I beg to move, in page 8, line 15, at the end, to insert:

"Provided that where

(i) the application for the improvement grant could not have been entertained but for the proviso to subsection (4) of the last foregoing section; and

(ii) the local authority are satisfied that the expense of executing the improvement works was materially enhanced by reason of measures taken to preserve the architectural or historic interest of the house or building to which the application relates,

the amount of the improvement grant may be such fraction of the approved expense of executing works, in excess of one-half thereof, as may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, be determined as aforesaid."

The normal grant made for an improvement is 50 per cent. up to £600. The Amendment now before us proposes that more than 50 per cent., even up to 100 per cent., if necessary, can be given for the excess over £600 where the improvement is of architectural or historical interest. This is not for the purpose of a grant to the owner of a house, but to ensure that if it is to be restored for this good reason a great increase in the rent should not be necessary. Where an improvement is not altogether for the benefit only of the owner, but for the public, a grant should be given by the public funds.

Does this Amendment cover the point raised in Committee on Clause 8 on this matter?

Yes; we altered the original drafting of my hon. Friend's Amendment to limit these grants to historical and architectural purposes. His Amendment was, I think he will agree, rather wide.

I beg to move, in page 20, line 44, after "Association," to insert "or a development corporation."

This Amendment provides grants to new town corporations for building experiments. It therefore puts these cor- porations in the same position as the local authorities and the Scottish Special Housing Association. The new town corporations are at the moment custodians for the eventual local authorities, and we feel it would be quite wrong if they were not able to do what the local authorities would be able to do if they were already established.

All this does is to rectify an omission.

I beg to move, in page 24, line 38, after "facilities," to insert "and services."

This Amendment has been incorporated in order to clear up a point which was discussed on Committee as to whether or not provision of laundry facilities included the provision of laundry services where such were desired. This is now made absolutely clear.

This Amendment undoubtedly broadens the scope of the Clause, and I trust it means that the Government will later accept our Amendment to make sure that these facilities and services are subject to reasonable accounting provisions. It is a little difficult to discuss the matter here, because, as we have said, to give a fair crack of the whip we believe that the facilities provided by local authorities for such things as laundries should not succeed in knocking out legitimate businesses, which are now being conducted by private enterprise. We hope there will not be any kind of slipshod accounting. We feel that the well-established laundry businesses might be knocked out while the local authority was making up its mind as to whether these facilities or services were going to pay or not.

We have an Amendment on the Paper to meet this point, and it will come up later. The Lord Advocate, on the Committee stage, indicated that the word "facilities" covered "services," and, consequently, these words carry out the original intention of the Bill. They simply clarify words which had been set down in the original form of the Clause. It is desired that whatever legislation we pass should be clear, and, therefore, we would not demur at the inclusion of these words for clarification. But the danger to legitimate businesses is increased by the construction which is now being placed on this Clause. We shall have to raise that matter later, when we come to it in the appropriate part of the Bill.

I am not at all happy about this Amendment. My recollection of the discussion upstairs was that several different versions were given of what was intended, and I was never clear at the very end of it what the Secretary of State had in mind by the original wording, still less by this new wording. The right hon. Gentleman did say, if I remember rightly, that it was not his idea that local authorities would set themselves up in competition with privately-operated laundries. Is that still the view of the Secretary of State?

I agree that the position can be reasonably safeguarded by the major Amendment which is coming, but I do not feel that is the whole core of the Amendment. Is it the intention that these laundry facilities or services may be developed as a competing business with the ordinary laundry facilities provided by private firms? I do not believe that is in the Secretary of State's mind, but I wish there were words to make that clearer. I would not deny the desirability of getting facilities to take the load of washing off housewives with large families, and those who are working and who have other things to do, but that can be done by the provision of the necessities for washing and some staff to do the job on some method of payment. Is it the intention of the Secretary of State that this service should be confined to people of a definite housing scheme who find these facilities are not readily available?

I do not know whether this is the appropriate time to make this intervention, but I would be glad to receive an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, similar to that which he gave in Committee upstairs, when we discussed this matter at some length. As the right hon. Gentleman will remember, he read a letter which indicated that he would not be prepared to sanction any subsidy being given to any State or municipal laundry which would place them in a better position than a local commercial laundry.

He also said, that no State or municipal laundry would be started in any area which was sufficiently catered for by a commercial laundry. I cannot imagine why that has not yet been included as a statutory provision in the Bill, but if the Secretary of State is unwilling to do that the best we can then hope for is a definite assurance by him or by the Lord Advocate on this point.

I think there is no need to repeat what my right hon. Friend said in Committee. It is on record. There is no question of any subsidy being given in respect of these services; it was pointed out in Committee that the limit of this scheme is outlined in the Clause because it only provides that services of this nature would be available in those cases where the local authority have the statutory duty to provide housing accommodation. There is, therefore, no question of the setting-up of general municipal laundries. What we do wish, and what I understood the view of the whole Committee was, is that we should have not only laundry facilities available for the people but the local authority should be empowered to employ persons to do the work, particularly for those people who, either by virtue of their age or the nature of their employment, would wish someone to do that work for them.

Accordingly, we are giving that power to the local authority, and I think there is nothing objectionable in that Clause as amended. While it may be that it was not necessary to include these words, to remove any doubt whatsoever, they have been included. On the point raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), in reference to the question of accountancy, we will deal with that if and when the question arises.

I think we might get on rather faster tonight if the right hon. Gentleman, when he is replying, could make matters perfectly clear. It may be he had not got it in his mind, but it seems to me, if my recollection is correct, that what we were told in Committee was that in no cases did the right hon. Gentleman intend to set up laundry services where these services were already provided. I think that was perfectly clear. When an hon. Member asks for a reaffirmation of that assurance I think it will help to speed up our business if that could be given categorically, without any chance of misunderstanding whatsoever.

There is no intention to use this Clause for those purposes. It may be that in the formation of new communities in the new housing schemes no private person can afford to go there to deal with laundry services. Therefore, from the point of view of public health, it would be in the public interest that some such service as this should be provided. Of course, it does not necessarily follow that the local authority will itself provide the services. It may be more convenient for it to make arrangements with a laundry on some sort of agreed basis.

As I mentioned in Committee, local laundry proprietors will keep their eyes open as to what local authorities are doing. They have power to raise this matter should local authorities attempt something which seems to them to be wrong.

Does that mean that progressive and enlightened local authorities will, in the face of competition from launderers, be prevented from giving these laundry facilities?

It is not for me to say whether there must be co-operative or private or public laundries to do the job. It is a matter for each local authority to decide in its own case.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause deals mainly with the demolition of houses subject to the undertakings of the Act of 1930. Where an undertaking has been given to put a house in fit condition, and it has not been implemented in three years, a local authority will make a demolition order and will substitute orders for closing orders. This Clause is being included in the Bill at the request of the local authorities, including my own local authority, and the local authority in Perthshire, which has a number of houses waiting to be demolished. It is essential, from the point of view of amenity, that a clean sweep

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This is largely a machinery matter. It provides further grants for houses already grant-aided where further work is carried on in regard to electricity or gas, or bringing houses up to higher standards than the 10-year standard. No further grant under this Clause can be given when grant-aided houses are converted or combined.

The reason is that if an existing house is converted or combined and it ceases to be the house that was formerly grant-aided. In that case there will have to be a formal repayment of the original grant so that the local authority will be able to settle terms of rent for the new accommodation. The Clause marries this flexible grant so that it can be blended in with, and make one transaction of, the grant. Some local authorities thought it necessary that various grant arrangements should be harmonised.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 6, after the first "undertaking," to insert:

"or from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, whichever is the later."

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for indicating in advance that he is prepared to accept this Amendment. It seemed to me that it was possible that an undertaking might have been given in, say, 1939, at a time when it was impossible to implement the undertaking. In this case it would be hard on the owner if he was now deprived of the possibility of getting a grant to put a building into good repair. For that reason I have suggested that there should be a period of about 2½ years from the date of the acceptance of the undertaking.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause refers to the duty of local authorities to submit particulars of properties to be included in improvement proposals. Hon. Members will recall that during the Committee stage my hon. Friends the Members for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) and Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) had a new Clause on the Order Paper dealing with this question. I think they have it down now, to be taken later. At that time I pointed out that all the points were covered except this one and promised that on the Report stage we would cover the missing point. This Clause will place a duty on the local authority, when required by the Secretary of State, to submit particulars of properties suitable for improvement and specific proposals for particular properties.

I do not suppose it is intended to invoke the purpose of this Clause on too frequent occasions. We do not want to have local authorities any more overburdened than they are at the moment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will use this Clause with moderation, and see it does not become a routine matter to ask every month or two for a return of the properties. I suppose we can take it as being certain that the right hon. Gentleman will not do this.

I can give the assurance that this is only being done for the purpose mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh, and that it will be used with due regard to the plans of the local authority. As it was originally proposed there should have been a comprehensive plan, which I resisted.

I quite realise that this is a surrender by the right hon. Gentleman to his two so-called supporters, the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), but I hope that, in making this surrender, he will carefully bear in mind the words of advice tendered to him by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). It would be intolerable if, merely because the right hon. Gentleman has been importuned by his two so-called supporters or followers, local authorities throughout Scotland, large and small, should be overburdened. Indeed, it might be that the larger authorities would be put to much more inconvenience than the smaller authorities in submitting the accurate details and figures which the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to seek under this Clause. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear my hon. and gallant Friend's advice carefully in mind. I mentioned large authorities because the hon. Member who temporarily represents one of the five divisions of the Scottish metropolis, the hon. Member for North Edinburgh, will, no doubt, have in mind many of the unsatisfactory buildings which exist, even now under this Socialist Government.

I hope the hon. Member for Kilmarnock will agree that we do not want to see the smaller local authorities in Scotland increasingly overburdened by demands under this Clause. There is no doubt that they are considerably overburdened at present, and I do not wish to be a party unnecessarily to overloading them by an increase in what I might call fussy legislation of this kind. I hope the right hon. Gentleman and all those associated with him in administering the affairs of Scotland will bear in mind the necessity of not increasing the burden on these local authorities, large and small, and I am particularly speaking of the smaller local authorities. While I quite realise that the right hon. Gentleman was more or less bound to do this because of the assurance he gave his supporters in the Committee stage—an assurance about which we have heard such a lot tonight—I hope he will bear in mind the views of this House as a whole and see that no increased burden is placed on local authorities.

I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for having listened to two of his, not so-called, but real supporters, on the Committee stage and having incorporated our suggestion in this Clause. We wanted a little more substance in the Bill, and thought that it was not good enough merely to make the provisions that would allow local authorities to carry on with this work, but should ensure that they recognised that we looked to them to take the responsibility for getting on with it.

In view of what has been said, I would remind the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) that this was not merely something advanced by two importunate representatives on these benches but was one of the main recommendations of the MacTaggart Committee. As such, the Secretary of State has been very wise in adopting it and I would give him a word of encouragement in advance by saying that, in view of what he has done, even if our new Clause is called, we do not propose to press it.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This is a very long Clause, and it would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I summarised it because it is largely machinery and the principle involved is easily understood. Orders can be made under the various Housing Acts to secure the demolition of unfit houses. On the other hand, orders may be made under the planning Acts to preserve houses although these houses are unfit, because they might have some architectural merit, some historical value or for some other reason. The Clause prevents demolition orders and preservation orders applying to the same property, because manifestly it would be absurd to have one authority, namely, the planning authority, providing for the preservation of property and the local authority putting a demolition order on the same property.

This Clause meets that situation by substituting a closing order for a demolition order in such circumstances. Accordingly, there will be standing side by side not a demolition order and a preservation order, but a closing order and a preservation order. The rest of the Clause is purely machinery.

The Lord Advocate will notice that subsection (3) of the Clause reads:

"A local authority by whom a closing order is made under this section shall determine the order on being satisfied that the house to which it relates has been rendered fit for human habitation."

Is it then the purpose of this Clause—and it would be a desirable purpose—to bring into human habitation a building which has fallen out of use for human habitation? The Lord Advocate indicated that it might be desirable to preserve a building because of historic interest, but this subsection appears to deal with the case of a house which is no longer suitable for human habitation being brought back into use by the closing order being abandoned. What is the machinery for that step to be carried out?

By the simple process of the owner having the necessary works carried out to render the house fit for human habitation. There is nothing new in this proposal; the principle has been recognised since 1930, when the Housing Act of that year made similar provision. If it is possible, by doing the necessary work, to bring a house which is unfit for human habitation into use for human habitation then it is desirable that it should be done. We are not instituting any new principle here; it has been accepted since 1930.

I think we should welcome this Clause because it lays emphasis on a fact often overlooked, particularly by local authorities, that there is no old house, whether of historical or architectural value, which is not capable of being restored to a useful purpose. The ordinary builder will say, "No," but the real architect will say that it can be done. This Clause will ensure that anything worthy of preservation for habitation will be retained.

I do not think we should let this go so easily. Who is to determine the standard of fitness? If I remember aright a demolition order can only be put on a house providing it cannot reasonably be made fit for human habitation. I have had only a glance at this Clause, but I do not see the purpose of putting a closing order on a building because it is an ancient monument, and then to make it fit for human habitation. I do not want to be misunderstood on this: I can show the House several hundred yards of Edinburgh, scheduled as containing buildings of historic interest, where to do anything more to make them fit for human habitation than puttying the ceiling, would be to destroy their architectural value. In those circumstances, I feel we should have a fuller explanation from the Lord Advocate.

What is to be the standard of what constitutes "fit for human habitation." Will public money be made available, instead of the owner being asked to make the property in all respects fit for human habitation? If public money is available, in which part of the Bill is it proposed to lay down what constitutes the standard of human habitation? As one with some experience of administration, I think a local authority is entitled to guidance on a question like this, and I cannot see where that guidance is given in the Bill. Perhaps the Secretary of State will elucidate the point I have raised.

I have a certain measure of sympathy with what has just been said by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). The House should be given some further elucidation of how it is proposed to operate this Clause. Has the right hon. Gentleman had conversations with the various local authorities? Has any form of standard been laid down, or any agreement been come to how it is proposed to operate this Clause in regard to what is or is not fit for human habitation? This Clause also raises the question of the value of historic houses or monuments. Who is to decide which house is or is not fit to be preserved? This is rather leaving it to the possible whims of a local authority if there is no more close definition than appears in the Clause, unless the right hon. Gentleman informs the House what result the conversations with the local authorities have led to.

I can think of many ancient buildings in Scotland which would not be fit for human habitation even if extensive repairs were undertaken, but which are certainly worthy of preservation because of their historic importance. Supposing, for example, the ancient fabric of Hermitage Castle was in question. That is the kind of thing I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to inform the House about. The Clause confers far-reaching powers on local authorities. There was, in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, an implication that this was a cumbersome and long-worded Clause, and he ought to inform the House a little more fully how it is proposed to proceed if the House agrees with the Clause.

I am a little in the dark about what happens here. May I try to put the matter as I see it? If the planning authority sees fit, a building preservation order is made. The demolition order falls, and the closing order comes into being. It is the next step I am rather worried about. That closing order might remain until the building fell down, so far as I can see at the moment, but I suppose what is intended to happen is that the owner shall then make the building fit for human habitation and the right hon. Gentleman will assist him by the powers he has taken in Clause 9, page 8, line 15, earlier this evening. If that is not the intention, how does the house become fit for human habitation? That is the point I would like cleared up, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will do that for us.

With the further permission of the House—because I did not know there would be these speeches, particularly the summation of other speeches by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie)—I would say that the position is perfectly clear. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) had the matter right up to a certain point, and then expressed a doubt. He was right in saying, as I think I explained earlier, that if there is a demolition order and a preservation order applicable to the same premises, there is something inconsistent. So we transfer the demolition order to a closing order, and the two can run in perfect harmony without being inconsistent. If it should come to pass that, as a result of work done on that property, the house becomes fit for human habitation, the closing order would cease to have effect. That work might be done either by the owner or the local authority under their powers—that is a question which relates to the individual property in each case, but whether done by one or by the other, if, in the opinion of the local authority—and this answers the point of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinley)—the house has become fit for human habitation, then the closing order goes.

It was asked, by what standard should that be judged? I should have thought that obviously the local authority are the best people to judge, because, apart from their wide general knowledge of these matters, the local authority is the body which determined whether the closing order or demolition order should be imposed in the first instance, because presumably the property has fallen below the standard of human habitation. If that is the authority which determines that the property has fallen below the standard of human habitation, manifestly that is the best authority to determine whether the property has been restored above the limit which had been imposed. Accordingly, I cannot see any practical difficulty in the administration of this scheme.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

It has turned out that if, in the case of a house which now comes under the Rent Restrictions Act, a grant is given to improve the House under this Bill, whereby the house comes under the conditions of the Bill, and the owner of the house goes on to make further improvements at his own expense, he will not have the benefits he at present has under the Rent Restrictions Act. Under the Rent Restrictions Act, if an owner makes improvements at his own expense, he is entitled to charge 8 per cent. on the rent. Under this Bill, if he makes further improvements after receiving the benefit of a grant under the Bill, he would be denied the right to charge that 8 per cent.

The passing of this Bill is not intended to deprive a person who wishes to make improvements on his house of his rights under the Rent Restrictions Act, and the purpose of the Clause is to restore the house to that position under the Rent Restrictions Act. If an owner makes further improvements, the Clause empowers the local authority to give a direction that the owner may increase the rent by an amount specified in the direction not exceeding 8 per cent. of the cost of the works carried out at his own expense. This is purely a restoration of the existing conditions if the house has been dealt with under the grants given under this Bill.

This Clause coming upon us like this with little notice, necessitates my asking another question. As I understand it, the allowance of 6 per cent., about which we have argued so strongly, is in respect of a proportion of grant made available for improvement. But a further stage of improvement may take place, that grant having been used according to this new Clause, and for that the second part of the grant of 8 per cent. of the cost is to be allowed.

indicated dissent.

I see that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but do we not read, in this new Clause, that 8 per cent. is allowed here as an increase in rent, whereas only the 6 per cent. was allowed earlier.

Where public money is involved, the grant is 6 per cent. Where an owner is using his own money and no public money is involved, the permitted increase is 8 per cent. What we are doing here is restoring, in regard to that house, the possibility of the local authority's empowering the owner to increase the rent up to 8 per cent. on money spent by him.

It seems inconsistent; it seems to add certain weight to our previous argument that 6 per cent. was too little if, in fact, an improvement grant of 6 per cent. only is allowed, and under the Rent Restriction Act, a grant of 8 per cent. of the capital employed is allowed.

Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that we should make it a uniform grant of 6 per cent.?

No, I am suggesting that it should be 8 per cent. as we have suggested all along.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause has the same effect as the last Clause, in regard to grants given under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. It restores that cottage or particular house to its position under the existing Acts, in order that the person who puts additional personal money into improvement shall be empowered to charge the usual increase.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end to insert:

"(d) remove the limitation confining to houses for the working classes the class of houses for the purpose of the construction, improvement or purchase of which money may be lent by the Public Works Loan Commissioners under section seventy-three of the Act of 1925."

This Amendment repairs an omission in drafting.

I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could give us a little more information. It is rather bald to say that this is to remedy a defect of drafting. Personally, I do not understand what the words which the right hon. Gentleman intends to add really mean. Could he tell us?

The Clause deletes the expression "working classes" from previous Acts, and consequential Amendments are set out in detail in the First Schedule. They fall into different groups according to their effect. The Clause describes in paragraphs (a) to (e) the effect of each group. Another paragraph covers a group of Amendments in the First Schedule of the Act of 1925. The effect of this Amendment of Section 73 is to enable the Public Works Loans Commissioners to deliver money under that Section to housing associations and others without the "working classes" limitation. The purpose of the Amendment is to add the additional sub-paragraph (d).

I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, after "may" to insert:

"where it is deemed desirable to preserve buildings of architectural or historical value, and."

It appears to me, from the Government Amendment already carried to Clause 9, that there has been an acceptance of the principle which we embody in this Amendment, namely, that this extra grant in respect of alterations or sub-divisions, should be conditional upon the building being of historical or architectural interest and value. In Committee, my right hon. Friend said that this was the purpose of this particular subsection to Clause 8, and what we have done is to put down an Amendment incorporating the words of my right hon. Friend.

I beg to second the Amendment.

As I said at the start of our discussion tonight, our Amendment was re-drafted to include the essential point of this Amendment, which is very much our point of view. That being so, I suggest that we should not accept the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved.

I agree. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 10, at the end, to insert:

"and tenants for additional dwellings provided by means of the works shall be selected in consultation with the local authority from their housing lists."

This is a slight variation of an Amendment discussed at some length in the Committee. I will not cover the arguments again, but, briefly, when we are granting public money for the purpose of making available additional housing accommodation, we should try to fill that additional accommodation from the housing lists of the local authority. The objections taken to this in the Grand Committee were that the local authority should not be in a position to dictate to the owner as to who the tenants should be. It was suggested that it would be preferable if the tenant was selected as the result of consultation. The Lord Advocate said that that was a very good idea, and I rather gathered that it was an idea which might meet with approval, even on the other side of the Committee. The Lord Advocate further said that he would look into the matter.

We feel that where public money and materials, which are hard come by, are being spent out of a limited supply, for this purpose, nobody should be able to jump the housing lists. I do not want to deal with all the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but it would be, I suggest, a source of considerable discontent if those on the housing lists for, say, over two, or even three years, saw somebody getting a house when that somebody had only been on the lists for a very short period; or even, not on the lists at all. That seems to us to be quite wrong. If there were an abundance of material there might be some justification for this, but in present circumstances there would appear to be no justification at all.

I beg to second the Amendment.

We place a great deal of importance on this Amendment. Since the Committee stage of the Bill I have spoken to quite a number of members of local authorities, and I have found that they are very much in agreement with it. They are asked to pay out 25 per cent. of what is the cost of these new works, and they are actually getting very little in return. They are providing new additional accommodation in their area. When we consider the problem which local authorities with long housing lists have to face, as well as the ratepayers in poor housing conditions, who have, nevertheless, through their rates, to subscribe to that 25 per cent. grant, surely it is reasonable to suggest that the local authorities should have some say, in consultation with the landlord, as to who is going to get this additional accommodation.

I wish it were not necessary to put down this Amendment, and that all private property owners would recognise the difficulties of the local authorities in this matter and consult with them in filling a vacant house. Everyone will agree that the local authorities are carefully watched by the people who need houses, and their allocation of this additional new accommodation is very fair. Because of that point I do not think the Secretary of State will go very far wrong in accepting this Amendment; if he did he would be meeting some of the desires of the ratepayers and the local authorities.

I do not think that at this late hour we would like to go into too great detail on the merits of this particular matter, but apart from the merits the Amendment is not acceptable for quite a number of technical reasons. It provides that the tenants for additional new dwellings will be selected from the local authority housing lists in consultation with the local authorities. That means that the owner of the property who wanted to use his own money to the extent of 50 per cent. of the improvement grant would have to take a tenant from the housing lists after consultation with the local authority.

The owner may have a range of choice among the people on the lists. He might want to make certain alterations in the property and create new dwellings. He might perhaps want to convert two houses into one, or alternatively, three houses into two. He might want to put in as tenants of the new accommodation the former tenants of the property, or his son or daughter. If those previous tenants or his son or daughter were not on the housing lists of the local authority, he could not put them into that particular dwelling.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend construe the word "additional" as meaning "new," because we do not accept that all new dwellings are additional dwellings?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that if one house were converted into two that would constitute two additional dwellings, because the original dwelling had ceased to exist altogether. For the purposes of the Bill they would be two new additional dwellings because the original dwelling had disappeared. Accordingly, this could not be regarded just as one additional dwelling to the original dwelling because each of the two new ones will be an additional one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is not a legal quibble. I have to keep the House right with regard to what we put into our Statutes. If my hon. Friends take the line that when one house is reconstructed and turned into two that makes only one additional dwelling I am entitled to pose the question: which of the two houses of the additional dwellings is the one to which this Amendment would apply?

The answer, taking the case the Lord Advocate has given, is the one not required by the tenant who is not already in possession of the house.

It does not say so in the Amendment. That is a quite arbitrary decision made by my hon. Friend. For that reason alone, the Amendment is not acceptable. When we were discussing this matter upstairs, I promised to look at it, but my hon. Friend did not quote all I said, and I would not expect him to do so. What I said was:

"A provision that there should be consultation with the local authority may be only a pious hope, and I am not in favour of putting into Statutes merely pious hopes …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 26th May, 1949; c. 310.]

It is possible to impose a duty on the owner to consult with the local authority, but he need not carry it out. That is not the way to do it. It is not proper to put into a Statute something which cannot be properly effective, which can only be an expression of hope. We may circularise local authorities and point out that public money is being contributed towards the improvement of these dwellings, and that it is desirable that owners should consult with the local authority with a view to taking any new tenants from the local authority's housing lists.

That can be done administratively, and in response to such action you might get a very good return from local authorities. But the proposal to put something that need not be done, except merely by form, into the Statute, is something of which we cannot approve. For these reasons this Amendment would be quite impracticable. It would probably result in people not taking advantage of the provisions of the Bill when they otherwise might do so merely because they could not be sure that the people for whose purpose they would be prepared to spend part of their own money would not be beneficiaries under their action.

In view of what the Lord Advocate has said, that while it is not possible to incorporate this Amendment in the Bill in a satisfactory manner but that it is the intention to try to carry out the intention of the Amendment by administrative means. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

No.

I would like to put this to the Lord Advocate. He has indicated that he is going to circularise local authorities. It seems it would be dangerous if he left local authorities with the idea that they should only give grants to private persons for conversion of houses with a view to the provision of additional accommodation, if agreement has already been reached as to how these houses are to be allocated at the end.

One reason, apart from any others, why that would be inadvisable is that this conversion might take a considerable time; it would mean therefore that somebody who would otherwise be entitled earlier to a house would be held up until this conversion is completed, and might have the exactly opposite effect to what the Lord Advocate had in mind. But apart from that disadvantage, it seems to be undesirable in general that where the owner of the house is having to pay 50 per cent., and the local authority is only paying 12½ per cent. of the total cost at the most, the local authority should have anything like an over-riding say in who the tenant should be and should exercise their powers in regard to a grant being given in the first place. I hope the Lord Advocate will reassure us that this is not the intention of the circular he will put out and that it will not be allowed to have that effect.

I was rather concerned to hear the final words of the Lord Advocate on this subject, because he started off by giving very good reasons why this Amendment should not be accepted and then, having done that, conceded what the Amendment asks. The local authority is the party which will decide whether a grant be given or not, and when the instruction of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke goes out to local authorities I can well visualise them saying, "We shall not give a grant in your case unless you take a new tenant from our housing list."

In a great many cases where conversion takes place it will occur in houses now occupied, which the owner finds he can divide up while leaving himself with sufficient accommodation. He will, in many cases, provide in the original house accommodation for a son or daughter or friend, but he will probably object to having a stranger put into that house. I want the Bill to succeed so far as possible, but we shall not make available the additional accommodation which we all desire if we give instructions such as those indicated by the Lord Advocate. I beseech him to think again on this point because he put all the arguments against the Amendment and then, apparently, conceded the whole case.

I never said that any instructions would be given to the local authorities in this matter. I said the Secretary of State could send a circular to the local authorities asking them to consider asking people who are getting benefits under the Bill, to have regard to the housing lists of local authorities when they were making a selection of new tenants.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman now says that a circular could be sent; previously he said "may be sent." What exactly does he mean?

"Could."

I hope it will not be couched in too direct a form. There are cases of persons, meritorious in every way, who happen to be outside the limits of a certain burgh or who happen to be coming into a certain burgh and who, for the reason of being outside the burgh, cannot be inscribed upon the lists of the housing authority. It may very easily be that an owner wishes to make an improvement to find accommodation for such a person, and it would be obviously unjust and undesirable from every point of view if this rigidity of housing was perpetuated by reason of too narrow an interpretation by the local authority of a circular issued, with the best will in the world, by the right hon. Gentleman. I trust that he will bear that sort of case in his mind when he comes to draft the circular to be sent out.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, to leave out paragraph (d).

This implements a promise given to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay), who raised the question of the owner having to certify in connection with what now appears in the Bill as paragraph (d). The proposal now is to keep this paragraph out of the subsection which requires certification by the owner, and to bring it in later by a subsequent Amendment in order that it will not be required to be certified by the owner.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for fulfilling the undertaking given on the Committee stage. The original thought came from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) whose penetrating brain went to the point of this matter. It may have been his penetration or my eloquence which influenced the right hon. Gentleman, but we are grateful to him.

I beg to move, in page 10, line 1, to leave out from "dwelling" to the third "the," in line 2.

I think it would be for the convenience of the House if this Amendment is taken in conjunction with the two following Amendments in page 11, lines 4 and 23. We are dealing with the conditions which have to be observed in respect of dwellings which have been improved with the help of a grant. In line 1, on page 10, it states that in the event of a voluntary alienation the loan is to be repaid. We do not see why this should apply. A sale would come under the term "voluntary alienation": a transfer to relatives for love, affection, or—

Favour.

For favour, love and affection. Surely a house is transferred with all the obligations which it carries; therefore, there should be an obligation to fulfil the conditions in which the loan has been made. I have looked in vain for a similar provision in the English Bill: why it should be here I do not know. We look for an explanation, and, if possible, for the acceptance of this Amendment so that it will put the matter on all fours with the English Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment.

We regard the words proposed to be deleted as an essential part of the Bill. It is true it does not appear in this form in the English Bill, but that is no reason why there should not be something original in the Scottish Bill. This applies especially to Scottish conditions. It is quite true that there may be a case of this change of houses which the hon. and gallant Member described, but if people are on such friendly terms as that they will come to an arrangement without necessarily selling the house and having a cash transaction.

I should like to call attention to what was in my mind when I considered this matter. I think it is essential to safeguard against this point. The hon. and gallant Gentleman and I both know that there are great blocks of tenements of as many as four houses with up to four flats in each house—16 flats with one entrance. If one flat becomes empty it is quite possible to work a shuttlecock system and have a grant for the repair of each; as it is repaired and Government money spent on it the person will be able to sell the house and "cash in" immediately by realising the Government grant.

I think we must avoid a scandal of that kind. We have had quite sufficient of the shops' business to sicken us for a long time. When these types of racket start it is not always the people in the area who buy the houses; people may come in from outside. I am satisfied that unless we have this Clause as it stands there is an opportunity for people to work that system and collect the money on the spot—money which the Government gives in form of a grant. That would be an extremely bad system, and would bring the Bill into disrepute. While this is not so likely to happen in rows of houses in England, there is an especial danger in our big towns. If, in our previous discussions, the hon. and gallant Member had produced some better way of preventing this occurring I should have been prepared to consider it. We gave a lot of thought to this, however, and we thought it was an essential part of a Scottish Bill which provided for grants of public money, to ensure that there was no abuse of the kind suggested.

With the permission of the House, I should like to say that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think he has put up a case which I cannot controvert. I had overlooked the matter of the tenements to which he referred. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 12, line 10, to leave out:

"if the local authority so agree."

This Amendment carries out a pledge given to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison). He raised the point of the local authority's agreement being required before the owner could repay the grant, and pointed out that it would be quite easy for the owner to breach one of the conditions under which he should have repaid the grant, whether he likes it or not. We were compelled to accept the logic of that argument, and this Amendment is introduced to meet the point.

I beg to move, in page 17, line 15, to leave out "receiving," and to insert "entitled to receive."

The object of this Amendment, together with the following Amendment, is to give effect to a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) in a letter to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member rightly pointed out that the definition as it stood did not take into account the possibility that the owner might have waived the rent or the tenant might not have paid the rent. Accordingly, it is necessary to extend the definition to embrace those situations. We substitute for the word "receiving" the words "entitled to receive" to give effect to that.

I beg to move, in page 17, line 24, after "transfer," to insert:

"testamentary disposition or otherwise."

The purpose of this Amendment is really simple. It is to make certain that testamentary dispositions are included in the phrase, "a transfer by operation of law." It occurred to me it would be unfair, if a beneficiary by will who received a house, had, for that reason, to repay the grant. We must, therefore, make certain that a beneficiary in that way is put in the same position as a beneficiary by intestacy, who obviously, by the operation of law, would not have to sell the house in order to repay the grant.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It certainly was intended that testamentary disposition and deeds of that kind would be included in the expression "a transfer by operation of law." That was not thought to be in any real doubt, having regard to the context in which that phrase appears because, the definition begins by including "alienation by sale, gift, or other transaction or transactions." The hon. Gentleman put this Amendment on the Order Paper very recently. To make sure that testamentary dispositions are included in the expression, "operation of law" we shall look at the matter, and if need be, put down the necessary Amendment in another place.

In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 22, line 34, at the end, to insert:

"the local authority shall make provision whereby either form of repayment of the advance under this section shall be available."

The purpose of this Amendment is to make it possible for the borrower to repay the local authority by either of the methods suggested in subsection (3, c) which states:

"the bond and disposition or assignation in security may provide for repayment being made either by instalments of principal or by an annuity of principal and interest combined so, however, that in the event of any of the conditions subject to which the advance is made not being complied with, the balance for the time being unpaid shall become repayable on demand by the local authority and that the said balance may, in any event, be repaid at any term of Whitsunday or Martinmas by the debtor after one month's written notice of intention to repay has been given to the local authority."

Many local authorities at present lay it down that the repayment must be by instalment of principal, the effect of which is of course, to make the repayments commencing at a high level gradually decreasing. We think that is bad because it tends to discourage people from taking advantage of the facilities offered for borrowing money from the local authorities. It discourages them because people taking loans usually are unable to make the higher payments at the beginning of their tenancy as they probably have to furnish and decorate the house. This considerable expenditure often prevents them from making the higher payments.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am sorry, but we cannot accept this Amendment. I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman has raised. Actuarially it works out much the same financially at the end of the day for the borrower, though it may be more convenient in a particular case to have one form of repayment in preference to the other. Traditionally, and in practice, it is usual for the lender to determine on what terms the repayment will be made. Even if we were to depart from that principle the Amendment would not have the effect which my hon. Friend is seeking. The Clause provides that the local authority "may" make these loans. It is not imperative on the local authority to make these loans, nor can it be made imperative. That means that there is an option in a particular case whether they are prepared to make a loan. If it is an optional matter for the local authority, then if the Amend- ment were incorporated to give the borrower the right to determine what method of repayment he wishes to make, a local authority, if so minded, could say to a borrower, "If you want a loan on one form of repayment we will exercise our discretion and not grant the loan." They could get round it that way very simply, so that the Amendment would not achieve the object the hon. Member desires.

While we do not suggest that the wording is good—we are not lawyers—will my right hon. and learned Friend consider that this is not a case of a private loan by a private individual. It is a case of a community providing a facility for a private citizen. Surely that rather alters the legal principle.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that where local authorities undertake the services of meals and laundry facilities there is some form of strict accountancy. For a period of three years they should be bound to show that their expenses have not outrun their receipts, and that, consequently, there is no subsidy from the rates in respect of these services. The suggestion embodied in the Amendment is on the lines of that adopted in the administration of civic restaurants. The House will appreciate that since the right hon. Gentleman has implemented his promise to increase and extend the provision of laundry services there is an acute anxiety on the part of many hon. Members that there should be no subsidised competition with any commercial agencies. The extension of these laundry services is an additional argument for the implementation of the accountancy features outlined in the Amendment.

I am aware that when the Government were pressed on this matter in Committee they pleaded that these services were of a severely limited nature. That applied only to restaurant schemes and, consequently, there was no need for this additional accountancy provision. In fact, all that could be extracted from the Lord Advocate was that he would circularise the local authorities and plead with them that they should put these services, if they adopted them, on an economic basis. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman excludes circularising from the pious hopes which he denounced earlier in this House.

I suggest that this limitation—that schemes providing meals and laundry services are applied only to the tenants of housing schemes of local authorities—is an additional insistence upon the need for this Amendment. After all, if these schemes were of a general nature, they would attract a great deal of public attention and certainly the accounts connected with them would have more prominence. I am certain that the competitors of any general scheme of this nature would take it upon themselves to see that pressure was put on local authorities to make these schemes—

On a point of Order. I am not clear about the Amendment which is being moved, in the light of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Would the hon. Gentleman make clear the Amendment to which he is speaking?

The one dealing with exciseable liquor, in page 24, line 40.

I did not select the Amendment in page 24, line 40.

I was completely misinformed, and in those circumstances I can no longer continue my speech.

The fault must have been mine. I understood you to call page 24, line 40, Mr. Speaker.

I did not select that Amendment. I thought I had made that clear.

I must also take responsibility for the unfortunate difficulty of my hon. Friend, because I had understood it was probable that the Amendment in page 24, line 40, would be selected. If that was not so, I too have misled my hon. Friend. At the speed at which we are proceeding, he fell into error. This Amendment which you did call Mr. Speaker proposes to apply the provisions of Section 1 (2) of the Civic Restaurants Act to these facilities. I take it that the Secretary of State will have no objection to this very modest proposal. He cannot complain that we have been undo-operative this evening. In fact, we have proceeded with the minimum of controversy on several difficult points, and I trust he will see his way to meet us on this moderate proposal. It is simply that local authorities operating, under this Clause, should be governed by the same conditions as would govern them if they were running a civic restaurant.

As I know, there are few things more liable to provoke controversy at short notice in Scotland than a proposal to enlarge the facilities for the supply of exciseable liquor, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not throw an apple of discord into our midst by suggesting that these facilities should be enlarged in this particular case beyond the reasonable provision made in the case of local authorities who run civic restaurants.

I hesitated to interrupt the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. McFarlane) because I thought that in his sweet, innocent way he was managing to get a Second Reading speech made upon this particular part of the Bill. As the hon. Member proceeded, I began to wonder whether I was looking at the proper Amendment. As the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) says, this is a question which always arouses a great deal of interest in Scotland. In the same spirit of sweet reasonableness, I am willing to accept his Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 26, line 16, to leave out "eight," and to insert "five."

This Clause deals with the Amendment and extension of Section 7 of the Building Materials and Housing Act, 1945, which imposes a penalty if a house for which a building licence has been granted, subject to a condition limiting the price, is sold or offered for sale during a period of four years; and for the four years in this Section eight years is substituted. We do not think that that is altogether fair. Therefore, we would limit the period to five years.

The position at the moment is that if people wish to move about the country, they find great difficulty in acquiring a house except at very great cost. We do not think that there is any harm in a man who wishes to transfer from one part of the country to another part being able, after a period of five years, to sell his house at the economic price which is actually ruling at the time. What happens is that he sells one house for £2,000, and pays £2,000 for another house, But if the man is limited, as is proposed here, for eight years after he has bought a house, if he should have to transfer to another part of the country, through no fault of his own, and possibly through no desire of his own, then he will be limited to the sum which he paid for the house, and he will be unable to acquire the money to obtain the same, or comparable, accommodation elsewhere. We think that that should not be so. We think it is imposing a financial hardship.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The effect of this Amendment would be to bring to an end the control of the selling price of houses built under licence by 20th October, 1950, instead of by the 20th October, 1953. We cannot accept this Amendment because, with the present shortage of houses in Scotland, it would enable people who had been fortunate enough to obtain a licence to sell a house without any restriction upon the price, and, by virtue of the scarcity which exists, to capitalise the position and make a handsome profit out of the fact that they had been fortunate enough to obtain a licence.

We know that at present houses which are 20 or 30 years old are fetching three or four times as much as their pre-war value. If such prices can be obtained for houses which are 20 or 30 years old, it is almost inconceivable what a new house, up to three years old, might fetch in the open market. Yet the person has had the advantage of getting a licence to put him into that privileged position. It would be inequitable, we feel, with the present shortage of houses, to allow a person to capitalise, not the value of the house which he has, but the value of the licence which he has had for special considerations. We feel that so long as the shortage exists, a definite time should be incorporated in the Clause to allow the market to re-adjust itself before we make any release.

It has been stated that when a man transfers to another district, after having had a licence, and enters the open market, he perhaps pays a much more inflated sum for the house in the new district; but that, if I may use the expression, gives the whole show away; it shows what can happen between one person and another in these present circumstances. But he is not in any different position from the person who has not a licence, because that person would have to pay the price.

On the hypothesis put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, there was special reason why a man should get a licence in the existing district. If that man moves to a new district, and similar conditions apply, then no doubt he would there get a licence. But, if he does not qualify for a licence when he gets to the new district, he is in no worse position than if he had had no licence in the old district. We feel that if a person gets the advantage of a licence to build a house at a definite price, he should be restricted to that price during the period of eight years from 1945. Otherwise, we encourage people to apply for licences and then sell the houses at greatly inflated prices, thus taking advantage of the licences granted to them. For these reasons, I a afraid we have to advise the House to reject the Amendment.

I think that the Lord Advocate has given us an argument about which all one can say is that it proves too much. There is, he says, no reason why this agreement should terminate in 1953 because it is clearly brought out that it will be 20 or 30 years before the housing shortage is cleared away. He will have to bring in amending legislation to extend the period beyond 1953; but we should like the Lord Advocate to face up to the question now. The desirability of removing these restrictions in some way or another is obviously very great, and the Lord Advocate does seem to ignore the argument that a man is not going to give up a house and walk about the streets. Surely it must be obvious that what happens is that a man moves to another part of the Kingdom and, to whatever part he moves today, I think he will be faced for a certainty with houses at a higher value than the stiffly-controlled values at present in existence. Anything which can ease that process, and start a moving of the population, and a certain circulation of a free market in houses is, I think, a great advantage.

The right hon. Gentleman will admit that if he gave this relaxation, it would also allow a relaxation to the person who wanted to make a racket of the situation, whereby he would get licences to build houses.

The real danger is that the Government are so concerned with plugging up any possibility of the slightest relaxation for fear of a racket developing, that they finish up by tying the whole nation of Scotland into a bundle of red tape and sealing wax.

Ask the small shopkeeper.

Ask the unhappy, ordinary individual who is trying to get a house, and who, because of the meticulous restrictions imposed in the past by local authorities and by building trade unions, finds it impossible to get a house at all.

This does not make more houses.

Of course, it makes more houses. Anything which encourages an individual to erect a house and to take the risk, trouble and expense involved makes another house. The man going into that house does not burn down the one he leaves. If we could only get it into the heads of hon. Members opposite that if they had had their way the poet Burns would never have been born at all, it would help in the solution of our problem. The father of Burns started to get some materials together and he erected the house in which the poet was born. In these days he would never have been allowed to build the house at all. Unless the Government relax these regulations and change their whole attitude, and refrain from seeing a racket emerg- ing even through the slightest chink, they will not succeed in solving any of the problems of Scotland. I trust that the Lord Advocate will have another look at this Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 27, line 9, to leave out "such."

There is a small group of Amendments here which are little more than drafting. They cover a point of view which was discussed, and that is that the local authority in these cases can give more than one direction which enables a greater rent or greater price for a house to be charged as a result of the amount put down by the owners. This Amendment is put down to cover this particular effort.

I beg to move, in page 36, line 31, column 2, to leave out "Subsection (6)," and to insert "Subsections (6) and (8)."

This Amendment repeals an obsolete provision in the Act of 1925 giving housing associations power to borrow at a rate of interest in excess of six per cent. It is an Amendment preparatory to consolidation of the Housing Acts.

I beg to move, in page 36, line 34, column 2, at end, to add:

"or to such persons as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of the section."

This Amendment explains itself. It gives private persons in Scotland as in England the right to borrow for housing purposes from the Public Works Loans Commissioners.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

We hope that this Bill will bring about the possibility of making some considerable improvements in the housing position, as the result of making use of good property which exists in Scotland and which could by re-adjustment, repair, and modernisation be made into quite good dwellings. I do not propose at this late hour to say anything more.

Even at this late hour, I think it is right that I should say a word or two before this Bill passes on to another place. I would say, to start with, that the intention of the Bill is excellent. I have no fault to find with the intention, but I doubt very much whether it will have the effect which the right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members desire. I do not know whether we shall get that extra accommodation which we wish, and I will give the reasons why I think that result may come about.

It seems to me that, so far as the private owner is concerned, the grant is not sufficiently large to make the proposition an economic one for him. I produced certain figures in support of that contention during the Committee stage. These figures were questioned by the Lord Advocate and since the conclusion of the Committee stage, I have, through the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman, been able to discuss this matter with certain of his officials. The difference between the official view and my view is simply this, that I have allowed for what I believe to be correct accountancy in that a sinking fund should be provided, and the official view is that no such sinking fund is necessary. So we have a complete difference of opinion, and the matter can only be resolved, I suppose, by consulting professional people on it.

The other difference is that where I took in for repairs, the figures which were given in the report of the Housing Advisory Committee—the MacTaggart Committee—by professional people as being the correct figures, the official view was that these were too high. As the result of making this adjustment, the official figures were put at a profit of 3.3 per cent., while my figures show a loss of £7 on the deal. Of course, if, officially, one is to disregard the evidence which has been given by people who are expert in these matters, one can bring out any figure one likes, but my firm conviction is that the grants which are given will not be sufficient to enable the ordinary owner of property to go in for these improvements which we all desire to see. That, I suggest, is all the more so if it is the intention, as I should hope it is, that tenement property might be improved under the terms of this Bill.

There is a great difficulty here. We are allowed, as the House knows, to increase the rent by 6 per cent. of the sum expended. When the additional rent which can be charged is considered, I think it will be found to be too high altogether. If, for example, one takes a rent of £12 a year for a country cottage and there is an expenditure of £600 on that cottage, then the owner will be enabled to increase the rent by another £18 a year, so that we shall have a total rent for a country cottage of £30 a year. That is too high and no owner of a rural property of that kind would ever expect to get such a rent for his cottage. There, again, I think we shall break down.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain how that position would have been improved if we had accepted the proposition of his hon. Friends to make the percentage not six but nine?

That is a very simple matter to explain because that would have come about in conjunction with a much larger share being borne by the Exchequer than is provided at the present moment. At present 50 per cent. is provided. We are in a dilemma here. If we are going to give the tenants the conditions we desire, this will cost more than the owner can afford. On the other hand, the conditions of the grant allow for rent being charged which the tenants cannot afford. Therefore this Bill is not going to have the effect which we hope. I am afraid that nothing that has been said up to now in relation to this Bill has removed that fear from my mind. The only thing I object to about this Bill is that, as a result of some of these provisions, there may well be a charge upon people less well off than those who enjoy the advantages of the Bill.

We were promised at the very beginning of this Parliament that we were going to get something much better than the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, but after four years, something far less capable of improving the housing conditions of the people of Scotland has been produced. We can only regret that. I sincerely hope that the effects I anticipate may not come about, but I cannot see logically or reasonably how this Bill will improve the housing conditions of the people of Scotland. I think we have set up a facade. Our intentions were good but the means of bringing these intentions into being are simply not to be found in this Bill.

That apart, there is one other thing I would say, and that is to express the very great regret which all of us on this side of the House feel in that there is no provision for seeing that the tied cottage or the service cottage can be put in a reasonable state for the people who do so much for us on the land and who deserve the very first consideration.

I wish to associate myself with what the Secretary of State said in moving the Third Reading. I join with him in hoping that the Bill will do something towards the better housing of the people of Scotland, but I very gravely doubt whether it will succeed in the objectives which it sets out to achieve. I find myself in the difficulty tonight of not being able either to condemn or approve the Bill, and I must damn this Bill with a measure of faint praise. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), in the earlier part of his speech, went into some details—not many—with regard to the financial provisions of the Bill. I do not propose to follow him in that, but only wish to say a few words about how the Measure, if it secures its passage through the House and through another place, may operate or fail to operate so far as the agricultural community in Scotland is concerned. I am sorry that political prejudice—it is not too strong a phrase—has prevented His Majesty's Government from doing something really big in the Bill for the better housing of the people in rural Scotland. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) should treat that remark of mine with such hilarity.

rose—

No, I am not giving way—

Gentle remarks addressed to someone over there do not reach me. I should like to hear what they are.

I was led astray by the hon. Gentleman's hilarity.

On a point of Order. I must protest. The hon. Gentleman cannot move me to tears, so I must smile.

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to behave as you Mr. Speaker will allow him, but when I was interrupted I was regretting how the rural community will come off after the passage of this Bill through this House and another place, and the hon. Gentleman did not seem to receive this as one who knows something about rural Scotland should have done. The agricultural community in Scotland is penalised by comparison with the other sections of the Scottish community, and it is political prejudice on the part of His Majesty's Ministers which has moved them to do this. After all, the agricultural community is the biggest industry in Scotland if not in Great Britain. According to the figures, the agricultural community bulks larger in Scotland than it does south of the Tweed. I see that the Lord Advocate shakes his head.

I was shaking my head not in disagreement but in despair.

I am so glad to hear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman despairs of his own party, and that I have elicited from a prominent member of His Majesty's Administration that, so far as Scotland is concerned, he despairs of the way in which rural housing has been dealt with. If we have done nothing else tonight we have been successful in drawing that simple confession from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We are being told so often in this House and in the country—indeed His Majesty's Ministers are making it a pre-election campaign—that the Government have done so much planning: they may have done something on paper for agricultural communities, but they have completely failed to produce any practical plan, and when they read the Clause in this Bill relative to housing grants they will see that what I am saying is completely true. If they had wished to do something for the housing of the rural community and, thereby, for the security of agriculture in Scotland, they would have listened to our pleas in Standing Committee—I refer to that only in a passing word—on the question of tied cottages, to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok referred tonight. But political prejudice prevented that and, as a consequence, this Bill leaves hon. Members on this side of the House in the same degree of despair about better housing for the rural community in Scotland as that to which the Lord Advocate has just confessed.

It may be said that I have only damned this Measure with faint praise, but I have done my best about it. I end by joining the Secretary of State in hoping that the Bill will do something for the people of Scotland, generally, although I realise that for agricultural workers little or nothing has been done. Even if anyone were prepared to divide upon the Third Reading, I should not be willing to vote against the Bill.

I feel something should be said from the back benches on the Government side in reply to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie). I am glad that Clause 15, to which he takes such exception, has not been changed and that, instead of listening to the views of an hon. Member for an agricultural area, my right hon. Friend has preferred to listen to the views of people who actually live in agricultural areas, who work in them and who have to live in the so-called tied cottages. They have continued Government policy in following the conclusions of the Committee on Rural Housing which said that it should be an aim to reduce tied houses to the minimum. I do not want to pursue that further.

I think the Bill will give local authorities some power to deal with what I think is one of the major problems confronting Scotland in housing. The first job, of course, is to build new houses. We must carry on with that and not reduce it because of the introduction of this Bill. The fact is that, no matter how many new houses we build in Scotland, even supposing we double the number, we shall be left with this hard core of 30 per cent. of the houses in Scotland which are sub-standard. I am convinced that local authorities, using the powers in the Bill, will be able to attack this problem and do something towards its solution.

Like the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), I despair of getting the private property-owner to show the public spirit that would be necessary to apply the Bill in the same way, but I think people who are owner-occupiers will find this a useful Measure. That applies in particular to those poor people who have been gulled in the last year or so into buying property in tenements which are by no means up to modern standards. They find they have paid inflated prices but that they still need to bring the property up to standard. They will find this Measure beneficial. The Bill is a useful Measure which will help to improve the conditions of housing in Scotland.

I should not like the House to think me discourteous. I should like to thank hon. Members for the co-operation they have given. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) said the Bill was worth nothing. I cannot understand why he got so excited about nothing being applied to rural workers' cottages. If it is worth nothing, why should he be worried about these cottages not being included? The Bill will benefit local authorities, owner-occupiers and others. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating of it, and we shall have to wait and see what can be done under the Bill. I thank hon. Members for their co-operation.