUSTRY.
  BACON INDUSTRY.
  SUGAR-BEET.
  SUGAR-BEET.
  ILLICIT SALE OF LIQUOR, LERWICK.
  ILLICIT SALE OF LIQUOR, LERWICK.
BRITISH ARMY.
  WELSH TERRITORIAL UNITS.
  WELSH TERRITORIAL UNITS.
  BOFORS GUN CONTRACTS.
  BOFORS GUN CONTRACTS.
  MUNITIONS FACTORY, LEEDS.
  MUNITIONS FACTORY, LEEDS.
  DIETARY (HERRING).
  DIETARY (HERRING).
  TERRITORIAL TANK REGIMENTS.
  TERRITORIAL TANK REGIMENTS.
  MILITIA.
  MILITIA.
  RIFLES.
  RIFLES.
  SHELL CONTRACTS.
  SHELL CONTRACTS.
  BORDON CAMP (MESSING).
  BORDON CAMP (MESSING).
  TERRITORIAL ANTI-AIRCRAFT UNITS (BOUNTIES).
  TERRITORIAL ANTI-AIRCRAFT UNITS (BOUNTIES).
  DUPLICATED TERRITORIAL BATTALIONS (STATUS).
  DUPLICATED TERRITORIAL BATTALIONS (STATUS).
  RECRUITS (REJECTED MEN).
  RECRUITS (REJECTED MEN).
  RESERVISTS' WIVES (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).
  RESERVISTS' WIVES (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).
  REMOUNTS.
  REMOUNTS.
  WEST INDIES (WAR DEPARTMENT LAND).
  WEST INDIES (WAR DEPARTMENT LAND).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (EXCHANGE OF MATERIALS).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (EXCHANGE OF MATERIALS).
  JAPANESE MERCHANDISE IMPORTS.
  JAPANESE MERCHANDISE IMPORTS.
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  WAR RISKS INSURANCE.
  WAR RISKS INSURANCE.
  UNION CASTLE STEAMSHIP COMPANY (SCRAPPING OF SHIPS).
  UNION CASTLE STEAMSHIP COMPANY (SCRAPPING OF SHIPS).
  STATIONERY OFFICE VOTE (PRINTING).
  STATIONERY OFFICE VOTE (PRINTING).
  WAR RISKS (COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE).
  WAR RISKS (COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' EMPLOYES (MILITARY SERVICE).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' EMPLOYES (MILITARY SERVICE).
  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.
  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.
  LOUGHBOROUGH TOWN COUNCIL (OFFICIALS' CARS).
  LOUGHBOROUGH TOWN COUNCIL (OFFICIALS' CARS).
  HOSPITALS (STATISTICS).
  HOSPITALS (STATISTICS).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  LOCATION OF NEW INDUSTRIES.
  LOCATION OF NEW INDUSTRIES.
  INDUSTRIAL WAGE AGREEMENTS.
  INDUSTRIAL WAGE AGREEMENTS.
  FIGHTING FORCES (MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS).
  FIGHTING FORCES (MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS).
  PRISON LIBRARIES.
  PRISON LIBRARIES.
  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).
  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).
  COAL INDUSTRY (STATISTICS).
  COAL INDUSTRY (STATISTICS).
  AFFORESTATION, CARMARTHENSHIRE.
  AFFORESTATION, CARMARTHENSHIRE.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (NUTRITION SURVEYS).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (NUTRITION SURVEYS).
  SPAIN (SALVAGED BRITISH SHIPS).
  SPAIN (SALVAGED BRITISH SHIPS).
  JEWISH REFUGEES (RUSSIA).
  JEWISH REFUGEES (RUSSIA).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
PATENTS AND DESIGNS (LIMITS OF TIME) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
JARROW CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
STALYBRIDGE HYDE MOSSLEY AND DUKINFIELD TRANSPORT AND ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (YORK WATER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD WATER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CORSHAM WATER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
DUNDEE HARBOUR AND TAY FERRIES (SUPERANNUATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CHARITABLE COLLECTIONS (REGULATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Licences.
(3) A police authority may refuse to grant a licence, or, where a licence has been granted, may revoke it, if it appears to the authority—
(a) that the amount of the proceeds of the collection applied for charitable purposes or to be so applied or both is inadequate in proportion to the total amount of the said proceeds;
3.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
"(a) that the total amount likely to be applied for charitable purposes as the result of the collection (including any amount already so applied) is inadequate in proportion to the value of the proceeds likely to be received (including any proceeds already received);"
The noble Earl said: This is purely a drafting Amendment. It is not quite clear in subsection (3) (a) as it stands in the Bill whether there will be adequate

915
application of the proceeds of the collection for charitable purposes, including the amount already applied on application for the licence, and it is very important that this should be made clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, leave out paragraph (a) and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Courtown.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I think the noble Earl is a little modest in describing this as a drafting Amendment. I am not opposing it, but I want to call attention to it. It very much widens the duty of the police authority. The authority will be entitled to consider the value of the proceeds likely to be received. I cannot help thinking that if hospital governors in Edinburgh applied to the police authority for leave to make a house-to-house collection in Glasgow the police authority in Glasgow might put the value of the proceeds likely to be received at a smaller amount than the hospital authorities hoped to get. The same difficulty might arise, say, between Liverpool and Manchester or between Leeds and Bradford. I like the Amendment, but I think the acceptance of it makes the consideration of other Amendments which will be moved later very much more important.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: The next is also a drafting Amendment, consequential on the first one.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, leave out from the first ("the") to ("is") in line 14, and insert ("total amount aforesaid").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: There is another drafting Amendment, to make the wording clearer.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, leave out ("thereof") and insert ("of the collection").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: This also is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, at end insert ("or").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.12 p.m.
LORD MACMILLAN LORD MACMILLAN moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"(4) When a police authority refuse to grant a licence or revoke a licence which has been granted they shall forthwith give written notice to the applicant or holder of the licence stating upon which one or more of the grounds set out in subsection (3) of this section the licence has been refused or revoked and informing him of the right of appeal given by this section, and the applicant or holder of the licence may thereupon appeal to the Secretary of State against the refusal or revocation of the licence as the case may be and the decision of the Secretary of State shall be final.
(5) The time within which any such appeal may be brought shall be fourteen days from the date on which notice is given under subsection (4) of this section.
(6) If the Secretary of State decides that the appeal shall be allowed the police authority shall forthwith issue a licence or cancel the revocation as the case may be in accordance with the decision of the Secretary of State."
The noble and learned Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and I need scarcely say that I do so in no spirit of hostility to this Bill. The King Edward Hospital Fund for London and the British Hospitals Association, who have asked me to move this Amendment on their behalf, welcome the Bill as an admirable measure. None of us who are associated with hospital administration can fail to realise how important it is that bogus charities should be suppressed and that collections should be fostered and protected. Therefore the Amendment which I am about to ask your Lordships to accept is offered in no spirit of hostility to the Bill. The scheme of this measure is that persons who propose to carry on house-to-house collections should obtain the authority of the police of the area and be properly identified. That seems a most workmanlike way of going about it. What the hospitals are concerned with is that, operating as many of them do in large areas which overlap the territory of many police authorities, they may find themselves in very considerable difficulties owing to the different views which these different police authorities may take; and they view with some apprehension the fact that in the Bill as it stands there is no appeal whatever from the decision of a police authority to whom application is made for a licence.
The history of the matter may be brought before the Committee in a few words. In the original Bill which first

917
came before this House, the police authority, when they were asked to grant a licence and refused to do so, were bound to specify the grounds of their refusal, and a right of appeal was given to a court of summary jurisdiction. Your Lordships will recall that the Bill was referred to a Joint Committee, and before that Committee a considerable amount of evidence was led. I think it is fair to say that the general tenor of the evidence, at any rate of the official evidence, was against there being the right of appeal from the decision of the police authority; but that on the other hand, if there were to be a right of appeal, it should not be to a court of summary jurisdiction, which was thought to be an unsuitable tribunal, but that the appropriate authority would be the Home Secretary. For example, Commander Kemble, who appeared before the Joint Committee and spoke for the chief constables, said that an appeal to the Home Secretary would very probably be the best procedure, because then all the appeals would come to one central authority, who would know the history of the case from other angles. Notwithstanding that statement, the Joint Committee recommended the omission of a right of appeal altogether, and consequently in the Bill now before the Committee there is no right of appeal whatever against the decision of the police authority either in refusing a licence or in revoking an existing licence.
The reasons which actuate those who are interested in hospitals to ask for the insertion of a right of appeal are really very practical reasons indeed. There may be considerable divergence of view among different police authorities as to whether a licence should or should not be given in particular circumstances. It will be observed that the reasons which must actuate a police authority in refusing to grant a licence, or in revoking one that has been granted, are discretionary. They are enumerated in six paragraphs, and all these paragraphs raise matters upon which divergent views might very well be taken. One police authority might quite genuinely consider that a certain percentage of the proceeds was too high; another might think that it was a reasonable percentage, and so on. Consequently you can well have the most divergent views, and the "drainage area," if I may so call it, of most of the
918
large hospitals—their collecting area—is not confined to one police authority.
Take so famous a hospital as the Hospital for Sick Children in Great Ormond Street, of which I was myself for a time Chairman. That hospital serves practically the whole country and, I am happy to say, has in fact obtained the good will and support of people in every part of England and also to some extent in Scotland, because of the splendid treatment which is there accorded to children. Consequently contributions come in from all parts of the United Kingdom, and indeed also from abroad. It does seem rather ridiculous to say that if the Hospital for Sick Children—because it is always better to be concrete than abstract—desire to have a collection in some area they should have in each particular area where the collection is to take place to obtain the authority of the police. For a charity which is to all intents and purposes a national charity, like the Children's Hospital or many other of our great hospitals, to have to apply to all these different authorities for the requisite licence from them all would be hampering in the extreme; and also it might well happen, as was foretold a moment ago by my noble friend Lord Donoughmore, that very different views indeed might be held by police authorities as to the reasons for which such licences should be granted or revoked.
It would be most unhappy if there were no appeal from such a discretionary power. I entirely agree with the view which was taken by the Joint Committee that an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction would be unsuitable. This is one of the few cases where, although a member of the judiciary, I am inclined to think that the decision is better in administrative than in judicial hands. I should not regard the insertion of this subsection as an instance of the "New Despotism." It is plainly a matter where the discretion of the Minister would be an appropriate quarter in which to appeal, and it would have this further advantage: the hospitals would not only be able to appeal from possibly arbitrary and possibly unjust decisions, but unity of policy would be obtained. In that way I venture to think this Bill would work much better than it would work if it were left to the discretion of the innumerable police authorities throughout

919
the country. This really is a very practical question indeed from the point of view of the hospitals, and I venture to ask the Committee to give this Amendment, which is in no way inimical to the Bill and will in no way hurt the Bill, their most favourable and sympathetic consideration.
I recognise that if a subsequent Amendment, which will shortly be moved by my noble friends Lord Luke and Lord Donoughmore and which proposes that the hospitals should be treated as exempted charities, were accepted, I should not have the same motive for moving this Amendment as I have now, because then the hospitals would receive the treatment to which I think as national charities they are entitled, of being placed on the same footing as the other privileged charities. If that Amendment were given effect to, I quite recognise that my locus standi to speak for the hospitals on this Amendment would really disappear; but I am anxious at this point to make it quite plain that we attach the greatest possible importance to the right of appeal, in order that there should be no hampering of our legitimate efforts to promote the welfare of hospitals. At the present moment the hospitals have many anxieties, and they were never more entitled to rely on the good will of those who are interested in their work, and especially on the good will of this House, where I know there are so many noble Lords who are themselves interested in the conduct of hospital affairs. Therefore, with confidence in your Lordships' fairness to hospitals, and to all those who have to apply for police licences, I ask that my Amendment should be adopted.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, at end, insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Macmillan.)
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: As a member of the Joint Committee, I would like to say a few words on the noble and learned Lord's Amendment. If the Amendment were directed entirely to hospitals, I think no one could say anything against it, but I cannot see the word "hospital" in the Amendment. In other words, an appeal may be made by all people, whether connected with hospitals or bogus charities,
920
and I think it is most unfortunate that this Amendment should be moved before that of Lord Luke, which follows. I ask your Lordships to pause before giving a right of appeal to every possible charity which may be refused a permit by the police authorities. I cannot exactly envy the Secretary of State, or the Under-Secretary of State, if everybody who meets with a refusal to his application for a permit has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. In fact I think the position would be untenable, and it would require an enormous amount of machinery to find out what everybody was in the most remote district of the country.
I think the police authorities are the best to determine what is a reputable charity. We did discuss this matter very thoroughly in the Joint Committee, as has been said, and it was because of the difficulties of confining the appeal to what I might call warrantable cases that we decided, if I remember rightly, unanimously, that there should be no appeal, on the principle that the local police are supposed to be, and I think rightly supposed to be, in full knowledge of what are reputable local charities, or reputable people who wish to assist charities. The only reason there are so many bogus charities to-day is that the police have not got the power with which to prevent these collections. Hence this Bill, as a result of the Joint Committee's Report, and I most earnestly ask your Lordships to hesitate to pass this Amendment—at any rate, until a later stage in the Bill, when we shall know what the House decides to do with regard to the hospitals.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: I think it advisable at this stage to give the Government's views on this Amendment moved by Lord Macmillan. If the Government had felt that an appeal was necessary, they would themselves have proposed that provision for appeal should be included in the Bill, but they agreed with the view that the matter could safely be left in the hands of the police authorities, or the sub-committee to which the police authorities may delegate their powers. A licence is only to be refused or revoked on the grounds set out in Clause 2, subsection (3) of the Bill, which are, roughly, that too much of the proceeds is likely to be absorbed in expenses, or that the promoter is not a suitable person. It is true that in Clause 2, subsection (3) (a),

921
power is given to the police authorities to use their discretion to decide what proportion of the proceeds is an adequate proportion to be applied to charity, but it is quite impracticable to lay down a proportion in this Bill, as circumstances may vary considerably in every case.
Surely there is no reason to think that the police will take any unreasonable view in these matters. The whole tenor of the Bill makes it clear that the purpose is the one to which the Joint Committee limited their recommendations—namely, not to interfere with legitimate charitable efforts, but to put a stop to those virtually fraudulent collections which have caused so much indignation. Surely, no police authorities would wish to incur the odium of refusing a licence for legitimate charitable efforts. The Government feel that the proposed right of appeal is not really necessary, but might mean that a number of fruitless applications, which could quite well have been finally settled locally, would have to be dealt with at the Home Office, with consequent waste of time and labour to all concerned.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I rise to oppose this Amendment. I should have hesitated to draw swords with so distinguished an authority on this subject, but I think his arguments have been very well answered by the noble Marquess, who was a member of the Committee, and I think that this right of appeal is entirely unnecessary. It would load up the Bill and considerably increase the work and trouble of the Home Office, because I can see that a great many bogus charities would appeal. Lord Macmillan referred to the Great Ormond Street Hospital, for which I have very great respect and admiration, but I think a great deal of what he said would have been much better directed to the later Amendment on the Paper, for I cannot see any voluntary hospital, such as the Great Ormond Street Hospital, instituting a house-to-house collection over a very wide area. It is the great charities which hold almost simultaneously street collections throughout the country. In the Act dealing with street collections there is no right of appeal, and I understand that that Act has worked very well indeed, and there has been no complaint. On these grounds, and especially on the ground that the Joint Committee consid-
922
ered the matter very carefully indeed, I submit that this House should not accept the Amendment.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: I hope that noble Lords will accept the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord has thought fit to move. I support it on a ground which I believe has not yet been raised—namely, that it is very desirable that any appeal which is made with regard to the refusal of the police to allow collections should go to the Home Secretary and not to a court of summary jurisdiction. I think it is very desirable that not only the collection, and the right kind of collection, should be made, but that the administration of the funds, when they are collected, should be inquired into. I do not think that the police are an authority that could really inquire into the administration of these large collections. A man like the Home Secretary has means whereby the generosity of the public can be safeguarded.
LORD MACMILLAN: I am much tempted by certain words which fell from the noble Marquess and also from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, but it is unfortunate that this Amendment should be moved at this stage when a more fundamental Amendment affecting the hospitals is coming on later. But I am a little apprehensive that, if I do not hold my ground now, then when the next matter comes along that unhappy precedent will be followed, and I shall be defeated and the hospitals will be left in an unfortunate position. But in the circumstances I am more interested in the substantive Amendment, relating to hospitals particularly, which will follow. It might perhaps be wise for me to withdraw the Amendment at this stage, but if we are unfortunate enough not to persuade the Committee to accept that Amendment I should like to be permitted to move this Amendment on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Exemptions in the case of collections over wide areas.
3.—(1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a person pursues a charitable purpose throughout the whole of England or a substantial part thereof and is desirous of promoting collections for that purpose, the Secretary of State may by order direct that

923
he shall be exempt from the obligation to apply for a licence imposed by Section one of this Act as respects all collections for that purpose in such localities as may be described in the order, and whilst an order so made in the case of any person is in force as respects collections in any locality, the provisions of this Act shall have effect in relation to that person, to a promoter of a collection in that locality for that purpose who acts under the authority of that person, and to a person who so acts as a collector for the purposes of any such collection, as if a licence authorising that person to promote a collection in that locality for that purpose had been in force.
3.32 p.m.
LORD LUKE LORD LUKE had given Notice of two Amendments to subsection (1)—namely, after "person," where that word first occurs, to insert "(a)," and after "purpose," where that word occurs for the second time, to insert "or (b) carries on a voluntary hospital approved by the British Hospitals Association or by King Edward's Hospital Fund for London and is desirous of promoting collections for the purpose of that hospital." The noble Lord said: This is really one Amendment, and it has the approval of King Edward's Hospital Fund and the British Hospitals Association representing 900 hospitals. It is said that the reason why the hospitals are not included in the favoured list of charities associated with this Bill is that they do not beg nationally. It is admitted that they serve the community very well locally, and in some instances do so throughout the country, but on the whole their service departments are usually better than their appeal sections, and these latter do not often reach from Land's End to John o'Groats. In the past they have obtained support from an area, say of fifty or even 100 miles around their hospitals, from which area they receive the bulk of their patients, though in these days of motor accidents they may have patients from any part of the country. Their area may include half a dozen, or even a dozen, police divisions, and in each of those the favoured outside charities would start with an advantage over the local hospital by having exemption. This Amendment will not put the local hospitals at the head of the favoured list of charities, it will only put them on a level, and that after they have been thoroughly approved by one of the two central hospital bodies which I have mentioned.
There has been a good deal of mystery about this list of favoured charities. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading said that exemption was to be given to a list of charities which had had a conference before deciding to support the Bill, and he only gave the names of some of them, no doubt the best of the names. But there may be a dozen or more in this list, and we have not seen it. Probably some of them are very efficient beggars, and have the right to be termed national beggars, but I should like to dispute any suggestion that they do more national service than many of the hospitals. The money available in the hands of those kindly people who give to charity is certainly not inexhaustible, and there is competition for it. The most worthy causes are not always the ones most efficiently begged for. The hospital which only appeals to, say, a dozen police areas, and gives full service to those areas, may have a very active secretary for its hospital work, but he may be a man too busy to compete successfully with national beggars who invade his territory, and he simply cannot afford to be further handicapped against the efficient appeals that I have referred to. I trust your Lordships will support this Amendment and place the hospitals in a position equal to that of the favoured charities under this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 8, after ("person") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Luke.)
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I am afraid I must oppose this Amendment, because I cannot conceive any conditions under which a local authority will suffer by having to apply to the police rather than being put on a list at the Home Office as an exempted authority. The noble Lord said that there might be a dozen or half a dozen authorities from which a hospital got its patients, but I cannot help thinking that that is a slight exaggeration. I admit that the number may amount to three or four. I could mention one hospital which covers four police authorities, but that is rather an exception. The majority of these hospitals, whether in London or outside it, operate in a very restricted area, and if they do operate over more than one police area presumably the police in the neighbouring areas would say that the authority had agreed to issue the licence and they had made full inquiry.

925
The grounds on which they can refuse a licence are very limited indeed, and they are laid down in the Bill. I think this Amendment would give an undue advantage to a voluntary and non-elected association, the British Hospitals Association, because there might very easily be a local hospital which did not belong to that particular association for some reason or another, just as some motorists, for some particular grievance perhaps, do not belong to the A.A. or the R.A.C. Supposing that were the case, and they applied for a licence, the police might very well say, "This is not a recognised hospital," or "There is something against it," and might be inclined to withhold the licence. This matter was very fully gone into, I understand, by the Joint Committee, and they decided that it was not necessary to include voluntary hospitals. After the very weighty and considered opinion which they gave I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am sorry my noble friend is not able to accept this Amendment, but I think I can reassure him that the position which has been referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Macmillan, and Lord Luke, is nothing like as exceptional as he thinks. My mind goes at once to two hospitals, with the work of which I am familiar as a visitor—I am not concerned in their management—one in the North of England, the other in Scotland. Both these hospitals have done a very remarkable thing. They have managed to persuade a number of the small hospitals round them to act as clinics under their guidance, for purposes of diagnosis, and for purposes of after-treatment, that being a very sound thing from the point of view of medical treatment as well as from the point of view of relieving work in the hospital itself. It is perfectly reasonable surely that where medical treatment is given the collection of money should be permitted.
I have not been into the matter with great exactness, but the hospitals in Scotland certainly have this system in operation in eight or nine counties—it comes right down to the border; and in the case of the hospitals in Lancashire there must be many more than eight or nine police districts, because after all in Lancashire the police authorities are independent round about the hospitals where these
926
clinics are working, and of course there are all the small boroughs. I think therefore that this Amendment is desirable in the interests of administrative efficiency. It is surely ridiculous that these hospitals should go to the police, not once for all, but annually, in order to ask that they shall have permission for these house-to-house collections—which, I agree, it is extremely desirable to have confined to genuine and proper cases. The point raised by my noble friend regarding the difficulty which might arise if one of the authorities who have been selected under the Amendment to advise in this matter did not include them in their membership, could be easily got over. It is quite easy to get recognised if they are not already so recognised. Your Lordships will remember the figure given by my noble friend that this Amendment, if passed, would at once cover 900 hospitals, which is a very considerable number, spread all over the country.
There is one other point—a rather indirect point but not unimportant—which it is only fair to remember on this occasion. After all, outside London, who are the police? They are the servants of the local authorities. I believe the Secretary of State for the Home Department has certain powers over them, but at the same time they are responsible to the local authorities and must obey their orders. The hospital world is in a state of anxiety and flux at this moment because you have the great voluntary hospital system and you have the rapidly improving and increasing municipal hospital system. There ought to be close co-operation between the two—I wish there were more. Many of the voluntary hospitals are anxious to co-operate with the municipal authorities. I wish that quite as many of the municipal authorities—there are of course splendid exceptions—were anxious to co-operate with the voluntary hospitals. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that unless this Amendment is passed, if this Bill goes through in its present form, in this respect you are putting the voluntary hospital system under the municipal authorities. It is a small matter. You may call it the thin end of the wedge, but it is not such a very thin end, and it is a dangerous precedent as regards future legislation. I hope the day may not be far distant when the two systems will be amalgamated. I believe there is good in both systems, and they ought to

927
work alongside each other in co-operation; but I am certain it is undesirable to put the voluntary hospitals under the municipal authorities by a side wind. I am quite certain that my noble friend, if he drafted this Bill, had no such thought in his mind, but there are very astute people who have been advising him who, I am sure, did not shut their eyes to the fact when they brought forward the Bill in its present form.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: A suggestion of the same kind as the noble Lord, Lord Luke, has made was put before the Joint Committee, and the Home Office was consulted informally upon it. The view was expressed that it would be practicable to adopt a scheme of this kind, but the scheme should apply to other charities vouched for by a reputable central body, and also the proposals of the central body for exemption of local charities should be related to specified areas, so that the appropriate police authorities could be notified. The scheme was, however, strongly opposed by some members of the Committee, chiefly on the ground that it would give powers to unofficial bodies, which might seriously prejudice the position of, say, a hospital which had declined to join the British Hospitals Association. The Committee therefore abandoned the idea and no reference was made to it in their Report.
Two grounds have been advanced for this proposal. One is the trouble involved in applying to several police authorities in cases where a hospital serves several police areas, but this would not be confined to hospitals and the trouble involved would not in practice be at all great. As the noble Earl in charge of the Bill pointed out, a charity would no doubt apply to the authority in the area in which its activities are chiefly centred and give full particulars to that authority. This could be stated in applications to other authorities, and the police forces concerned would co-operate so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of inquiries. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, and other speakers based their case for the Amendment on some mistrust of the police authorities. I would point out to your Lordships that as Lord Macmillan's Amendment has not been made at this stage, your Lordships have given expression to confidence in the police authorities.
LORD MACMILLAN: That is exactly what I said was going to happen.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: Supposing the Amendment were made at a later stage, perhaps the whole matter could then be gone into again on this point of the mistrust of the police. Surely there could be no ground for thinking that hospitals want special protection from the police. The present proposal was discarded by the Select Committee after full consideration. Any attempt to deal centrally with charities other than "national" charities would lead to administrative complications, and the balance of advantage clearly lies with the proposal of the Bill under which the applications of local charities would be dealt with locally and the power of exemption conferred on the Secretary of State would be applicable only to charities operating over a really wide field. His Majesty's Government therefore are not in agreement with the Amendment.
LORD MACMILLAN: I hope that the Committee will take this matter into their own hands. It appears to me that on this occasion your Lordships have an opportunity of safeguarding the interests of the voluntary hospitals of this country. Pray observe what Clause 3 of the Bill proposes. It proposes that in certain instances charities shall not require to have a police licence in order to conduct a house-to-house collection. Therefore the Bill does recognise that in some instances it is appropriate that there should be exemption from the necessity of obtaining police authority. Could there be any institutions more worthy of such exemption than the voluntary hospitals of this country? If any institutions are worthy of exemption, I venture to say that the voluntary hospitals are these bodies. It does not mean that if they are exempted they will be clear of all the restrictions, the very proper restrictions, imposed by this Bill upon house-to-house collections. All the provisions about having proper badges and proper precautions to see that none but duly authorised persons make a collection, and so on, will still apply. All that is proposed is that these exempted authorities shall not have to go the police authority to get a licence. That is all.
The point was made with regard to many of the hospitals that their

929
territory extends over many police authorities. That objection is not in the least founded upon mistrust of the police authorities. The police authorities of this country are most admirable bodies, but police authorities, and even His Majesty's Judges in whom your Lordships have every confidence, have been known to differ. Even in this House I have heard noble Lords differing upon a point of law, and certainly I have heard this House in its legislative capacity differing very much on questions of policy. You may have various police authorities differing, and differing widely indeed, in their views as to which charities should, or should not, get a licence. Often in small localities there are prejudices which are unfounded but which might operate most unfairly with regard to one particular charity, for some reason or another. This Amendment does nothing more than put the hospitals of this country in the position of not requiring to get a police licence. It will not exempt them in any way from all the other proper provisions of the Bill.
In recent Bills the position of the hospitals has been recognised. For example, in connection with the services they render to the unfortunate victims of the internal combustion engine. Under the Statutes, provision has been made for payment to be made to the hospitals, and the hospitals are defined in this Bill and are known and recognised in this House as reputable institutions. They receive that recognition for the services that they render. Why should they not also be free from what will be a distinct embarrassment and handicap? If, in carrying out their splendid work throughout the country, any charities are entitled to be exempted, I venture to suggest that our hospitals are entitled to be.
LORD STANMORE: I very much hope your Lordships will not agree to this Amendment. The Joint Committee went into this matter very carefully, and they came to the conclusion that all local charities should be dealt with locally. The last thing the police authorities would wish to do would be to stand in the way of deserving charities, and I think they should be trusted.
LORD GIFFORD: I wish to support this Amendment as I feel strongly that our great voluntary hospitals should be treated as national institutions rather than
930
as local ones. These hospitals draw their patients to-day from far and wide. I have had a certain experience of the King Edward's Fund and also experience in one of our Dominions, where I was appeal secretary to a hospital in New South Wales. New South Wales some three years ago brought in a Bill very similar to this, and the New South Wales Hospitals Association were instrumental in getting their voluntary hospitals exemption from obtaining a permit. I suggest to your Lordships that precedent is one which should have weight, and that this Amendment is worthy of consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I hesitate to say anything against an Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, to whom the hospitals as a whole are so much indebted, but I should like to say one thing in reference to a statement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Macmillan. He seemed to think that to have to get a licence to collect for a hospital is a drawback. As a matter of fact the whole machinery that is proposed by the Joint Committee is that it should be a recommendation that those who collect for a charity shall have a badge to wear which will guarantee the respectability of the charity for which they are collecting, and it seems to me that the hospitals—
LORD MACMILLAN: May I point out to the noble Marquess that if exemption is given to a charity, the collectors still will have to wear a badge?
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I have not quite finished. It was put to the Committee that it would be a very great advantage to be placed on the same footing as everybody else who was regarded as reputable. I cannot myself imagine a police authority that would not desire to help local hospitals, and, still more, national hospitals, such as the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children which is known throughout the country. You would have only to mention the name of that hospital and any authority would say "Yes" without a moment's hesitation. One other point which I wish to allude to is this. I would rather like to have an undertaking from someone who can give it, if possible, that the British Hospitals Association never refuses an

931
application for affiliation made by any hospital which has any reputation. If we can have that undertaking, I think those who are rather chary of accepting this Amendment would feel much more comfortable, because they would then know that the British Hospitals Association, which extends over the whole country, never refuses an application for affiliation by any hospital, however small, and however insignificant it may be, provided of course that it does the work of a hospital for the benefit of those who attend it.
LORD LUKE: With reference to the noble Marquess's remarks, it is difficult to speak of the British Hospitals Association, but I am quite sure that between the British Hospitals Association and King Edward's Hospital Fund for London, it would be found that approval would be obtained for any hospital getting into the awkward position which the noble Marquess suggests. With regard to the main question, I really do not quite understand why there has been a belittling of the advantage of getting this exemption. I am quite sure that a large number of bodies who have obtained this exemption must value it very much. If there was no list at all I do not think the hospitals would be so much worried about it, but they do not really know the size of this list; they do not know what the tail of this list looks like. We presume that we have heard the best names. It seems to me that the police are going to be bothered by more people who want to beg from house to house than in the past. Therefore the police, who may be excellent in detecting crime, and would probably have a list of these bogus charities to work on, will no doubt effect a great change in that matter; but I am not inclined to believe that the police are quite as good at deciding which charity shall have an exemption and which shall not. There are only certain conditions on which you are not supposed to obtain a licence. At the same time, if there are a great many asking for a licence, there will be gradually a desire to limit the number. There will be reticence in giving the licences. These favoured charities, who already have had one, will not require to obtain one, and therefore hospitals
932
will be in an unfavourable position. I am afraid that unless the Amendment is accepted, we shall have to go to a Division.
LORD GORELL: I think a great number of noble Lords who are interested in hospitals must be very seriously concerned, listening to the debate, as to which way to vote on the Amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Macmillan, mentioned Great Ormond Street Hospital, and there have been frequent references in the debate to the great national hospitals. As I understand the Bill with the Amendment, its purpose is to differentiate the treatment between what may be called national charities and local charities, and it would seem to me, unless I am wrong in the impression I have gained from the debate and in studying the Amendment, that if the Amendment is inserted a very great number of hospitals, which, however meritorious, are still strictly local in their history and their appeal, will be put on the footing of national institutions. In that case it is obvious that the Amendment really defeats one of the main objects of the Bill, and if that is really so, I personally should feel that the advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Stanmore, was the right advice for your Lordships to follow.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: Even though very weighty arguments have been put forward in support of this Amendment, I feel that I cannot accept it. For the life of me I cannot see how the voluntary hospitals are going to suffer at all by being excluded from what can be called national charities. There is no desire on the part of the local authorities, I am sure, nor on the part of the Home Office, I am equally sure, to hamper the local hospitals. No one has a greater admiration for the voluntary hospitals than I have. At the present moment I happen to be the Chairman of the Special Appeal Committee of a local hospital, so I do know a little about this matter. I am quite certain that no local hospital would suffer and the police have not got the power to refuse a licence to a hospital simply on the ground that it is not local. If, for instance, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children wanted to make a house-to-house collection in Newcastle, the police in Newcastle could not turn it down

933
simply because it was not a local hospital. They would have to put forward a better argument than that. I have been advised by the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I think I can assure your Lordships, that there is no desire on their part to use this as the thin end of the wedge for bringing all hospitals under local control. I would like to draw the attention of your Lordships to the opening words of the clause:
"Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a person pursues a charitable purpose
4.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the obligation to apply for a licence imposed by" and insert "the provisions of subsection (2) of". The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment—I think I can call it drafting in spite of what the noble Lord said just recently. The present wording is not accurate. The subsection refers to an obligation to apply for a licence. It is inconsistent with the form of Clause 1, which does not in terms impose an obligation but provides that it shall be an offence to promote a collection without a licence. I beg to move.
throughout the whole of England or a substantial part thereof …."
No hospital can claim that it operates throughout the whole of England nor even a substantial part of it as do the great national charities. I think the only thing to do is to leave the matter to the sense of the Committee.
On Question, Whether "(a)" shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS.

Exeter, M.

Rothes, E.

Gifford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Wicklow, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Bradford, E.

Hailsham, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Hutchinson V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Jessel, L.

Lichfield, E.

Luke, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Ullswater, V.

Macmillan, L. [Teller.]

Minto, E.

Phillimore, L.

Onslow, E.

Cautley, L.

Saltoun, L.

Radnor, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Bridport, V.

Faringdon, L.

Mersey, V.

Gainford, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V. (L. President.)

Samuel, V.

Gorell, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Hindlip, L.

Swinton, V.

Mancroft, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Marley, L.

Crewe, M.

Addington, L.

Pentland, L.

Zetland, M.

Bayford, L. [Teller.]

Portsea, L.

Birdwood, L.

Raglan, L.

Albemarle, E.

Blythswood, L.

Rennell, L.

Ancaster, E.

Boston, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.) [Teller.]

Carlisle, E.

Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.)

Feversham, E.

Snell, L.

Fortescue, E.

Cornock, L.

Stafford, L.

Howe, E.

Chesham, L.

Stanmore, L.

Lucan, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Strabolgi, L.

Midleton, E.

Templemore, L.

Munster, E.

Clwyd, L.

Teynham, L.

Elton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("the obligation to apply for a licence imposed by") and insert ("the provisions of subsection (2) of").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: The next is a drafting Amendment to cure words which are somewhat vague.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 18, leave out ("that person") and insert ("the person exempted").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: This is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, leave out ("that person") and insert ("the person exempted").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: These are the same words.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 22, leave out ("that person") and insert ("the person exempted").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Regulations.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by the foregoing subsection, regulations made thereunder may make provision for all or any of the following matters, that is to say:—

(a) for requiring and regulating the use by persons acting as collectors under the authority of the holder of the licence, or of the person in whose case the order has been made, as the case may be, of prescribed badges and prescribed certificates of authority, and the issue, custody, production and return thereof, and, in particular, for requiring such persons as aforesaid on demand by a police constable or by any occupant of a house visited to produce their certificates of authority;

(b) for requiring, in the case of persons acting as collectors under the authority of the holder of a licence, that their prescribed certificates of authority shall be authenticated in a manner approved by the chief officer of police for the area in which the collection is made, and that their prescribed badges shall have inserted therein or annexed thereto in a manner and form so approved a general indication of the purpose of the collection;

(4) Any regulations made under this Act shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House of Parliament, within the next thirty days on which that House has sat after the regulations have been laid before it, resolves that the regulations be annulled, the regulations shall thereupon become void, without prejudice, however, to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to substitute "collectors" for "persons acting as collectors under the authority of the holder of the licence, or of the person in whose case the order has been made, as the case may be." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to simplify
936
the wording, which is a somewhat elaborate way of describing the collectors.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, leave out from ("by") to ("of") in line 1 on page 5, and insert ("collectors").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: The next Amendment has the same intention.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("such persons as aforesaid") and insert ("collectors").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, at the beginning of paragraph (b) in subsection (2), to insert "in the case of collections in respect of which licences have been granted." The noble Earl said: This Amendment might also, I think, be described as a drafting Amendment, as it is desirable to make quite clear, as paragraph (e) does, that paragragh (b) only requires the prescribed information in the case of collections in respect of which licences have been granted, and not in cases in which the person is exempted by order of the Secretary of State under Clause 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, at the beginning insert ("in the case of collections in respect of which licences have been granted").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, leave out from ("requiring") to ("shall") in line 11, and insert ("that the prescribed certificates of authority of the collectors").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: This is a drafting Amendment, to make it quite clear that the chief officer of police is the one for the area in respect of which the licence has been granted.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, leave out ("in which the collection is made") and insert ("in respect of which the licence was granted").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "next thirty

937
days on which that House has sat after the regulations have been" and insert "period of forty days beginning with the date on which the regulations are." The noble Earl said: This is a more important Amendment. With the next Amendment, it is designed to bring the provisions into line with similar provisions in other Bills. It has been pointed out by those concerned with managing the business of this House that there is a great diversity in existing provisions of this nature. This diversity leads to great difficulties. After careful consideration this form of words has been adopted. The form of words as printed has been copied from recently introduced Bills. It is, of course, not possible to amend all those which have been passed into law, but it is proposed to adopt this form of wording in the case of Bills now in progress.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 38, leave out ("next thirty days on which that House has sat after the regulations have been") and insert ("period of forty days beginning with the date on which the regulations are").—(The Earl of Courtown).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: The next is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 43, at end insert ("In reckoning any such period of forty days as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Unauthorised use of badges, etc.
5. If any person, in connection with any appeal made by him to the public in association with a representation that the appeal is for a charitable purpose, displays or uses—
(a) a prescribed badge or a prescribed certificate of authority, not being a badge or certificate for the time being held by him pursuant to regulations made under this Act, or
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved in paragraph (a), after "him," to insert "for the purposes of the appeal." The noble Earl said: This Amendment relates to the prevention of the misuse of prescribed badges and certificates. It is designed to ensure that the badge and cer-
938
tificate refer to the particular collection being held and have not been used for any collection before.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, after ("him") insert ("for the purposes of the appeal").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Delegation of functions]:
LORD JESSEL: On Clause 7, might I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill a question? The first sentence provides that any functions conferred by the Bill on a police authority may be delegated by the authority. The interpretation clause, Clause 10, reads:
"In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say … 'police area,' 'police authority' and 'chief officer of police,' have the same meanings respectively as in the Police Pensions Act, 1921;"
If you read Clause 7 further, you see:
"(a) in the case of the authority for the metropolitan police district, to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis;"
My question is, who is the authority? I do not see how the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis is going to delegate to himself.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I have been caught there, because I am afraid I have not had notice of that question; but I will have it looked into and see whether it can be made clearer at a later stage. I am very sorry that I cannot answer now. Perhaps the Home Office can explain.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Is not the police authority for the Metropolitan area the Home Secretary?
LORD JESSEL: Then this is another flagrant example of legislation by reference. Why it could not have been put in, I do not see.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: The first Amendment to this clause is purely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, leave out from ("collection") to the end of line 7 and insert ("all money and all other property given, whether for consideration or not, in response to the appeal made").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: The next also is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 11, leave out ("has a corresponding meaning") and insert ("and 'promotion' have corresponding meanings").—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.19 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to enable the Post Office to borrow the capital it requires to continue the essential work of developing its postal, telegraph and telephone systems. From the point of view of the Bill the last-named is the most important; it accounts for £36,200,000 out of the total of £40,000,000. The postal service, though vast, does not call for high capital expenditure; it requires about £3,400,000 of the total. The remaining £400,000 is for telegraphs. Borrowing powers were last sought in 1937, and the £35,000,000 which was authorised by that Bill is likely to meet requirements until next August, which is very close to our estimate at the time. The present Bill seeks authority for a rather larger amount, and the present indications are that even the larger amount will not meet requirements beyond March, 1941. The estimated capital expenditure for the current year is about £24,000,000. The need for additional capital is explained partly by the natural expansion of the telephone service, which is now growing at a rate nearly three times that of five years ago, and partly by the very extensive requirements of the Defence and A.R.P. Departments. The process of converting to automatic is proceeding apace, and the trunk network is being improved and extended. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Fortesque.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MARRIAGE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

WHEAT (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 8 [Provisions as to substances treated as destined for livestock]:
4.22 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, the Amendments which stand in my name in respect of Clause 8 are all drafting Amendments, designed to simplify the wording of the clause as far as possible, and therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will move them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 31, after ("used") insert ("only")
Page 10, line 32, leave out from ("material") to the end of line 34, and insert ("in the production of goods to be so used and of such goods only")
Page 10, line 41, leave out from ("goods") to ("has") in line 1 on page 11, and insert ("in the production of which that substance or a part thereof has been used as material")
Page 11, line 2, leave out ("such")
Page 11, line 28, after ("thereof") insert ("only")
Page 11, line 29, leave out from ("material") to the end of line 30, and insert ("in the production of goods so used and of such goods only").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 30:
Interpretation.
30.—(1) In the Wheat Acts, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say:—
"Milling" has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (5) of Section four of this Act, and "miller" means a person who produces flour in the United Kingdom by way of trade;
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, my Amendment in the definition of "miller," is designed to make it clear that the term "miller" includes a man who uses all the flour which he mills in the production of some other article, as, for example, in the baking of bread. It is a machinery Amendment, and it is unnecessary for me to take up your Lordships' time by explaining it further.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 21, leave out ("by way of trade") and insert ("for the purposes of a trade in flour or in goods in the manufacture of which flour is used").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2 [Designation of premises]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I do not propose to move the Amendments standing in my name to Clause 2.
Clause 4 [Execution of works]:
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the Amendment in my name is really a drafting Amendment to deal with a point raised during the Committee stage by Lord Bertie of Thame, that provision should be made in this and other clauses for the abandonment of an appeal. I think it meets my noble friend, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 20, after ("determination") insert ("or abandonment").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Designated premises to remain unaltered]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I do not move my first Amendment to this clause, but the second Amendment, which is to leave out "they" in line 17 and insert "it," I do move. The object of all my Amendments is to try and make the Bill as consistent as possible. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 17, leave out ("they") and insert ("it").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Compensation where works are executed.
(2) Where by reason of the execution aforesaid of any works, the usefulness of any premises, building or land is impaired, the local authority shall by way of compensation pay to the person who from time to time is the occupier of the premises, building or land, periodical sums, payable quarterly in arrear, calculated by reference to the diminution of the annual value of the premises, building or land, as the case may be, ascribable to the said impairment of the usefulness thereof.
4.27 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "or at the option of the occupier by reference to the trading losses incurred by him by reason of such impairment." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of my Amendment is to draw attention to the very serious dislocation of trade which will inevitably happen if the provisions of the Bill are carried out as they stand at present. I do not believe your Lordships are aware of the very serious state of affairs which will occur. The position will be that the local authority will be in a position to designate any premises, within certain areas, that they think fit, subject to appeal to the Minister. After a short interval for possible appeal, the local authority can cause to be carried out in these premises various works, and it is in these works that the very great trouble occurs. There is a pamphlet called "The Code," which is being followed out with respect to the provision of air-raid shelters, and in this code, if a shelter is required for more than 200 people, the premises have to be divided up into small areas, not temporarily with sandbags or some other

943
such means, but by brick or concrete walls, 13½ or 12 inches thick, of a permanent nature. It must be obvious to your Lordships that this is bound to interfere very seriously with the normal use of these premises. In many cases it will have the effect of stopping trade altogether.
The premises will have to be closed to their normal use. Trade will be lost, and good will, and more important than that, it will entail the dismissal of large numbers of employees. The large establishments are particularly affected. The small establishments, where one man has built up the trade on which he is dependent for his livelihood, will go altogether, and the entire livelihood of the occupier and of the staff which he employs will go. These are not exaggerations. I shall no doubt be accused of painting a very gloomy picture, but what I have described will actually happen in many places if the provisions of the code are carried out. I fully realise that every person in the country is called upon to make sacrifices, and obligations are put on everyone under this Bill. I venture to say that if war broke out even the very drastic obligation which is imposed on occupiers and traders would be faced, because it would be a case of necessity. But these obligations and this compulsory sacrifice on the part of all occupiers may come into effect almost at once. Within three or four weeks of the passing of this Bill it will be possible for local authorities, with the approval of the Minister, to take premises and to divide them up in a permanent manner, in such a way as completely to ruin the normal use of those premises.
Then there is the question of compensation. The compensation under the Bill is calculated by reference to the diminution of the annual value of the premises. I take it that that means in many cases that the occupier will get a portion of his rent back; but the amount of rent paid for his premises has very little relation to the actual loss which an occupier would be called upon to bear. The Amendment suggests that in computing any compensation the actual loss which has been compulsorily imposed on a man should be taken into consideration. My only desire in moving this Amendment is to try to modify an extremely disturbing
944
and anxious position. It may not be the best way of dealing with the situation. I should not have thought it was beyond the capacity of the experts at the Home Office to give some kind of instruction to the effect that in time of peace the normal use of premises should be interfered with as little as possible. I should have thought that an authority could, during peace time, only require the execution of such works as would not interfere with the normal use of the building, and that it would be possible to arrange for further work to be completed—necessarily in a hurry—to carry out the full scheme when war broke out, if there was sufficient warning. I am perfectly certain I can speak for the occupiers who are so deeply concerned about this matter, when I say that they would co-operate willingly. If they were allowed the normal use of their buildings in peace time, they would help in every way possible to get the final alterations done in time of war. I do not know whether the Government are prepared to give a definite declaration on that point. If they were prepared to consider it, and there was any hope of their giving a promise that these alterations of premises would not be insisted on in peace time, to the injury of the trade done in them, I should be content.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 41, at end insert ("or at the option of the occupier by reference to the trading losses incurred by him by reason of such impairment").—(Lord Chesham.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, the whole position of compensation under this Bill is, I think, extremely obscure. I endeavoured on the Committee stage to get it clarified, I think with some success in certain directions, but it remains very obscure. The point that has been raised by my noble friend Lord Chesham is one of considerable importance, and for this reason. The impositions under this Bill—if I may use the word—are not of the same nature as taxation which is spread evenly over the whole community, because it is only those premises which are considered suitable as air-raid shelters on which this imposition of interference with their ordinary trade will be placed. Indeed, it may well be that it will be those premises which are the more substantially built which will be so used, whereas the indifferent buildings will escape scot-free, and the occupiers

945
will benefit by the fact that their neighbours, and possibly their rivals, are having their business interfered with, to their own benefit—as well as their own safety—in the event of war. I hope therefore that the Government may consider this Amendment favourably, with a view to endeavouring so far as possible to spread the burden evenly over all persons, instead of putting it on a few individual firms.
THE EARL OF CARRICK: My Lords, in supporting this Amendment, may I say that I, too, cannot believe that your Lordships have fully realised the dislocation that may be caused? I have had cases brought to my notice in which, as a result of this provision, traders might have to go out of business entirely, the reason being that their business is conducted almost entirely in the basements. If these permanent alterations had to be made to their premises, it would mean that they might have to move their business to another part of the town or to another part of the country. That, however, is a minor point. There are some big stores which must have large spaces for the purpose of trading floors, or selling space. What would happen to a store of this nature if partitions of a permanent character were put all through the basements? It would mean the dismissal of a great many of the staff, and a very large loss of trade. Cannot this be avoided? Could not the local authorities be given instructions to designate buildings for the purpose of public shelters the normal trade of which would not be interfered with? I submit that that could be done.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I regret that this is an Amendment which it is really impossible for the Government to accept. I will endeavour to prove to your Lordships quite clearly what in fact the Amendment proposes to do. It is perfectly true that under subsection (2) of Clause 6 it is provided that where these works are executed, compensation is payable to the occupier on the basis of the diminution of the annual value of the premises. The terms of that subsection were settled after very close and careful consideration, and we believe we have now, in this clause, provided a method of compensation which is both reasonable and equitable and on a workable basis. What would happen if we
946
were to accept this Amendment? At once it must give rise to all sorts of doubts and uncertainties as to whether an individual would like to be compensated on the diminution of the annual value of the premises or whether he should be compensated by reference to his trading losses incurred by reason of such impairment.
It strikes me at once that if these works were undertaken by the local authority, during the first year no difference at all might be made in the profit of that small firm, but the second year might be totally different. It might be a time of stress and difficulty, and the turnover of that small man's business might drop very considerably. He would then be able to turn round to the local authority and say: "Now I want to be compensated the other way because I have lost a certain amount of money this year, and it is by reason of such impairment." I can picture considerable legal difficulties arising which might involve very considerable cost, and would not be fair either to the local authority or the small trader. My noble friend Lord Chesham, in moving the Amendment, suggested that a certain number of walls might be erected as partition walls. As the clause stands at the moment, if that were done, the local authority would obviously have to pay more compensation for putting up a permanent structure than they would if such a permanent structure were not in existence. As to whether instructions could be given to the local authorities to do as little as possible in times of peace—that is something which cannot be entertained for a moment. I hope for the reasons I have given that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, which is one that I believe to be absolutely unworkable both by the local authority and the small trader to whom reference has been made.
LORD JESSEL: Might I ask if there is any elasticity in the regulations? The noble Lord who introduced the Amendment said there was a rigid code. As far as I can understand from the noble Earl's reply, the local authority has a certain amount of discretion in the matter of the thickness of walls and partitions.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I cannot tell the noble Lord whether there is a definite standard or how thick or thin the walls should be. I believe the noble

947
Lord was not present at the Second Reading, and I can only say I explained the full purpose of the clause on that occasion.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not want to press the Amendment because I do not think it would be any good doing so. As regards the code question, it is laid down—I have it in front of me now—that where these partitions are made the dividing wall shall be not less than 12 inches thick in reinforced concrete nor less than 13½ inches thick in brickwork or masonry. That is not a matter of temporary sandbags or other work. I wish seriously that the Government were able to scratch their heads and see if they cannot do something about this matter. It is one which might become a matter of grave concern, because it is going to affect the trade of this country very much indeed. I am very sorry the Government cannot offer any hope on this point, and I see no object in pressing the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7:
Powers of local authorities to construct underground shelters and other premises required for civil defence purposes.
(6) The powers conferred on local authorities by this section shall be exercisable notwithstanding anything in any Act (including a Local or Private Act) but shall not be exercisable with respect to any land occupied by public utility undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking and, as respects any other land, shall be exercisable subject to the following conditions:—
4.45 p.m.
LORD CARNOCK LORD CARNOCK had on the Paper several Amendments to subsection (6), the first being, after "undertakers," to insert "or persons carrying on any hydraulic power undertaking." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very simple Amendment, and I understand that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is going to accept it. Hydraulic power companies, of which there are two operating in this country—one in Liverpool and the other in London—are statutory undertakings which are really in the same position as electricity, gas, or other public undertakings. They produce water power which is used for working dock gates, cranes, and so on, and also for pumping up water at high pressure in case of fire. They are asking that they
948
may be put on exactly the same footing as the other statutory undertakings. For the convenience of the House I would ask leave to move this and the other Amendments in the same sense en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 18, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons carrying on any hydraulic power undertaking")
Page 8, line 23, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")
Page 8, line 24, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")
Page 8, line 26, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")
Page 8, line 35, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")
Page 8, line 40, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons").—(Lord Carnock.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the Government are perfectly prepared to accept these Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8:
Powers of local authorities to construct underground car parks suitable for use as air-raid shelters.
8.—(1) A local authority who have power under Section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1925, or under Section twenty of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, to provide parking places may, for the purpose of providing underground parking places suitable also for use as air-raid shelters, exercise the like powers as are exercisable by local authorities under the last preceding section for the purposes therein mentioned, subject, however, to the following provisions of this section.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection 2 (1), after "mentioned," to insert "and the last preceding section shall have effect accordingly." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to implement a promise I gave to Lord Phillimore on the Committee stage of the Bill. I explained then what I should be prepared to do for my noble friend and I have endeavoured to carry that into effect.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 19, after ("mentioned"), insert the said words.—(The Earl of Munster).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert
"Provided that in exercising the powers under this section the local authorities shall so far as is reasonably practicable in the interests of civil defence have regard to the amenities of any protected square or land held inalienably by the National Trust."

949
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on the Committee stage of the Bill I put forward an Amendment designed to extract from His Majesty's Government some explanation of the way in which compensation would be paid and whether it was adequate. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in many respects succeeded in convincing me that as far as compensation was concerned it was reasonably adequate. There are certain questions which will arise on an Amendment to be moved later by Lord Gorell; but in the course of the debate on my Amendment I mentioned something in connection with amenity, and the noble and learned Lord said:
"There are matters of amenity. We are all troubled in that way. We all shall have to suffer."
In the course of my remarks I referred to a certain square in London, with the fate of which I was rather closely concerned. That square is Charterhouse Square, which lies in the area somewhere between Smithfield Market and the Clerkenwell Road. That is an area not noted for its intrinsic beauty, nor is it noted for the number or extent of its open spaces. Indeed, Charterhouse Square is an oasis in a desert of bricks and mortar. Since the Committee stage I have learned more of the proposals of the local authority with regard to that square. They propose to make use of the subsoil of the square for the purpose of a shelter which can be used as a car park under Clauses 7 and 8 of this Bill, and it is, I think, more than probable that almost the fist thing they will do in that case will be to destroy the trees that are in that square. The trees are very old and really beautiful trees, and it would destroy the whole character of the square and of that district if they were destroyed. It must be realised that when it comes to the question of shelters against air raids it is probable in the more congested districts where open spaces and squares are far between, that it is on those open spaces covetous eyes will be cast by the local authority with a view to finding somewhere where they can make shelters for their people.
One has also to bear in mind—and this is well known to many of your Lordships—that a Bill of this nature seems to produce in local authorities a certain sort of exaltation of mind which makes
950
them quite blind not only to financial questions but also to all questions of the convenience of the public other than the particular job that they have in mind. Although I have quoted to your Lordships Charterhouse Square as a case in point, I think there must be many other similar cases, more particularly in the congested districts, where the amenity value is of great importance, and it would be a great pity to destroy such amenity if it is unnecessary. If you look at the Amendment you will see that the necessity is quite carefully safeguarded in it, because it says, "so far as is reasonably practicable in the interests of civil defence." That is to say, if it is necessary in the interests of civil defence then the amenity must go by the board. But I do want to get somewhere into this Bill something which will give pause to the local authority, and indeed to the Government themselves, before they think of destroying amenities which have been in existence in many cases for hundreds of years, and which, once destroyed, will be very difficult to replace.
It is true that such things happened during the Great War, and we agreed to them, but we are not now at war, and perhaps by taking a little thought in many of these cases local authorities may be able to find somewhere other than in the open spaces, which are so valuable, the facilities for providing places of security for their people in their area. I do not think I need say much more. I am not entirely in love with the wording of the Amendment, and I am not certain that it has been set down to be put into the Bill in the right place; but if His Majesty's Government would be willing to agree at the next stage to put in something which will draw the attention of the authorities to the necessity at least of considering the amenity before they take any final step, it would satisfy me.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know if my noble friend in charge of the Bill will allow me to say one word before he replies. I am very glad my noble friend Lord Radnor has moved this Amendment, because I think it is one of great importance and one which, if I may venture to say so, deserves the attention

951
of your Lordships and of the Government. My noble friend has instanced the case of Charterhouse Square. I also have the very great honour of being a Governor of the Charterhouse, and I am equally interested in this particular case. My noble friend was careful to say, and it ought to be said, that this Amendment is of general application, and applies not only to Charterhouse Square but to other squares and to the various areas that are under the National Trust. If I make a mistake my noble friend in charge of the Bill, who has shown himself such a master of it, will correct me. It is rather a remarkable thing, the difference between Clause 7 and Clause 8. I am quite aware that this is an emergency Bill, and that emergency Bills are drafted in a tremendous hurry, and that they very often contain rather strange provisions, which, if the Government had more time, would probably not appear in them. Clause 7 of this Bill is a clause which makes it possible for the local authority to erect shelters as a protection against air raids. That is the primary purpose of Clause 7. Clause 8 certainly also deals with that subject, but its primary purpose is to make car parks. Air-raid shelters are, of course, for the emergency, but car parks really have to do with the permanent law of this country. The object in constructing them is one that is to have effect not merely during a war, if there is to be a war, which God forbid! but always.
No doubt car parks are very much required, but this provision of car parks has really nothing to do with the emergency. Yet, strangely enough, the precautions to prevent mistakes are much more elaborate in Clause 7, which is for the emergency, than they are in Clause 8, which is to have permanent effect. That is very strange and I cannot help calling the attention of my noble friend in charge of the Bill to it. Surely the provision which has to deal with car parks primarily, not being so urgent, ought to be much more carefully guarded than the other clause which has had to be put down no doubt in a desperate hurry in order to meet the great national emergency in which we stand. Parenthetically, I may say that I know quite well that it is provided that the car parks would be useful for air-raid purposes. That is true, but their primary purpose is that of a car park. What precautions
952
are there? Surely precautions are necessary. Safeguards are necessary. These squares are the great pride of London, and of other parts of England also, but they are essentially the great pride of London. They make one of the great charms of London, and I may say that the case of Charterhouse Square is a notable example. I do not know if your Lordships ever had to go to the meat market, but if you do you know that there are many elements about that meat market which are not altogether pleasant to the senses—either the sense of sight or other senses—but there is just in the middle of it this beautiful oasis of Charterhouse Square, and it is in order to protect it, amongst other squares, and in order to protect also the places occupied by the National Trust, that we hope this Amendment may be inserted.
I venture to call my noble friend's attention to this fact also. All this is put into the hands directly of the local authority. The local authority have great difficulty in coming to a conclusion. They are called upon to act in a great emergency, and they are not extremely well equipped from the amenity point of view. Surely it is right that Parliament should give them some indication of what they are to bear in mind—not a mandatory provision, not a provision which they must obey and from which there is no escape, but some indication as to how they should treat these amenities, these squares for example. Are they to think of what the square will look like afterwards? Are they to think what will happen to the square if all the trees are cut down? I am not putting an imaginary case. I know quite well that that is suggested in certain quarters in the case of this very Charterhouse Square. All these beautiful trees which have grown for years are to be cut down. These places are for use primarily as car parks, and not primarily in the interests of air-raid protection. It seems to me important that there should be some indication of what Parliament desires.
If, after everything has been taken into consideration, it is found imperative in the national interest that the amenities of these squares and the places belonging to the National Trust should be fatally damaged, why it must be done, and there is no more to be said, but my noble friend has provided for that. I must say I think that in the interests of London and of other parts

953
of this country, and in the interests of the local authorities themselves, there should be some indication of how they are to interpret this measure. My noble friend has said most liberally that he does not adhere to the particular form of words which he has put down. I know that they were drafted, like many other things at this moment, in a great hurry, and it may well be that my noble friend in charge of the Bill may be able to improve them, but I do think the Government ought to consider the matter. Otherwise local authorities will not know what they are to do, and if there is an appeal—probably there will be an enormous number of appeals—the matter will have to be settled in a very hasty and precipitous manner. There should be some indication of what things are to be borne in mind in approving or not approving. If the Amendment, or some other Amendment to the same effect, is passed, it will not only help local authorities and the Government, but will save, I hope for many years, the amenities of this country.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I quite expected the Amendment of my noble friend the Earl of Radnor to receive a certain amount of support, but I hope I may be allowed with great respect to draw the attention of the noble Marquess to the fact that some of the remarks he made were quite inaccurate. Let me see if I can give your Lordships some idea of what is proposed under Clauses 7 and 8. Your Lordships should keep in mind that we assume—and I think we can quite rightly assume—that local authorities in carrying out their responsibilities under this clause will act reasonably and will not deliberately spoil the amenities of their own localities except where the public interest really demands it. Under Clause 8 if there is any proposal to construct an underground car park—which underground car park must be suitable for use as an air-raid shelter—the intention of the local authority, as your Lordships will observe in subsection (3) (a), must be published by advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the authority's area. The local authority must also give notice to the Minister and to the Minister of Transport. Then the Minister of Transport may hold an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether the proposed underground car park is or is not suitable for use as an air-raid shelter. I submit that when that inquiry is held,
954
those persons who have objected to the underground car park will be the first people who will appear before the inquiry and say that the local authority are proposing to destroy or damage the amenities of the neighbourhood.
But that is not the end. There is a further protection contained in subsection (5) on page 10 of the Bill. The local authority, even after obtaining the approval of the Ministry of Transport, may not proceed to make the underground car park unless the Lord Privy Seal—who is the Minister in this case—has actually satisfied himself that the underground car park will be suitable for use as an air-raid shelter. When I saw this Amendment on the Paper in the name of my noble friend my heart instantly went out in sympathy for it and him, but I must urge that it would be illogical at this stage to put in Clause 8 a provision of this nature and to leave it out of Clause 7. In Clause 7 the noble Marquess will see that powers of objection are given in respect of protected squares, allotments and land held by the National Trust. That is on page 7 of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is what I said.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: But the noble Marquess will observe that under Clause 7 they are protected. National Trust land is protected quite clearly. Clause 8 does not deal with National Trust lands. Presumably no underground car park would be provided under lands belonging to the National Trust.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Under Clause 7 public squares are protected, but those words do not reappear in Clause 8.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I said that public squares and land belonging to the National Trust are protected under Clause 7, which deals with the powers of local authorities to construct underground shelters and other premises required for civil defence purposes. Clause 8 deals with the question of the powers of local authorities to construct underground car parks suitable for use as air-raid shelters.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I cannot understand why the same provisions that are in Clause 7 are not in Clause 8.

955
If they were that would simplify the matter. There can be no harm in adding to Clause 8 the provisions which are in Clause 7. To say that you must not destroy an old square with trees in London in order to make an air-raid shelter, but that you may do it to make an underground car park, is ridiculous. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill refers us to the protection of local authorities—
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: May I interrupt the noble Lord? What he is talking about has nothing to do with the Amendment. It is something quite different, that powers should be enacted in Clause 8 protecting squares and National Trust property.
LORD HARLECH: The words of the Amendment may not be right, but I do ask the Government to bring forward an Amendment to make it clear that the same provisions apply to National Trust land. There should be no distinction. The noble Earl said you can always rely on the local authorities. I can assure him, from my five years' experience as First Commissioner of Works, that in attempting to protect ancient monuments the worst vandals I came across in the whole country were not private landlords but local authorities.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think my noble friend who replied so eloquently to the noble Marquess has made out an extremely good case for including the Amendment in Clause 8. After all, what has he said? He has said that if a local authority is going to make a car park we may be quite sure that the local authority will be extraordinarily reasonable and careful to observe the amenities of any important public square; though incidentally, in parentheses, he observed that it was quite inconceivable that a local authority would ever construct a car park underneath a national monument.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: No; I did not say that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I certainly understood him to say so, and I think in fact he did. I am glad he withdraws that, because I understand that it is a definite—I will not say risk, but it may be a quite proper thing to do, if it is done with due regard to the ameni-
956
ties, to construct a car park underneath Charterhouse Square. But what he has said is that we may be quite sure that, in deciding how to construct a car park, the local authority will be most careful of the natural amenities, and if it is not, the Minister of Transport will be very careful about them.
I have the greatest respect for successive Ministers of Transport and for the efforts which they have made, not altogether with complete success, to protect the public against motor cars, but their best friends could not accuse them of having improved the beauties and the amenities either of the countryside or of the town sites. I should be extremely sorry to see the fine arts of this country entrusted to the undivided trusteeship of a Minister of Transport, whose interests quite naturally—it is a perfectly natural thing—lie in other directions. No doubt my noble friend will say that my interest at one time was to build aerodromes and that I was not very careful about the countryside; although the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has been good enough to pay a tribute to the aerodromes and say we built them rather nicely when we did build them. But quite naturally a Government Department, whether that of the Minister of Transport or of the Lord Privy Seal, whose job is to get shelters built as quickly as possible, will first carry out its duty of fulfilling the primary purpose which falls upon it of building shelters. But it does not rest there. My noble friend says that all the authorities concerned will have particular regard to the amenities of national monuments and public spaces. Why should they have regard to them unless it is put in the Bill that that is one of the things they have to consider? It is put into Clause 7 but it is not put into Clause 8; in fact it is, by implication and in terms, excluded in subsection (6).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In terms, yes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The protection which is laid down by Clause 7 is taken away by Clause 8, and the very fact that we have debated this matter here, that this proposal is being made and, if the Government reject it, is rejected, is an indication to all the authorities concerned that what they have to be particular about is only getting the shelter erected and not the other matter. I

957
should not be supporting this Amendment if I thought that it was going to militate at all against passive defence, but I do not think it will do so in the least. We are all satisfied with Clause 7, and Clause 7 is the clause under which rapid action is taken—the quick construction of air-raid shelters. Clause 8, this power to go and erect these enormous car parks—of which I think hardly any have been erected at all up to the present, although I dare say money was available—is a power which cannot be exercised quickly as an emergency measure. This is an enormous piece of underground construction, for which the local authority have to consider a great many difficult engineering problems before they can set to work at all. It is quite sensible—I have advocated it myself—that when you are constructing an underground car park you should make it rather deeper, fortified and so on—I mean fortified in the sense that it provides adequate protection—because then you are, I will not say killing two birds with one stone, but protecting two birds with one shelter. That is all very sensible, but this being a long-term policy of building car parks is all the more reason why you should give instructions to the local authorities and the Ministers that they should take the national monuments into due regard, and I very much hope the Government will do so.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, if I might have been privileged to interrupt my noble friend while he was speaking, I could have saved him a long discussion by telling him that naturally, if your Lordships think that the Government should accept this suggestion, we are perfectly prepared to accept an Amendment of this character. Perhaps my noble friend behind me would be good enough to withdraw his words on an undertaking from me that either myself or my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will bring up words to meet his point on the next stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am most grateful to the Government for that assurance, and I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Power of local authorities to construct air-raid shelters in streets]:
5.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, the Amendment on page 11, line 21, and the four following Amendments are, I understand, consequential.
LORD CARNOCK: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 21, after first ("undertakers") insert ("or persons carrying on any hydraulic power undertaking")
Page 11, line 21, after second ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")
Page 11, line 23, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")
Page 11, line 30, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")
Page 11, line 35, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons")—(Lord Carnock).
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 15 [Power of occupier or owner to execute works]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 23, leave out ("adjacent to the mine or building to which the estate or interest of the owner extends") and insert ("appurtenant to the mine or building").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Power of factory inspector, mines inspector or local authority to require provision of air-raid shelter]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend is prepared to accept the Amendment in my name, and I am grateful to him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 2, after ("thinks") insert ("or think").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, my Amendment is consequential upon an earlier Amendment which I moved to meet the wishes of my noble friend Lord Bertie.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 13, after ("determination") insert ("or abandonment").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Appeals]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 25, after ("determination") insert ("or abandonment").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Special provisions as to commercial buildings when owner does not occupy the whole building]:
LORD GORELL: My Lords, since the Amendment in my name was placed on the Paper there has appeared a new clause in the name of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to be inserted after Clause 66. On the understanding that that clause is to be inserted there will be no need for me to move this new subsection; but if that new clause be not inserted, then I would reserve the right to move this Amendment on Third Reading.
Clause 22:
Exchequer grants in respect of provision of air-raid shelter in factory premises, mines, commercial buildings, etc.
22.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to every occupier of factory premises and to every owner of a mine or commercial building who provides or secures the provision of air-raid shelter of the approved standard for all or any of the persons working or living in the factory premises, working in or about the mine, or working of living in the commercial building, as the case may be, a grant equal to the appropriate proportion of so much of the expenses of a capital nature incurred by him in providing or securing the provision of the shelter as the Minister considers reasonable.
5.18 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "building," where that word first occurs, to insert "or building to which Section thirty of this Act applies." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to get the owners of blocks of flats or houses which have been converted into flats into line with commercial buildings or office buildings. I am not at all sure that it is not an oversight which ought to be rectified. The absence of such provision from this Bill may be due to the fact that in the first draft it was provided that air-raid shelters would only have to be built for blocks of flats on agreement between the owners and the tenants. In another place, however, it
960
was made compulsory on an owner of a block of flats, if 51 per cent. in number of his tenants insisted on it, to provide this shelter. I do not see why such an invidious distinction should be drawn between the owner of residential flats and the owner of a block of offices. The owner of a block of offices, commercial buildings or factories is entitled to a grant of 27½ per cent. on the cost of the air-raid shelter, as was mentioned at considerable length by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the other day on the Second Reading. The owner of a block of flats, however, although he is now equally compelled, at the request of 51 per cent. of the tenants, to build an air-raid shelter, is not entitled to that grant. I do not know if there is any reason why this distinction should be drawn. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 32, after ("building") insert ("or buildings to which Section thirty of this Act applies").—(Lord Chesham.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I regret that this also is an Amendment which the Government are unable to accept. I am not sure if the intentions of my noble friend are quite clear to the House. He is perfectly correct in saying that under Clause 30, as it stands now, the owner of a block of flats is obliged to build air-raid shelters for the occupiers of these flats if the majority of those occupiers so demand. It has always been our policy that certain classes of persons who do not get free Government shelters should, in fact, provide their own shelter. If we were to accept this Amendment, the first objection to it would be that a grant of 27½ per cent. would be paid by the local authorities, through the Exchequer, to the owners of the flats, who under Clause 30 are enabled to increase the rents of the occupiers. Therefore it appears quite clearly that not only would the owner of a block of flats be eligible to charge additional rents to the occupiers, but he would also be eligible to receive at the same time a grant of 27½ per cent. from the local authority or the Exchequer. I might add that if the Amendment were accepted it would be outside the Money Resolution of the House of Commons. I understand that in those circumstances a further Money Resolution would have to be moved, before the Bill receives the Royal Assent, and I very much doubt whether sufficient

961
time could be found in the other House to move an additional Money Resolution on a matter which I understand had been accepted by your Lordships' House during the Committee stage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: May I ask whether, supposing a block of buildings is occupied half commercially and half privately, the whole block receives the 27½ per cent. or only the privately used part?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The answer to that is at the top of page 77 of the Bill.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am not quite satisfied with the answer of the noble Earl. A difference still exists between the owner of a block of offices and the owner of a block of flats in respect of the grant, and I do not see why there is this distinction. In my opinion it should be the same in each case. I am not happy about it. I am not happy at being told that we cannot bring forward this Amendment because it would not be accepted in another place, and would not go through. I do not think it is just, and if there is anything unjust in this Bill I rather resent being told that we may not bring it forward because an Amendment will not be passed; but having been told that this will not be accepted, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Affixing of appliances provided by the Crown for strengthening basements]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"Provided that if the local authority in executing works in or under any part of the highway cause any damage to any mains, pipes, apparatus or works belonging to public utility undertakers they shall repay to the undertakers the amount of the expenses reasonably incurred by them in making good the damage."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved in fulfilment of a promise that I gave to Lord Mersey, that we would bring words up on the Report stage to meet an Amendment which he moved in Committee I understand that the words meet with his approval, and that he is prepared to accept the Amendment. I am prepared to accept the Amendments to my Amendment standing in the name of Lord Carnock with one slight verbal alteration.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I would like to thank the noble Earl on behalf of the Public Utilities Association for whom I speak for his Amendment, which meets their point.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD CARNOCK: I beg to move the Amendments to the Amendment in my name with the verbal alteration suggested by the noble Earl.
Amendments to the proposed Amendment moved—
Line 4, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons carrying on any hydraulic power undertaking")
Line 5, after ("undertakers") insert ("or persons").—(Lord Carnock.)
On Question, Amendments to the proposed Amendment agreed to, and, on Question, original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30:
Provision of air-raid shelter in certain buildings.
(6) The said increase shall be calculated as follows:—
(e) the increase in rent shall be at the annual rate of one-tenth of the sum arrived at under paragraph (d).
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The first is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 36, leave out ("any part of").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next is consequential on the previous Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 40, leave out ("that part of the premises") and insert ("the premises in which the shelter is to be provided").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This also is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 31, leave out ("part of the").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved, in subsection (6), paragraph (e), to leave out "one-tenth" and insert "one-eighth." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships no doubt will remember that in Committee on the Bill there was quite a lengthy discussion on this clause, and I had the honour to move a number of Amendments designed to give effect to what I think was the intention of the Government, which did not seem to be in fact carried out. One felt sure it was not intended by the Government that the larger the amount imposed for expenditure on the shelter, the larger would be the tax levied under Schedule A—which still seems to be the effect of the Bill as it stands. On the Committee stage I sought to remedy that by altering in various places the word "rent," but it was pointed out that difficulties arose in that method, and a much simpler method of arriving at a just result would be by altering "one-tenth" to "one-eighth." I am given to understand that that is not disagreeable to the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 5, leave out ("one-tenth") and insert ("one-eighth").—(Lord Gorell.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Gorell has explained the intention of his Amendment, and the Government are prepared to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 30, to insert the following clause:
Special provisions as to land used in common by tenants of certain buildings.
".—(1) If, in the case of any building or block of buildings to which this section applies, there is adjacent thereto any land used in common by the occupiers of the building or block, a request in writing signed by more than one-half in number of the occupiers of the separate parts of the building or block that the local authority should utilise that land for the construction or erection of an air-raid shelter shall confer upon the local authority the like rights as respects entry upon the land and the execution of works thereon as they would possess if the request had been and continued to be concurred in by all persons in any way interested in the land.
(2) In this section the expression 'building or block of buildings to which this section applies' means a building or block of buildings which is situated in an area specified in an order made by the Minister under Part III of this Act, is wholly or mainly used for residential purposes and is let out in separate parts:
Provided that—

(a) so much of any building or block of buildings as consists of, or is comprised in, any factory premises or commercial building shall be disregarded;

(b) the said expression does not include any building or block of buildings the owner of which may be required to provide air-raid shelter in accordance with a scheme prepared under the last preceding section."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause, although it may look very formidable, is in fact purely a machinery clause. Unless any noble Lord desires an explanation of it I would ask leave formally to move it.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 30 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Execution of works by owner of dwelling-house]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause is one which was suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, and he will recollect that we promised to leave this point to be dealt with on the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 19, leave out ("had effect as from") and insert ("come into operation on").—(The Earl of Munster.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend for having made the matter clear.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42:
General duty as to factories, mines and public utility undertakings.
42.—(1) It shall be the duty of the occupier of any factory premises, of the owner of any mine and of the persons carrying on any public utility undertaking to take forthwith any necessary measures to secure that in the event of war, throughout any period of darkness—

(a) no light is allowed to appear from within any building on the premises, or used for the purposes of the mine or undertaking; and

(b) no lights not within a building remain alight, unless they are essential for the conduct of work of national importance, are adequately shaded, are reduced in power and, save where the Minister otherwise directs, are capable of instant extinction at any time.

5.34 p.m.
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY moved, in subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert "and materials used for window blinds, curtains, screens or otherwise shall be of a non-inflammable character." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is down on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi and I desire to move it. I am not sure that it is in the right place, but I feel certain it is a useful Amendment. Under the Police Regulations for screening of lights, the advice is that in selecting the material to be used the governing factor should be, among others, non-inflammability, and the intention behind the modification which my noble friend proposes is that compensation should only be paid to those who use non-inflammable materials for the purpose of screening lights, and not, as recommended by the Police, Holland cloth, Italian cloth, rubberised cloth or black or thick dark brown paper, which would appear to be undesirable. I hope the noble Earl will accept the principle of this Amendment and put in something along these lines in the appropriate part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 40, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Marley.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this Amendment, if for no other reason than that it is requiring the people who are mentioned in Clause 42 to provide materials for shading windows, skylights and doors in the event of war, when there is no grant from public or local funds to any person who provides such screening. At the same time, I am advised that to obtain these materials of a non-inflammable character would double, and in some cases treble, the cost to those persons who had to provide materials for covering big windows or big skylights. The Lord Privy Seal has issued a small booklet dealing with this question, and in it he has made quite clear what are the suitable materials that can at the moment be bought by the public for shading windows and skylights. Perhaps I might read the appropriate extract. After enumerating the materials the noble Lord has read, he adds:
"These are produced in many different qualities, and, in selecting the materials to
966
be used, the governing factors should be durability, permanence of dye and opacity, resistance to heat and damp, mechanical strength, non-inflammability…"
I understand that there is, in fact, material which is of a non-inflammable nature, and which of course anyone is at liberty to buy, but the Government feel that we cannot state in the Bill that this particular non-inflammable material must be provided, and no other.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (b), to insert:
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any light exhibited solely in the interests of navigation."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think this Amendment explains itself.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 40, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Duties of local authorities]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 3, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, we accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Financial Provisions]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 19, leave out ("which executes") and insert ("who execute").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, we accept this Amendment also.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Powers conferred by this Part to be in substitution for powers under the Act of 1937]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, we accept an Amendment down on the Paper in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 18, leave out ("makes") and insert ("make").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Evacuation of civil population]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, we accept the two Amendments down in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 54, line 33, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").
Page 55, line 2, leave out ("it") and insert ("them").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, before Clause 55 is taken—
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: We have taken it.
LORD PHILLIMORE: May I have the leave of the House?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There is no Motion before the House that the clause stand part.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Considerable debate on this point took place, and the attention of the House should be drawn to a statement by the Minister of Health in another place, in which he said, in answer to an inquiry as to what arrangements had been made to compensate owners in reception areas for damage done—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I ask what is the Motion before your Lordships' House?
LORD PHILLIMORE: May I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill if he has any statement to make on this?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I have not any statement to make. It is the first I have heard of it, and at the same time the noble Lord is absolutely out of order.
Clause 64 [Powers of bodies corporate as to measures against hostile attack]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There is a drafting Amendment here. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 24, after ("be") insert ("authorised or").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 64, to insert the following new clause:
Extension of borrowing powers of trustees, etc.
"(1) The provision of air-raid shelter shall be deemed to be an improvement authorised by the Settled Land Act, 1925, and mentioned in Part II of the Third Schedule to that Act.
(2) Any liquidator, trustee in bankruptcy or receiver shall, in addition to any other powers in that behalf, have the like powers in relation to the provision of air-raid shelter as are conferred on trustees by subsection (1) of this section."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this clause is to eliminate any doubt as to the powers of trustees of land, and other persons having fiduciary powers of management affecting land, in relation to the provision of air-raid shelter. Subsection (1) deals with the ordinary case of trustees under wills and settlements. The effect of the provision is twofold. In the first place, by the inclusion of "the provision of air-raid shelter" among the improvements authorised by the Settled Land Act, 1925, trustees are authorised to apply for the purpose capital moneys arising under the settlement and to borrow money for the purpose on the security of the settled land. In the second place, by attracting Part II of the Third Schedule to the Settled Land Act, the subsection enables the trustees of the settlement or the Court to require in proper cases that the cost of the provision of air-raid shelter is to be recouped by instalments out of income. Subsection (2) confers, by reference to subsection (1), similar powers of applying money in hand and of raising money by mortgage, upon certain persons whose position is analogous to that of the trustees dealt with under subsection (1). I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that on the Third Reading of the Bill I propose, with the permission of your Lordships, to move an Amendment to subsection (2) which will enlarge it considerably but will, in fact, make no alteration in substance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 64 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Property in equipment appliances and material provided by the Crown or local authorities]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 36, after ("Part II") insert ("or Part IV").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 66, to insert the following new clause:
Provision of air-raid shelter not to increase valuation for rating.
".Section one of the Rating and Valuation (Air-Raid Works) Act, 1938 (which provides for the relief of air-raid protection works from rates) shall, in relation to a hereditament forming part of a building, have effect as if any structural alterations or improvements made in the building or on land appurtenant to the building for the purpose of providing air-raid shelter were structural alterations or improvements to the hereditament, and in ascertaining the value for rating purposes of a hereditament under the principal Act (as defined in the said Section one) no regard shall be had to any increase in the rent thereof (whether made by virtue of this Act or not) which is attributable to the provision of air-raid shelter for persons living or working in the hereditament."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not know if the House will require any long explanation of this clause. Your Lordships will recollect that we discussed something similar to this on the Committee stage of the Bill, and my noble friend the Lord Chancellor informed Lord Gorell that he would be prepared to examine the points he had raised and bring up a new Amendment at a later stage. Unless your Lordships desire an explanation of this Amendment again, I formally beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 66 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71:
Determination of claims to compensation and increases of rent.
(6) This section shall not apply to any compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition or compulsory hiring of any land or in respect of personal injuries.
5.44 p.m.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved to leave out subsection (6). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not wish to appear ungrateful after the courteous treatment accorded to my former Amendment, and I must apologise for not having put down this Amendment on the Committee stage. But as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack himself said on the Committee stage, this Bill requires a lot of studying, and it is very easy to pass over some of the points. I have put down this Amendment to omit subsection (6) because it does not seem at all clear why that subsection is in the Bill. Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government that there should be no arbitration in such cases or even that there should be no compensation? I have been informed that it was intended that Clause 49, subsection (4), should apply to compensation in these cases, but if noble Lords will look at that subsection they will see it is strictly limited to a reference to Part VII of the Bill. Therefore, subject to any explanation which may be given, it would not appear that that clause applies to this Part of the Bill. I do not know whether any other clause or section of this rather difficult Bill does apply, but if it does not, it is desirable that it should be made to apply. I beg to move, and perhaps we may have some explanation why this subsection is included.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Gorell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should explain that the noble Earl who has been in charge of the Bill has now turned to me for the purpose of replying. It is from no lack of courtesy that the noble Earl is no longer in the House. With great respect to the noble Lord, Clause 71 provides for the settling of disputed claims for compensation in cases where compensation is payable under the Bill and not in other cases. No special provision is made for determining the amount. On the other hand, the compulsory acquisition of land, with which I shall deal separately, is governed by Section 5 of the Air-Raids Precautions Act, 1937, as amended by this Bill. The procedure there is based on the Local Government Act, 1933, and the Lands Clauses Acts, with which the noble Lord is well acquainted. The compensation is determined under these Acts by an official

971
arbitrator under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. It is not my fault that the scheme under which compensation is determined in connection with matters of this sort is somewhat complex, and proceeds from a number of Acts of Parliament. A similar procedure is intended to be applied under this Bill, if it becomes an Act, in the case of compulsory hiring of land under Clause 63 of the Bill. The answer therefore to the noble Lord is that there is no need to apply Clause 71 for these purposes, and in fact—I need not trouble your Lordships with details of it—this clause would in some respects be inappropriate.
So much for the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of land. There remains the question of compensation for personal injuries, but this subject is intended to be dealt with under Clause 68 of the Bill, the rubric of which is "Compensation in the event of injury to persons engaged in air-raid precautions activities." There is going to be a scheme which is to be made by the Treasury for the payment of moneys provided by Parliament. The scheme can be revoked or altered, and no doubt there will be special arrangements for the manner in which the compensation will be ascertained. In these circumstances I am unable, on behalf of the Government, to accept the proposed leaving out of subsection (6). In fact the matters which are excluded by that subsection are rightly excluded, and I hope in the circumstances the noble Lord will be content not to proceed with his Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, it is not easy to follow the noble and learned Lord when he mentions so many different Acts of Parliament affecting this matter, but if I understood him aright the effect of this really is that Clause 71 as a whole is only meant to deal with the questions of compensation which arise under this Bill. Therefore this subsection reads:
"This section shall not apply to any compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition or compulsory hiring of any land or in respect of personal injuries"
because these matters are dealt with under different Acts of Parliament. I think I have got it clear. Now if we go back to Clauses 7 and 8 we find that there is a question in Clause 7, subsection (5), for instance, which also applies to Clause 8:
972
"The local authority shall pay to any person having an estate or interest in any land in which works are constructed under this section such compensation, if any, as may be just"
and so on. Surely that is a question of compensation arising under this Bill and not under any other Act of Parliament. I cannot see where the provision exists for arbitration in a case arising under Clauses 7 and 8.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid my explanation could not have been as clear as I had wished. I did not say that Clauses 7 and 8 would not deal with compulsory hiring of land. This subsection which Lord Gorell wishes to leave out excludes from the provisions of Clause 71, compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition or hiring of land. The compensation will be provided for under the sections which I have already wearied the noble Lord by enumerating.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I tried to explain my difficulty to the noble and learned Lord. It is this, that under Clauses 7 and 8 it is compensation which arises under this Bill. The various enactments which the noble and learned Lord has recited to us deal with questions of compensation which do not arise under this Bill as I understand it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with great respect, they are perfectly general. When I said "under this Bill," I meant literally under the Bill, and where compensation has to be assessed for the acquisition of land. Clause 71 deals with other cases than those.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I do not know whether I am still continuing my original remarks or whether I should ask your Lordships leave to continue, but at the beginning Clause 71 states: "Any question whether any, and if so what, compensation is payable under any of the provisions of this Act." Then at the end, it precludes any possibility of arbitration for compulsory acquisition. I think it needs a little clarifying, but if the noble and learned Lord can give me an assurance that there are or will be provisions in case of dispute for arbitration it would at least satisfy my argument. I do not know whether he would satisfy my noble friend Lord Gorell.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will give an undertaking to look into the matter and see if it can be made more clear. If you read Clause 71 you must also read subsection (6). That is what I think the noble Earl has not done, but I will certainly consider it.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, it does seem that the matter is one of great difficulty, and I, personally, find it hard to follow the rather elaborate explanation, but I think one obviously must be satisfied with the assurance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the omission of this subsection is not necessary and indeed would be detrimental to the purposes of the Bill. Therefore, with your Lordships' leave, I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 87:
Other provisions as to interpretation.
87.—(1) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"Lease" includes an agreement for a lease, if the term to be covered by the lease has begun, and any tenancy, and the expression "lessee" shall be construed accordingly;
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), in the definition of "lease," to insert "but does not include a mortgage." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment and the next Amendment is to leave out, so to speak, from an ordinary lease the case where a mortgage takes the form of a grant for a certain number of years. In some cases the mortgagee is not the lessee, and he may not be in the same position as the owner under the Bill. This matter has been carefully considered and these Amendments are intended to carry out the intention which I have stated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 11, after ("tenancy") insert ("but does not include a mortgage").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), at the end of the definition of "owner," to insert:
974
"Provided that where any estate or interest in any factory premises or commercial building is the subject of a mortgage and the mortgagee is in possession, that estate or interest shall be deemed for the purposes of this definition to be vested in the mortgagee."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this carries out the object which I have already stated. Where a mortgagee is in possession the estate shall be deemed to be vested in him so that he will be the person to carry out the various duties falling to be carried out by an owner under the provisions of this Bill. I do not think any further explanation is needed.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 34, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is connected with the one following on the Paper—after "gas" to insert "or water." They are drafting Amendments intended to give effect to the acceptance of the principle of the Amendment moved by Lord Phillimore in Committee to bring within the definition of "public utility undertakings" non-statutory water companies in addition to the non-statutory gas companies which are already included. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 8, leave out ("supply gas") and insert ("do so").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I put down these Amendments in Committee and I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for accepting this Amendment. If I may, I will also take this opportunity, as I was not in the House at the time, of thanking him for accepting the Amendment on Clause 8.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 9, after ("gas") insert ("or water").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 88 [Application to Scotland]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is really a

975
drafting Amendment, consequential on Amendments made earlier in the Bill. It is necessary for the application of those Amendments to Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 1, after ("lease,") insert ("'mortgage' means a heritable security and mortgagee' means the creditor in a heritable security").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved after subsection (12), to insert:
"(13) In Section thirty-one any reference to a building or block of buildings let out in separate parts shall include a reference to a building or block of buildings in which separate parts belong to different owners."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which is designed to make it quite clear that any reference to a building or block of buildings let out in separate parts shall include a reference to a building or block of buildings in which separate parts belong to different owners. It is purely drafting, but it clarifies the intention of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 3, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (22), to insert the following new subsection:
("(23) For Section sixty-seven there shall be substituted the following section:—
'67. Section one of the Rating and Valuation (Air-Raid Works) (Scotland) Act, 1938, (which provides for relief from rates in respect of air-raid protection works in Scotland) shall, in relation to any lands and heritages forming part of a building, have effect as if any structural alterations or improvements made in the building or on land occupied or used with the building for the purpose of providing air-raid shelter were structural alterations or improvements to the lands and heritages, and in estimating any yearly rent or value of the lands and heritages for the purpose of valuation and rating no regard shall be had to any increase in the rent thereof (whether made by virtue of this Act or not) which is attributable to the provision of air-raid shelter for persons living or working in the lands and heritages'.")
The noble and learned Lord said: This again is a question of Scottish law. I am given to understand that the substitution of the proposed new section for Section 67 is one which takes full cognisance
976
of the differences between Scottish law and English law. There is, however, one word which requires correction in the Amendment as printed on the Paper. Eight lines from the bottom of the proposed Amendment your Lordships will see "and in estimating the yearly rental value." It is suggested to me that the proper form of the Amendment in the view of Scottish lawyers is that the word "any" should be substituted for "the." I therefore move the Amendment with that alteration.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 9, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
6.2 p.m.
THE MINISTER FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF DEFENCE (LORD CHATFIELD): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. In doing so I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to refer to two things with reference to what occurred on the Second Reading of the Bill. In the first place the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, asked me during the debate whether the Director-General of Munitions Production would be a member of the Army Council. I replied that so far as I was aware he would not be, but that if I was wrong I would inform the noble Viscount at a later stage. I now find that the statement I made is at the moment correct, but Sir Harold Brown will be closely associated with the work of the Army Council and I can assure the noble Viscount that what he has in mind—namely, that there should be the closest co-operation between the two Departments—will be assured. The exact arrangement is under consideration at the present time, and has yet to be settled as the new Ministry is established and organised. There is one other point. I am reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, in Column 908, as having stated that the Minister of Supply would be a member of the Army Council.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was rather surprised when I read it.
LORD CHATFIELD: It will probably be within the recollection of your Lordships that that does not correctly represent what I said. I never in my wildest dreams had any idea that the Minister of Supply would be a member of the Army Council. Actually the Prime Minister made a statement on that very point in another place, when he said that the Minister of Supply would not be a Member of the Army Council. I thought it well that I should allay any fears that might have been caused by the misreporting of what I said. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chatfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
General powers of Minister.
2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this subsection, the Minister shall have power—

(a) to buy or otherwise acquire, manufacture or otherwise produce, store and transport any articles required for the public service, and to exchange, sell or otherwise dispose of any articles bought or otherwise acquired or manufactured or otherwise produced by him.

(b) to buy or otherwise acquire any articles for the purpose of exchanging them for articles required for the public service;

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "or otherwise acquire." The noble Viscount said: Since I put down this Amendment it has been suggested to me that these words have been deliberately inserted to cover cases which fall within the Anglo-American barter agreement. If, however, your Lordships look at paragraph (b) you will see the words "to buy or otherwise acquire any articles for the purpose of exchanging them." If that is the intention of the Government it is already covered by paragraph (b). The words "or otherwise acquire" go much further than cases of barter, and can easily include expropriation without any compensation whatsoever. If the words are intended to cover barter, I think that we ought also to insert some such words as "acquire for valuable consideration" to make the matter quite clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("or otherwise acquire").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD CHATFIELD: The words "or otherwise acquire" which the noble Viscount proposes to omit were really introduced for a specific purpose—namely, to cover exchange transactions such as those mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade in another place on June 23. As there is no statutory authority for these operations it is essential that they should obtain cover now. The words proposed to be omitted are, I am advised, needed in addition to the phrase giving authority for exchange. I therefore hope the noble Viscount will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not wish to press the Amendment, but I certainly do think that it could cover expropriation without compensation.
LORD CHATFIELD: I am informed to the contrary.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am quite sure I am right in telling your Lordships that no Judge in his senses would construe the word "acquire" here as justifying the expropriation without compensation of any article.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Having heard that very high legal opinion I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.7 p.m.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Provided further that any power given to the Minister by subsection (1) of this section to manufacture or produce any articles required for the public service shall only continue for such period as Part II of this Act shall remain in force, except so far as the Minister may be exercising the powers existing prior to the passing of this Act of any other Government Departments."
The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I called the attention of the noble and gallant Lord to a power which seemed to me to have been inadvertently placed in the Bill—a power to which strong objection is taken—that is, a power in perpetuity for a Minister to manufacture or produce any article which he may deem desirable in the interests of the public service. Such a power I am sure neither this Government nor any Liberal or Conservative Government

979
would ever introduce in a measure of this kind. In another place, owing to the procedure there, this Amendment was not called upon and therefore the point was not raised.
I can put the point most clearly to your Lordships by reading a paragraph from a letter which the President of the Federation of British Industries addressed to the Prime Minister on June 14. A paragraph in that letter reads as follows:
"Clause 2, together with the definitions to be found in Clause 18, would give the Minister power to 'manufacture or otherwise produce' and to 'sell or otherwise dispose of' articles required by any Government Department, the supply functions of which are transferred to the Minister, articles in the opinion of the Minister essential for the needs of the community in the event of war, and anything in the opinion of the Minister likely to be necessary for the production of such articles."
These articles would, in fact, include every product of industry in this country. The letter goes on:
"It is felt that this extends far beyond the present powers of manufacture possessed by Government Departments and indeed covers a vast industrial production, perhaps only limited by the elasticity of the opinion of some future Minister. The inclusion of powers to sell would make State trading as well as State manufacture in this wide field possible. The Federation has already made it clear to the Minister-Elect that it supports the institution of a Ministry of Supply. Furthermore, it agrees that wide powers are necessary during a period of emergency and it readily believes that the present Government would not make any unwise use of them."
The noble and gallant Lord, in his speech on the Second Reading, made it perfectly clear that the Government intended to exercise their powers reasonably in this emergency. In this emergency nobody takes exception to these powers being conferred on the Government. What the Federation of British Industries and all industrialists fear is that at some future time this power may be abused and, instead of the nationalisation of an industry being brought in by a Bill and dealt with in a proper way, if this power were extended to a Minister for all time a Government might arise which might nationalise this industry or the other just as they please. It is that power which we desire to have limited by some words. I did ask the noble and learned Lord if he would put down an Amendment himself to meet this point.
980
In our view it probably ought to be dealt with by Part II, which is giving limited powers. I understand, however, that the new Minister desires to have powers to buy and sell in connection with his ordinary duties as Minister of Supply. Nobody takes any exception to that, but what we do take exception to is that it should be in the power of a future Government to destroy private enterprise by a Minister taking advantage of this clause.
Therefore in order to raise the point I have put down this Amendment at this stage, and I do hope the Government will meet it, because I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that the procedure which he thought was a safeguard is no safeguard at all. He suggested that the Minister could be called upon and his conduct reviewed in another place; but if a Socialist Government of an extreme character wanted to nationalise industry and wanted to destroy this private enterprise and the other at a future date, it would be to no purpose to bring under review the Minister's administration, because he would have a majority in the other House. There is no safeguard to these powers being conferred in this emergency or in any other which is likely to be connected with a possible war, and certainly not in time of war. It is the perpetuity for this power which I think is objectionable. I hope the Government will meet the case of traders and of all industrialists who have looked into this point and feel very strongly on it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD CHATFIELD: I thank the noble Lord for the way he has moved his Amendment, and I wish I could meet his point more satisfactorily. Actually there are four reasons why it is not possible for me to do so. He has already covered a great many of the difficulties which he has himself foreseen in the way of our accepting his Amendment. The power to acquire articles required for the public service, as taken in the Bill, covers the acquisition of a very wide range of articles, much wider than has ever been needed before, for the direct service of the main supply Departments. It is therefore quite fitting that the power to "manufacture or otherwise produce" should be taken in regard to the new class of materials as well as the old.

981
It is also fitting that this clause should, as it actually does, form the main basis of the Minister's powers and provide a complete and permanent authority. There is no obvious reason why one part of the power to manufacture should be temporary and another permanent. Secondly, it is difficult to define with accuracy the powers which are at present exercised by different Government Departments whose duties may be transferred from time to time to the Minister. Only those duties can be transferred which they already perform, and I am advised that there would be the greatest administrative difficulty if this Amendment were pressed. Thirdly, there is, as your Lordships know, to be an opportunity for consideration in Parliament from time to time of the policy of the Ministry of Supply, and the policy of the Government regarding supply, and the Minister of Supply designate has in another place given his assurance that he will keep Parliament informed from time to time of the progress and of his intentions as he obtains experience in his duties. That should give adequate protection against any excessive use of the powers to manufacture. Fourthly, if it is desired substantially to extend the range of Government manufacture, some such scheme as a nationalisation proposal such as the noble Lord has suggested, the powers that are given to the Minister of Supply in this Bill are not wide enough.
Moreover, it is quite unlikely that a power in a Bill of this kind would ever be used for this purpose. It would be more likely, as it surely would be more proper, that in the event of a decision by any Government having a great majority, as the noble Lord has suggested, to adopt a policy of manufacture, that Government would take complete powers to effect what was wanted. It would not be necessary for them merely to look to see if there was any existing Act out of which the powers could be squeezed. The powers would be taken under a special Bill which would cover any operations which they needed. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, although I am afraid that my reply will not be at all satisfactory to him, will realise that I cannot accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this Amendment raises a very important question, and it is not one, I think, on which
982
there is really any disagreement of principle, or indeed of practice, in the minds of your Lordships. I believe that everybody in this House wants to vest in the Minister of Supply the fullest possible powers which he can require in the most extreme emergency. Personally, indeed, I have always pressed for going further than the Government are going at the present moment; though I was glad to find, in the speech that my noble friend made in reply to me, that before very long I understand he will extend to what are really common services the powers which are so curtailed at the moment. Therefore there is nothing between any of us in a desire to vest in this Minister the most complete, if you will the most autocratic, and the most universal powers to cover the whole field of supply. But the reason why we want to do that is that we may have the most perfect organisation, equal to any totalitarian organisation which can be devised, which will function and function effectively as an insurance of peace and as a preparation for war. We are quite prepared to give those powers in the most extended form.
But what my noble friend is anxious about is that if in the fulness of time we come to a saner, happier world, there shall not be on the Statute Book an Act which could be used for purposes entirely other than that which the Parliament which passed the Act designed it to fulfil. I am not quite sure that my noble friend the Minister of Defence is really right in his construction of this Bill, and I would asked the learned Lord Chancellor to give us some further assurance on the point. I leave aside the rather naïve expression of opinion which fell from the noble Lord that a Socialist Government which wanted to nationalise all the means of production, distribution and exchange and found on the Statute Book a convenient Statute under which it could operate would not dream of doing anything so underhand as that, but would introduce a nice Act of Parliament which would start the whole business afresh and give them their new powers. I am not sure that I am quite as trusting as that, and I am not sure that any Government, whatever its complexion, if it found an Act of Parliament on the Statute Book which gave it full facilities for all executive actions, would be so enamoured

983
of Parliamentary process as to come back to Parliament and say: "Let us have a fresh Act of Parliament, and debate this afresh." I am afraid that any Government would use all the Acts of Parliament which it possessed. All Governments have done that kind of thing. I am not at all sure that my noble friend (Lord Snell) has not been engaged with one who sometimes is and sometimes is not a member of his Party, a very distinguished lawyer, who sits in another place, in devising very ingenious methods by which behind the back of Parliament the Socialist Party, should they ever come into power, could carry out the whole of their programme.
This is a serious matter. Naturally all of us who engage in Parliamentary and political activities, and do that for the purpose of accomplishing what we are pleased to consider large constructive reforms, wish to get these reforms carried by hook or by crook, by one means or another, and if there are on the Statute Book measures which enable the effective nationalisation of industry to be carried out without bringing it before either the House of Commons or this House, I am not sure that a formidable Minister who wished to get the job done, and wished, in the well-known words of the late Lord Passfield, for "Socialism in our time," might not think this a useful and convenient wav of getting it. I would like to ask Lord Chatfield whether, under these words in Clause 18, which are extraordinarily wide, the Minister has power to do all the things which Lord Gainford read out. He can manufacture any article which any Government Department requires. I do not think that would limit his scope of manufacture. At any rate the Government appetite might grow.
I am quite sure my construction is right. I believe that once having gone into the process of manufacture, what would govern would be the kind of article that the Government uses, and the modern Government uses practically every article. I believe the Minister can go into the whole field of manufacture, and manufacture every article which in his opinion would be essential to the needs of the community in time of war. That does not mean that he can manufacture in view of a war which he knew
984
was coming, because we do not know that to-day, and we hope war will not come. It really means that the Minister can undertake the manufacture of anything which the community needs, and say that is the kind of thing which the community needs in time of war. There is not a thing which under this he could not manufacture, and not only is he able to manufacture the finished article, but also the semi-manufactured, half-raw materials. If your Lordships look at Clause 18 (c), you will see that it says:
"anything which in the opinion of the Minister is or is likely to be necessary for or in connection with the production of any such article as aforesaid."
That is everything, from pig iron to a finished steel product. I am not sure whether he would be able to take over existing steel works. I rather think he would not. That would be temporary power under Part II. But he would be able to set up a new steel works, and new blast furnaces, if he so desired, and therefore the whole process of manufacture, from the raw material to the finished article, the Minister could engage upon, because that is an article required in the public service, or an article which is required by the community in war.
Those are exactly the powers which the Minister should have for an emergency, and we want him to have those powers. They are such powers as no Minister ought to have in normal times. I cannot imagine a more dangerous thing than giving the Minister power in ordinary times, and for ordinary purposes, to do that. Supposing we were to have nationalisation legislation. I do not believe you would ever get an omnibus Act like that through Parliament. I am perfectly certain that no Parliament in its senses would pass a General Bill of Nationalisation which said that the Minister of Supply should have the power to nationalise any industry in this country that he wishes. It is not a fantastic thing that we are talking about. The very fact that we are giving him these powers for an emergency ought to make us sure that they are not used improperly at any future time, when an emergency has entirely past.
The Minister has said on this occasion, and before, in answer to Lord Gainford: "You are safeguarded, because if the Minister acted unreasonably his administration could be brought before the House

985
of Commons, and it could be challenged on a vote." My noble friend is not as familiar with Parliamentary procedure as others of us are, but the Lord Chancellor will, I am sure, confirm me in this, and any old House of Commons man would agree. It is a recognised rule in the House of Commons that you cannot take, merely by a vote, a new power to a Minister. Lord Gainford, as an old Whip, will recognise that very well. The House has always been jealous to exercise control over a Minister in that sense, and it is an immemorial rule of the House of Commons that a new service or power must not be taken by a Minister merely by putting a Resolution down on a Vote. If you are to give a Minister new power Which he does not possess before, that power has to be founded upon an Act of Parliament, duly passed by both Houses, and you only bring his administration into force and under review when an Act of Parliament has given him that power. I am sure every authority will agree that it is no answer at all to say: "We give this power now (give it indeed by a side wind), but it will be all right, because we can, if necessary, challenge it and take it away on Supply." Your Lordships certainly could not. It will never come to your Lordships, because the only way administration can be challenged is by a Vote of Supply in the House of Commons.
I ventured to intervene at this length for this reason. Everybody in the House knows I am as keen a supporter of a Ministry of Supply as there is in this House; I do feel that we ought to give these tremendous powers in their full force to the Minister; yet we really ought in some way to provide a safeguard against a future risk. When, hereafter, happier times have come, when, please God, the need for these powers is past, and they have never been exercised on any extreme scale, and we have gone back to our ordinary avocations and the ordinary channels of trade, it would indeed be a risky thing if we left on the Statute Book perpetual powers to some Government, without any appeal or any obligation to come to either House of Parliament, to exercise such enormous and drastic powers in normal times.
This Amendment may not be the right way of doing what we desire. I quite see you must have temporary and semi
986
permanent powers. But what objection is there to doing this: The temporary powers under Part II are made renewable by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and I do not really myself see why these powers of manufacture should not be renewable by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Believe me, each House of Parliament will be only too ready to renew these powers without debating, as long as the need for the renewal is there. Nor will the Minister be hampered in his activities. He can go and make contracts for the longest period of time, because he has full and complete power as long as the Act is in being. The complete carrying out of these contracts will not be prejudiced long after the three years are finished. I should have thought that, where these exceptional powers are taken, the reasonable thing to do was to say: "All right, give the Minister these powers for three years, and let us extend them year by year by a positive Resolution of the House, if they are wanted." In that way I do not believe you would hamper the Minister in the very least, and you would carry this Bill without any anxiety in the minds of the people, who, after all, have to be your partners in carrying it out, and we could all go forward supporting it completely; whereas, if this case is not met, there will be a perfectly genuine anxiety in the minds of many people—and people who do not hold strong political views one way or the other—and a feeling that we are doing a very wise thing in making this Ministry of Supply but a very foolish thing in passing it in the unlimited form in which it stands.
LORD SNELL: In the state of alarm into which your Lordships have unhappily fallen lately in this sitting I wonder if I could do anything to comfort your minds? So far as I learn, two of the three political Parties in this country are entirely impeccable: they would never do anything by way of a political trick, or use any Orders that there might be—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No. I said they all had done it, and they all would do it.
LORD SNELL: The noble Viscount will forgive me: it was not to him that I was referring. But there is another Party which some day might take a low advantage by the mere fact that it would have a majority. Well, I resent in some small

987
way that attack upon an entirely reputable and altogether guileless political Party. I assure your Lordships that we are not afraid of a political fight, and it ever the need came to nationalise we should not be afraid to advertise it. But, in actual fact, nobody on my side of politics has ever proposed or thought of wholesale nationalisation. The noble Viscount referred to the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, who, as your Lordships know, invented the phrase "the inevitability of gradualness," and our view is that a time may come when particular things will be ripe for nationalisation before all things are ripe for nationalisation. We should be perfectly willing to take things as they come. And therefore, I hope your Lordships will be able to go away to-night without feeling that there is this terrible danger of using Orders that may have been passed against your interests. We shall have pleasure in looking up the record of both these two honest Parties in these matters in the future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I have been more than once referred to on the question of the construction that should be put on this clause, I think I ought not to shirk an answer, and I wish to say quite clearly that in my opinion—this will perhaps comfort some of your Lordships—it will be impossible under Clause 2 to nationalise the industries of this country, or any of them. As I read the clause, it is confined to giving powers, subject to the provisions of the subsection, to the Minister, for instance to manufacture or otherwise acquire articles required for the public service. If you read the proviso, you will see that a Minister who was a Minister of Supply for the purposes of the Army would not even be entitled to manufacture or supply articles for the Navy or the Air Force. In other words, as I think, the clause is limited, and the dangers which are anticipated will not arise. Of course, it does not mean that the Minister who is engaged in manufacturing, we will say guns, must wait to see if an exact number of guns is required. He has to act like a reasonable man, and he will manufacture those which he thinks will be needed. But the notion that he can acquire the steelworks and the land, and have a monopoly in regard to them, is one which as a matter of law is ill-founded.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If the Minister is entitled to manufacture articles for the public service he may enter upon a manufacturing trade. The power may not be universal in this Bill but he is authorised to manufacture cloth for the Army, boots for the Navy, food for the Air Force, and I do not know what else, shall I say for the postmen or for the Civil Service? He can pick out industry by industry, and under this Bill he can do what he pleases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I ventured to say to your Lordships shows that he cannot do what he pleases. He has only got a very limited right.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The whole point is this. He cannot do what he pleases because he is limited to the public service, but one of the biggest employers of labour in this country is the Post Office, and under this Act he can manufacture anything which is necessary for the Post Office and its work. He can manufacture paper, metal sheets, vans; he can manufacture paint—I do not know what he cannot manufacture for one service or the other of the State.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Wheat?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I quite agree—wheat, if it is thought necessary to feed the Post Office. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, assumed that this was going to be done by Order. On the contrary, power is conferred by Statute of the Realm, and the Order is a very subordinate thing. This is a very dangerous Bill—very dangerous indeed. I am not afraid of Lord Snell and his friends so much as I am afraid of some of my own friends and the pressure which outsiders can bring to bear upon them. It is not that the whole industry is going to fall into the hands and control of the State, it is that one section of it is going to be set up in competition with the rest of the industry—the paper industry if you like. It is legitimate to make paper for the use of the War Office and the public service generally. In doing so you establish a new section within that industry, and you have got the taxpayer behind it. The Government does not pay rates except ex gratia, and there you have a form of competition dangerous to ordinary private commercial enterprise being supported by Government subvention to meet losses.

989
That is the power that is being conferred upon this Government and its successors by this Bill. It is no good saying it is not likely it will be done, as Lord Chatfield said. The noble Lord below the Gangway said that was a rather naive remark. I could put it more strongly than that. The matter cannot really be dismissed by saying it is not likely to be done. We are going to have an emergency, and for all time we must labour under the commercial and industrial disadvantages of that emergency. This power should be confined to what the Government by Order in Council pronounce to be an emergency, and for so many months or so many years thereafter, or else the Bill should be limited to two, three, or five years, or else be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. One thing or another should be done, and I would ask the Government not to dismiss this matter as a mere departmental affair, but to give some guarantee that it will be considered before the Report stage.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I agree with the noble Lords who have spoken and who have pointed out that this is a far more important matter than would appear from the terms of the Bill. Nor does it seem to me that the reply given on behalf of the Government really covers the point. I am not arguing whether the State production of goods is a good thing or a bad thing. I am one of those who think that in many directions it might be extended, but if it is to be extended it ought to be done overtly and consciously with the full authority of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, acquiesces in that. He said that if the time came for such an extension to be accomplished in that way it might or might not be done. But there are many instances in the history of this and other countries of Statutes passed for one purpose being used for another. Take France, for example, where the compulsory Military Service Acts have been used to enlist people to break a railway strike or a dock strike by conscripting them and calling them up for service and then using them for some industrial purpose.
This clause which we are discussing says that the Minister may manufacture or otherwise produce any articles required for the public service, and the definition clause, Clause 18 on page 16, says that
990
articles required for the public service mean articles required by any Government Department for the purpose of the discharge of its functions. That does not mean for the discharge of its functions at the present time—1939—at a time of crisis. It must obviously mean the discharge of its functions as they may be at any future time during which this Act may be in force. There are a great number of Government Departments which have already very wide functions and might possibly in the future have these functions extended very considerably. There is the Ministry of Health, for example—the supply of milk and so on. There is unemployment insurance, and measures for dealing with the unemployed. Then there are the military Departments themselves. The War Office, the Admiralty, and the Air Ministry have enormous powers for the supply of food for, perhaps, hundreds of thousands of men. The Lord Chancellor says that this Bill applies at present only to the Army, but it has been pointed out—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not say that the powers conferred referred only to the Army.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble Lord said that the example given by Lord Gainford regarding supplies for the Air Force and the Admiralty did not apply.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount has totally misunderstood.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble and learned Lord, but for the purposes of my present argument there is advantage in the fact that the Lord Chancellor did not say that. The three great Services could exercise their powers under this Bill to manufacture and produce, supposing some Government that way inclined thought it desirable, all that they required for their own purposes including the feeding of the troops. They would be immediately authorised under this Act to engage in State farms and State production so long as all the products were used in the public service. Consequently this becomes a very large and important matter. The noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, said that the Minister of Supply had given an assurance that such things would not be done. But we are not contemplating present circumstances or the present Ministry. He further said that any Government that

991
wished to do these things would take powers under a special Act; but to pass an Act through Parliament is a long process, and if an Act exists already which could be misused according to the intentions of its originators but nevertheless could be used according to the desires of those in power at the time, no doubt the instrument ready to hand would be employed.
If the proposed Amendment is in the wrong form and would impose obstacles to the due carrying out of the purposes we really have in view in establishing the Ministry of Supply, then the matter would have to be dealt with in another way. I feel convinced that in some way or other it should be dealt with in this Bill, but your Lordships would not be well advised to pass the Bill in the form in which it is now presented.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: By leave of the Committee, I would ask the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, if before the next stage of this measure he would put himself in a position to make an announcement to your Lordships about this matter on which, I can assure him, many members of this House feel very strongly indeed.
LORD GAINFORD: I have no desire to oppose the Government at the present time, but we do feel that something ought to be done. I would rather the Government agreed to put down an Amendment than press the matter now. The point, however, is such an important one that I do ask the Government if they will kindly undertake to consider it between now and the Report stage with a view to meeting it in some way, otherwise I feel I am bound to go to a Division on a principle of such far-reaching consequence.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): The noble Earl behind me has asked me whether I will put myself in the position to make a statement with regard to this matter at a later stage of the Bill. I fully realise the fears which are entertained in many quarters of the House as to what the ultimate effect of this clause in its present form might be. I am advised that those fears are certainly exaggerated, and probably groundless, but in view of the arguments which have been submitted this afternoon I am certainly quite willing to have this matter
992
further considered in the light of those arguments with a view to a statement on the point being made at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD GAINFORD: In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, but in order that the matter shall be raised I suggest that my Amendment should be put down at a later stage so that the point may be gone into in that form if we are not satisfied with the Government's way of meeting the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Payments by Minister for creation of reserves.
(2) If any person for the purpose of obtaining a payment under this section, either for himself or for any other person, knowingly or recklessly makes any untrue statement or untrue representation, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
6.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), after "representation," to insert "or wilfully fails to disclose any material fact." The noble Viscount said: I think I am right in saying that these words have been put into clauses in other Bills dealing with the same subject. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, after ("representation") insert ("or wilfully fails to disclose any material fact").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD CHATFIELD: I am advised that the wording in the Bill "any untrue statement or untrue representation" does cover a partial statement or failure to disclose material facts, and that the Amendment therefore does not appear to be necessary having regard to the tenor of the clause. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will not consider it necessary to press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I am certain that these words do appear in other Acts, and if that is so doubts will be thrown upon the question whether a concealment of material facts is indeed an untrue statement. I hope the noble Lord will look into it between now and Report and perhaps change his mind.
LORD CHATFIELD: I assure the noble Viscount that I have taken the

993
advice of the Law Officers on this particular point. They have carefully considered the whole matter and have come to the conclusion which I have stated to the noble Viscount.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Power to require delivery of supplies and carrying out of works.
(6) Where directions are given to any person under this section with respect to any articles or works, then—

(a) if the directions are given under subsection (1) or subsection (2), the price or remuneration, if any, to be paid for the articles or works in addition to the price or remuneration which would have been payable therefor if the directions had not been given; and

(b) if the directions are given under subsection (3), the price or remuneration to be paid for the articles or works;

shall be such as may be agreed between that person and the Minister or, in default of agreement, such as may be determined to be fair and reasonable, having regard to all relevant considerations, by an arbitrator or arbitrators selected by the Minister from a panel of arbitrators appointed by him.
6.54 p.m.
LORD CHATFIELD LORD CHATFIELD moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "selected by the Minister from a panel of arbitrators appointed by him" and insert "appointed as hereinafter provided." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to carry out an undertaking given on the Report stage of the Bill in another place by the Minister who was in charge of it. In that place an Amendment was moved to give effect to the suggestion which the Minister himself had made on the Committee stage of the Bill, that, though the panel would continue to be appointed by the Minister, the arbitrator for each particular case should be appointed from the panel by the Chairman, who would be elected by the members of the panel themselves. In the course of the debate on this Amendment the Minister suggested that, though it might be desirable that the arbitrator or the arbitrators in any particular case should be appointed by the Chairman, it would be better if the Chairman were appointed by the Minister himself instead of being elected by the panel. He also
994
suggested that it would be necessary to have a Deputy Chairman in case the Chairman was ill or otherwise unable to act. But he undertook that if the appointment of the Chairman or Deputy Chairman were left to him he would appoint persons who had had wide legal experience. He further undertook that the House of Lords would be invited to give effect to his suggestions when the Bill came before it.
The Amendment that I am now moving carries out this undertaking. Under subsection (1) of the proposed new clause to be moved later, the Minister will appoint the panel and a Chairman and Deputy Chairman. Under subsection (2) the Chairman or Deputy Chairman must be a barrister, advocate or solicitor of not less than ten years standing. Under subsection (3) the arbitrator or arbitrators for any particular case will be selected by the Chairman or Deputy Chairman. In addition to carrying out the Minister's undertaking the new clause deals with two small technical matters. It provides, first, that the number of arbitrators to hear any particular case shall be either one or three—that is in subsection (3)—and, secondly, that where there are three, the award of any two of them shall be binding. That is in subsection (4). The reason why it is so provided is that where there are two arbitrators difficulties may arise if they are unable to agree. Delay occurs by having an umpire to rehear the case, and it is essential that the arbitrations under this Bill shall be determined as quickly as possible. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 38, leave out from ("arbitrators") to the end of line 40 and insert ("appointed as hereafter provided").—(Lord Chatfield.)
LORD MANCROFT: It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that while this Bill was passing through its earlier Parliamentary stage in the other House, great apprehension was expressed by those connected with industry about the wording of Clause 7. It was felt that it was not altogether fair that the Minister, who would be a party to the dispute, should appoint the arbitrators' panel and select the arbitrator from that panel to deal with a dispute. I wish now to thank my noble friend for having introduced this Amendment. I welcome

995
it because I think it goes far to meet the apprehensions of the trades concerned. I offer no hostile criticism, but I wish to refer to one little point in the Amendment. It says that the Minister shall appoint a panel of arbitrators. I do not object to a Minister appointing a panel of arbitrators; but from what body or bodies are these arbitrators to be chosen? I cannot think they will be chosen from the legal profession, and I cannot think that they will be chosen from civil servants. I do not suppose my noble friend can give the answer now, but perhaps between now and the Report stage he will look into the matter and give me an answer on this point—from whom these arbitrators would be chosen. My own view is that it would be very helpful, and I think would give great satisfaction both to the great and the small manufacturing firms who would be supplying the goods about which there would be a dispute, if the Minister were to announce that he would select for the panel men who are actively employed in the great industries supplying the Government. Those men know the difficulties; they are fair-minded, just and patriotic men; and they would give better assistance in coming to a decision than anyone else. I hope that my noble friend will give some consideration to this point between now and the Report stage.
LORD STRABOLGI: I desire to refer to a matter which I rose to speak about when my noble friend opposite got up. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has raised this matter, because it rather bears out what I was going to suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I want, if I may, very respectfully to make an emphatic protest once more against the building up of a further vested interest in legal appointments in Acts of Parliament. There have been a number of cases recently in which it is laid down that so-and-so shall be appointed by the Minister but he must be a member of the legal profession. There are many important arbitrations carried out under the existing Arbitration Acts by gentlemen appointed, in some cases, by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers or the Institution of Mechanical Engineers or by the Association of Chemical Manufacturers—men who carry the confidence of the particular trade or business con-
996
cerned. I have the greatest and highest regard for the legal profession, but I would point out that the noble and gallant Lord himself belongs to a profession which has to adjudicate on matters of life and death when sitting as officers on Courts-Martial. If he were told that he had to have as president of one of those courts a barrister, or a member of the Faculty of Advocates, or a solicitor of ten years standing, I can imagine what he would have to say about it. It would not be in the usual terms in which we express disapprobation in your Lordships' House; it would be much firmer, and I am sure that every member of his profession would say the same.
Why are both the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman who will have to deal with intricate trade and commercial matters to be lawyers? I must repeat that we are building up a still further vested interest in legal appointments of this kind, and I do not think it is quite fair to your Lordships' House. This was promised in another place. I do not know to whom it was promised, but I imagine to Government supporters. I can understand that the Chairman might possibly be required to be a lawyer, but that both should be lawyers I think is rather extraordinary. I think it right to make a protest, and I shall continue to make it on other occasions.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I should have thought the obvious reason for both being lawyers is that the Deputy Chairman will only act in the absence of the Chairman.
LORD ASKWITH: I must say I consider the proposed new clause a very great improvement, but I should like to make one practical suggestion and that is that the members of these panels should not be appointed for more than a certain number of years. This system of panels is well known, but it has been found that panels have a tendency to grow in number and that some people remain in these panels long after they have passed their period of useful work. This is a practical point, which I think should be considered. There is an advantage in the Chairman having the selection of arbitrators, because he gets to know who are the people best suited for particular cases. I do not quite follow the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in his remarks about lawyers.

997
I think that the Minister ought to have considerable latitude as to those selected for the panel. I do not say you know an arbitrator when you see him, but I do say that in the case of a lot of people you know directly you see them that they cannot be arbitrators. Therefore there should be latitude to choose good men, who are patient and have some judgment, from any kind of profession.
LORD CHATFIELD: There are three points which have been raised. The first was by my noble friend Lord Mancroft as to the composition of the panel. I will certainly inquire into that matter, but I think I am right in saying that it has been already stated in another place that it is fully the intention that the panel of arbitrators should be drawn from a very wide field and would certainly include representatives of industry and other persons who would be appropriate. I believe that statement to be correct, but I should like to check it and satisfy the noble Lord at a later stage of the Bill. As regards Lord Strabolgi's remark about members of the legal profession being so popular with the Government, I think I may say that this Amendment arose from a debate in another place where the whole question was very extensively discussed. I am under the impression that very great store was set by the fact that the Chairman should be a man who had judicial experience, and that that was considered a very necessary factor. As the noble Viscount said, if you are going to have a Chairman of a certain type and a Deputy Chairman who only acts in his absence, it is common sense to have a Deputy Chairman of the same type as the Chairman. The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, about the period of service of individual members of the panel, is one which I will take up and I will give him an answer later.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Power to require storage]:
LORD CHATFIELD: The next Amendment is consequental. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 15, leave out from ("arbitrators") to end of line 16 and insert ("appointed as hereafter provided").—(Lord Chatfield.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CHATFIELD LORD CHATFIELD moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:
Provisions as to arbitration.
".—(1) For the purpose of the last two foregoing sections, the Minister shall appoint a panel of arbitrators, and shall appoint one member of the panel to be chairman thereof and another to be deputy chairman thereof.
(2) No person shall be qualified to be chairman or deputy chairman of the said panel unless he is or has been a barrister, member of the Faculty of Advocates or solicitor, of not less than ten years standing.
(3) Where under this Part of this Act any matter is to be determined by an arbitrator or arbitrators, it shall be referred to and determined by such member or such three members of the said panel as may be appointed for the purpose by the chairman or deputy chairman thereof.
(4) In any case where three members of the panel are appointed, the award of any two of them shall be binding."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chatfield.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Power to require protection of essential undertakings in event of war]:
7.9 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: I should like to draw attention particularly on this clause to the expenditure which may be incurred by any manufacturer in connection with the directions given him by the Minister of Supply. Under this clause it is quite clear that he may recover by way of grants 27½ per cent., which is equal to the standard rate of Income Tax for the year 1939–40. That leaves 72½ per cent. It is understood from the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill that of the remaining 72½ per cent, he may recover up to a percentage believed to be 50 by adding as a supplementary charge to current contracts amounts which will come to that total. It is from that provision not clear what would be the position of a manufacturer who should not be doing a proportion of work large enough to permit, by supplementary charges to those contracts, the recovery of what equalled the 50 per cent. of the 72½ per cent. Again, it may well be that if he should succeed and recover an amount equal to what it is intended he should recover, by addition of a supplementary charge to the contract price of the goods

999
which he is under contract to supply to the Ministry, it may be assumed that that would be in the nature of profits, and it is not understood that it would be a charge to trading. It would therefore fall under the Armaments Profits Tax.
This matter was dealt with in another place, but it appears that ambiguity remained after discussions in that House, and certain other means sought to obtain interpretation of this provision suggest that it is still a matter of ambiguity. In raising this question on the Second Reading I must admit to encountering some difficulty, which may also have appeared to some other members of your Lordships' House. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum supplied with the Bill is drafted in a peculiarly difficult fashion. An unsuspecting person who looks at the first page, at Clauses 1, 2 and 3, and then turns to Clause 12, might fail to realise that it is divided into two sections. That may be some reason to account for the ambiguity which has arisen under this clause. When I raised the matter on Second Reading, the noble and gallant Lord, in dealing with the points raised in this House, did not deal with that particular point. It is because, on the best authority I can get, some ambiguity does remain that I respectfully ask him to elucidate the matter at this stage.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give a complete answer to the question raised by the noble Lord. In so far as I am unable to do so, I hope he will let me do so later. As regards the question about the grant for the protection of plant and whether it will be subject to the extra Armaments Profits Tax, the answer is that it will have nothing to do with that tax, as the grants are to meet capital expenditure and there will not be any question of their being part of the revenue.
LORD BARNBY: I did not mean to raise that point. That would be a capital repayment.
LORD CHATFIELD: Yes. The other point that he has raised I should like, if I may, to answer at another time. I did not expect him to raise it to-day.
LORD BARNBY: I have drawn attention to it, and I shall be quite satisfied with the assurance given by the noble and gallant Lord that some clear explana-
1000
tion of it will be made. I hope that he will realise that it does appear at present that the contractor, in recovering it, would be recovering amounts which would appear to be subject to Armaments Profits Tax and therefore would be in conflict with the intentions of the Bill.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House that I should notify your Lordships that it is proposed that the Report stage and Third Reading of the Ministry of Supply Bill shall both be taken on Thursday.

COAST PROTECTION BILL.
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
7.15 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Coast Protection Bill, gives his consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1:
Power of Board of Trade to restrict excavation, etc., of materials on or under the seashore.
(5) An order made under this section shall be binding on all persons, including the owners of and persons interested in any part of the seashore comprised in the order, and any drainage authority or harbour, local or other authority having jurisdiction over the area comprised in the order or any part thereof, and all highway authorities, and shall have effect notwithstanding the provisions of any public, general or Local or Private Act, or any alleged custom or prescriptive right to the contrary:
Provided that, if it appears to the Board of Trade that such an order will operate to prevent or impede the performance by any person of any duty imposed upon him, the order may for the purpose of relieving the

1001
person from the duty or from any penalty, liability or disability attaching to the nonperformance thereof, repeal or modify the provisions of any Local Act to such extent and in such manner as the Board think proper.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the proviso in subsection (5), to substitute "shall" for "may." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have two apologies to make. The first is for intervening in so many debates this afternoon; the second is for bringing these Amendments before your Lordships' House at so late a stage in the Bill. I did mention the point to my noble friend before the Second Reading; then came a spate of heavy Government legislation which required careful examination; I forgot it at the Committee stage and I was unable to be present on Report.
If your Lordships will look at page 2 of the Bill, line 32, you will see:
"Provided that, if it appears to the Board of Trade that such an order will operate to prevent or impede the performance by any person of any duty imposed upon him, the order may for the purpose of relieving the person from the duty or from any penalty, liability or disability attaching to the nonperformance thereof, repeal or modify the provisions of any Local Act to such extent and in such manner as the Board think proper."
There is therefore a presumption that the facts are known to the Board. I should like to point out that the order has not come into force at that time. If, owing possibly to inadvertence by the Board of Trade, the Local Act in question is not amended by them, then the unfortunate person who is under a liability of some sort may be proceeded against and will have no defence. Damages may be awarded against him, and in any case he will have the worry, trouble and expense of defending the action. No option should be given to the Board of Trade in those circumstances. The words ought to read:
"Provided that, if it appears to the Board of Trade that such an order will operate to prevent or impede the performance by any person of any duty imposed upon him, the order shall"—
I think that the word "may" should be omitted and the word "shall" inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I am afraid I am unable to accept this Amendment, and I hope to satisfy your Lordships as to the reason. In the first place I do not think it can be accepted, as the noble Viscount suggested or presumed, that the whole of the facts are known to the Board of Trade. It is true that the words read "if it appears to the Board of Trade that such an order will operate," and so forth; but the knowledge that that may happen may not come to the Board of Trade until a later stage in the proceedings.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: But the order has not been made.
LORD MERTHYR: The procedure which is contemplated is that when that knowledge does come to the Board the Board may then review the situation, and possibly not proceed with the order at all. Therefore in my opinion it is not necessary that this Amendment should be passed. Not only is it not necessary, but it may be detrimental to the interests which we have in mind. I would also draw attention to the last words of the proviso "to such extent and in such manner as the Board think proper." If this Amendment is passed you have this situation, that you are compelling the Board of Trade to do an act and adding that they must do it to such an extent and in such manner as they think proper. That sets up a very curious situation, because if the Board do not want to do a thing which they are compelled by this Bill to do they could obviously escape from their obligation by putting in operation those words, and defend themselves, and hide behind those words to any extent they wanted to. Therefore so long as these words are in the Bill this Amendment, it seems to me, does not do that which it is expected to do by the noble Viscount.
There is another objection to this Amendment, and it is a legal one. If the Amendment is passed then the power conferred on the Board of Trade by the Bill as it stands is not anywhere stated in the Bill, and it would only therefore be inferred, if this Amendment were passed, that the Board had that power. That is a very undesirable state of affairs from a drafting point of view, and it is, I suggest, a reason why this Amendment should not be passed. I do not think

1003
there is any reasonable apprehension that the Board of Trade will in any way abuse the powers conferred upon them in this Bill, and I would also direct the attention of the noble Lords to Clause 1, subsection (6), which immediately follows the one that we are discussing. That subsection enables the Board, in a case where an individual or local authority is affected by a Private Act which clashes with an order made under this Bill, to grant to any such person or local authority a licence to do any act or thing which otherwise would be unlawful by virtue of the order. If a person comes to the Board and says that by such and such an Act he is compelled to do a certain thing, and by the Coast Protection Act he is prevented from doing that very thing, subsection (6) is a means of escape, and the Board may grant a licence to such a person which would get him out of any such difficulty as the noble Lord contemplates. It is true that the Board need not grant such a licence, but the Board is expected to act in a reasonable manner.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: After what the noble Lord has said I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule:

COAST PROTECTION BILL.
  FIRST SCHEDULE.

    PART I.
    Procedure with respect to the making and approval of Orders under Section One.
    1. Before making an order under Section one of this Act, the Board of Trade shall cause notice of their intention to make the order and of the place where copies of the draft order may be inspected and obtained, and of the time within and manner in which objections to the draft order may be made, to be published in the London Gazette and in such other manner as they think best adapted for informing persons affected.
    VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph 1, after "within," to insert "which, not being less than thirty days." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think that the time should be stated within which objections to a draft order should be made. I have chosen a period of thirty days, a period used in paragraph 4 in the case of memorials presented to the Board of Trade.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 7, line 9, after ("within") insert ("which, not being less than thirty days,").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
    LORD MERTHYR: I am afraid that this Amendment likewise cannot be accepted, although I am prepared to go so far as to say that in no case in practice would the Board use a period of less than fourteen days. There may be cases where thirty days would be too long. Therefore it is not possible to agree to the Amendment. I would also remind the House that there is a further period of delay which the Board have got to suffer in any case in paragraph 4 of this Schedule. That is that the order has got to be laid before the Houses of Parliament for a period of thirty days after the draft has been settled, and if this Amendment were passed it would mean that under those two provisions alone there would be a delay of sixty days. It might be much too long to prevent the very abuses which this Bill seeks to stop. There might be a person, or a corporation, taking away shingle from a shore, doing much damage, creating some danger, and this delay might be very detrimental, if not fatal. There are several precedents for the wording of the Bill as it stands, but I need not read out other Acts of Parliament in which these words are used. This Amendment cannot be accepted.
    VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: As the noble Lord has produced precedents I beg leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

NATIONAL MEMORIAL TO KING GEORGE V.
7.28 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, That this House approves the proposal of His Majesty's Government to devote to the purposes of the National Memorial to His late Majesty King George the Fifth certain property in the City of Westminster now vested in the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, namely, part of the site now occupied by Number 5, Old Palace Yard, and the sites formerly occupied by Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, Old Palace Yard,

1005
and by Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 3A, Poets' Corner, to the intent that the land comprised therein should form an open space surrounding a statue of His late Majesty King George the Fifth.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I know well that my noble friend the Leader of the House, in whose name this Motion stands, will have the sympathy of your Lordships in the sudden illness of Lady Stanhope, which has prevented him from being present with your Lordships this afternoon. We shall all hope that he may be speedily relieved of the anxiety from which he is at the present time suffering. It therefore devolves upon me to explain to your Lordships the circumstances in which this Motion has been placed upon the Paper. The scheme for commemorating the reign and life of his late Majesty King George V arose at a meeting which was held by the Lord Mayor of London in March, 1936, at which it was resolved that the national memorial to His Majesty should take the form of a statue in some notable setting, and a philanthropic scheme to benefit the whole country, which could be in the late King's name. A national fund was opened, and the Committee decided upon a playing fields scheme, together with a statue to be erected close to the Houses of Parliament. These decisions were, of course, reached under the sole responsibility of the Lord Mayor's Committee. When it came to the actual choice of a site for the statue the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission was sought, and the site now decided upon has been chosen in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission. That Commission pronounced that
"when backed by the Chapter House, curtained by fine plane trees and symmetrically enclosed on either side, the position and setting of the King's Memorial would be unexcelled."
The total cost of the scheme as finally settled is estimated at a sum of £125,000. The contribution from the Memorial Fund will be £65,000, and the Government have been asked to contribute a sum of £60,000. The Government have accepted the principle of State participation in the scheme, but they have decided that, subject to the approval of Parliament, their contribution should take the form of a free gift in kind of the State property which is comprised in the site. Particulars of this property have
1006
been given in a Treasury Minute which has been presented to Parliament, from which it will be seen that the estimated value of the site proposed to be given by the Government is, in fact, £60,000.
That being so, the object of the present Resolution is to obtain the specific authority of Parliament to the gift. Since that gift is not in cash, the procedure of a Supplementary Estimate would not be appropriate for the purpose. Where gifts in kind are made the rule has been laid down by the Treasury, with the approval of the Public Accounts Committee, that where it is proposed to make a gift of public stores or property not requiring replacement, either of unusual nature or exceeding £10,000 in value, their Lordships will present to the House of Commons a Minute giving particulars of the gift and explaining the circumstances; and that Treasury assent to the gift will not be given until fourteen days after the issue of the Minute, except in cases of special urgency. But, while this procedure, as your Lordships will see, would cover the financial aspects of the present matter, it was not considered to be wholly appropriate, since it is desired to associate Parliament as a whole with the attitude of the Government towards a proposal of such great national interest and it is for this reason that a specific Resolution has been moved, which both Houses of Parliament are asked to approve. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves the proposal of His Majesty's Government to devote to the purposes of the National Memorial to His late Majesty King George the Fifth certain property in the City of Westminster now vested in the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, namely, part of the site now occupied by Number 5, Old Palace Yard, and the sites formerly occupied by Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, Old Palace Yard, and by Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 3A, Poets' Corner, to the intent that the land comprised therein should form an open space surrounding a statue of His late Majesty King George the Fifth.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
7.33 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, my noble friends desire to be associated with the Motion which the noble Marquess has made, and which we feel will receive

1007
general support. It is, I am sure, your Lordships' wish, and it is in accord with a commendable tradition, that the memory of His late Majesty King George V should be perpetuated by a national memorial as near to the precincts of Parliament as possible, and this Motion will facilitate the exchange of property which will make the project possible. The scheme, as it is now presented, is a modification of the original plan, to which many who had other ideas as to an appropriate site gave a reluctant support. I will not renew the controversy concerning it on this occasion. The site has been chosen, and the statue which is to be erected on it will have a noble and a historical background, and we desire to be associated with the Motion, which we commend to your Lordships' approval.
7.35 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I desire to associate myself with the regret expressed by the noble Marquess opposite for the cause which has kept the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, from making this Motion. It certainly is, I think, with satisfaction, and almost with a feeling of relief, that we all find that His Majesty's Government have been able to come to a definite decision upon this matter. Like the noble Lord, Lord Snell, I have no intention of discussing the differences of opinion that arose as to where the Memorial should be placed; but when it was decided that the westernmost of the two possible sites should be selected two questions arose. In the first place, it was necessary that, in order to preserve the dignity belonging to the object of the memorial, it should be in spacious surroundings; on the other hand, it was not desirable to demolish a large number of the houses immediately ad-
1008
joining it, for, although not of the highest historical or artistic interest, they do represent a standard of modest good taste which has not always been observed in this vast urban congeries which is now London. I hope that the compromise which has been reached by the proposal which the noble Marquess has presented to the House will be found to hold a fair balance between those two considerations which I have mentioned.
I hope also, though with not quite the same confidence, that the site may have satisfied what may be called the moral side of such memorial. Of all the noteworthy personalities which any of the oldest of us can recall, whether belonging to the Royal House or on the roll of statesmen or the roll of warriors, there is not one to whom the call of duty and the obligations of service appealed more strongly than they did to King George V. I should like to think, therefore, that those who, as the noble Lord said, find their way to the precincts of Parliament, when observing this statue in the shadow of Westminster Abbey, will derive from it inspiration and encouragement in recalling the memory of the Sovereign who devoted himself to the welfare of his subjects in a degree that no Sovereign has surpassed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I understand that it will be convenient for the House to meet at three o'clock on Thursday, owing to the amount of business on the Order Paper.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Hemel Hempstead Water),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Oxford).

Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Burnham and District Water),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Slough),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Swaffham Water),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Heywood and Middleton Water Board),

North West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority Provisional Order.

And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Newquay and District Water,

Coventry Corporation.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.