I beg to move,

"That the Clause be read a second time."

At the outset, I desire to be permitted to say that we have purposely confined our Amendments on the Report stage to two or three points, which seem to us important, as the result of the discussions in Committee, and we have done that for two reasons—first of all, to try to show, as best we can, our appreciation of the very considerate way in which our Amendments were met in Committee; and, in the second place, to try to hasten, as far as we possibly can, the passage of this Bill, in order that housing schemes in Scotland may proceed at the earliest possible moment, and certainly, we should hope, before the coming winter commences. The new Clause which I beg to move deals with an effort to control the supplies and prices of building materials which are necessary under these housing schemes. In Committee there was, I think, substantial agreement that if anything like reasonable progress was to be made with housing in the near future, there would be a very serious call on all classes of building materials, and it is no exaggeration of the existing position as regards the supply of these materials in Scotland to say that, to a quite considerable extent, they are supplied, or their supply is controlled, by a limited number of firms, which work more or less in association with one another, so that a combine difficulty or the difficulty of a growing trust in the supply of these materials is a reality North of the Tweed. There can be hardly any difference of opinion that, while we have no desire either as a House or as individulals to stint money in overtaking this housing problem, which is so urgently necessary, it is desirable that we should take every step in our power to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of public money by the payment of inflated or exaggerated prices for these supplies. When this matter was discussed in Committee, it was pointed out, in reply to a proposed new Clause, that the matter had not entirely escaped attention; that, in point of fact, it was receiving the consideration of one of in Departments of the Ministry of Munitions, which, presumably at no distant date, will be the Ministry of Supply.

In view of the objections which were offered to the Clause in its old form, I have reshaped and reworded it to amount to simply this in practice, that where, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, or of any local authority or district committee, the prices for these materials are unnecessarily high, and a solution of the housing problem is being partly or largely endangered thereby, there shall be power of representation by the Local Government Board, with or without a letter or communication from a local authority, to the appropriate Government Department in charge of this matter. It may be argued in reply to that suggestion that this is really unnecessary, and that the Ministry of Supply would, of its own accord, tackle a question or a difficulty of this kind. The contention is, that it is probably impossible, having regard to the ramifications and the demands of reconstruction, for any Government Department, however efficient to keep an eye on all that is happening from one end of the country to the other, and, least of all, is it possible to expect that comprehensive view from a Department which is new to this matter, and has a great deal to learn with regard to these housing and other schemes. Is there any reason why, in the set of circumstances I have tried to describe, there should be any hesitation in incorporating a Clause in the Bill which makes it possible for the Local Government Board, or for the local authority indirectly, to communicate with such Department to attract its attention to the existence of these high prices, and to the manner in which they are prejudicing the solution of this problem, which so urgently calls for our attention? The practical side of this is that, in the light of all the estimates which have boon passed already, or which are now in process of consideration in Scotland, it is abundantly clear that the cost per house is going to be a very serious consideration. I saw a set of estimates for one of the urban areas in Scotland the other day, in which the cost per house is going to work out at between £400 and £800, and there cannot be the slightest doubt that, even if we overtake in the coming year only a part of the housing that is required North of the Tweed, that will involve us in a very large amount of public expenditure. It is our plain duty to try to keep that within reasonable limits, and it is also our plain duty to try to prevent in the post war period all profiteering in these supplies. It is to that end that this new Clause, which I believe to be of importance justifying its presentation on the Report stage of this Bill, is directed, and I sincerely hope it may command, in the revised form, the sympathy and consideration of the Secretary for Scotland.

I beg to second the Motion.

I desire to acknowledge the courtesy of the hon. Member in connection with this and the other Amendments for which he is responsible. I do not differ from his observations in any important particular. My only doubt is whether this is a Clause which is appropriate, or, indeed, effective, for the purpose for which it is desired. The Clause, which I have seen this morning for the first time, and which was put on the Paper, I understand, last night, really resolves itself in a direction to the Local Government Board—or the Board of Health, as it now is—to write a letter; that is what it comes to. One Government Department is enjoined to communicate with another Government Department, and that other Government Department one, be it observed, which may not exist in the future. Whether the Ministry of Supply will continue to exist or not is not for me to say; but, having regard to its history up till now, I do not think there is any certainty that this or any resembling Department will be found to exist in the future. Apart, however, from that, may I ask my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that his new Clause does not place any duty whatever upon the Ministry of Supply, nor does it confer any power upon them. All that the Local Government Board or the Ministry of Health is to do is to communicate or writes a letter to the Ministry of Supply. In the absence of any duty or any power given to that Ministry, I doubt very much—in fact, I am really certain that this Amendment as framed will not effect the purpose which my hon. Friend has in view. He may rest assured that a communication of the sort would, in point of fact, be made, apart altogether from a statutory injunction. I doubt whether this is really a matter appropriate for Statute. It is a matter of administration between one Government Department and another. I can give him the assurance that in the circumstances suggested in the new Clause such communication would inevitably pass. The Ministry of Supply works in close conjunction with the Board of Health in Scotland, and the Board of Health, in this matter, is in close touch with all the local authorities throughout Scotland with a view to obtaining for them the material which they desire. In these circumstances I would ask my hon. Friend not to press this new Clause; not because I differ from his arguments, but because I profoundly differ from him as to the effect of the Clause. If he desires me to give an assurance that I will look into this matter again before the Bill is considered in another place, I am willing to give that assurance; but I do not, as I see it at present, think the Clause will be effective for the purpose proposed.

I appreciate that assurance, and beg leave to withdraw the proposed new Clause.

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh imposes a charge. This part of the Bill follows Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and depends upon it. To alter the words "working classes" to the word "people" would bring about a very large extension of the benefits to be derived from the Act; therefore the Amendment is inadmissible.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "Local Government Board for Scotland," and to insert instead thereof the words "Scottish Board of Health."

This is purely a formal and drafting Amendment. The Board of Health has come into being since this Bill was framed; hence the necessity for this Amendment.

I beg to move, after Sub-section (3), to insert

(1) Before the Board finally approve a scheme the local authority shall furnish to them Estimates of the cost of the scheme and of the rents expected to be derived from the houses provided under the scheme.

I am very sanguine that the Secretary for Scotland will agree to this Amendment. A similar one has already been inserted in the English Bill. It will be within his recollection that I moved an Amendment on these lines in Committee. The question of rent to be paid for these houses strikes at the very root and essence of the Bill. There is no doubt that the economic rent of these houses will be from £40 to £45, and the question is, What rent shall be charged to the tenant? If the rent is too high, it will defeat the whole object of the Bill, and those people for whom this Bill is intended will not be able to pay the rent demanded; while, on the other hand, if the rents are fixed too low in proportion to the ability of the tenants to pay, there will be an excessive charge put upon both the local authorities and public funds. Personally, I should have liked to see some proviso inserted under which the tenants should pay for these houses a certain proportion of their income—that is, that they should contribute to their own houses commensurate with their ability. There seems to be difficulties about that. But what I do suggest is that the central authorities—the Scottish Health Board—should retain some control and supervision over the fixing of these rents, so that throughout the whole country the rent may be fixed in accordance with some principle. There is a danger that one local authority may fix the rents too high, and thereby prevent the poorer classes of the population being able to get the benefit that Parliament intends to give them under this Bill. On the other hand, another local authority may fix the rents too low, and therefore give an unreasonable subsidy to tenants who are well able to pay a prescribed sum for the rent of their houses. The Secretary for Scotland gave me an assurance in Committee—or perhaps I should say he said he would try to ensure—that before the tenants actually entered the houses the rents would be supervised and approved by the Scottish Board of Health. I submit this Amendment is designed to give effect to what the Secretary for Scotland himself more or less promised in Committee. It is already in the English Bill. Therefore I can see no reason why it should not be accepted for this Scottish Bill. I put forward my proposal both in the interests of the tenant and of the public purse.

I beg to second the Amendment.

As my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, this Amendment has now been included in the English Bill. The reason for this was to ensure that the Board of Health, before approving of the scheme, should have before it data as to the probable cost and as to the rents which are likely to be obtained. From those facts they would then be able to deduce the probable financial liability of the Treasury. This Amendment is designed to prevent undue extravagance, and also to protect the public purse. These considerations which apply in England are of no less importance in Scotland, and I therefore have much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "satisfied," and to insert instead thereof the words "of opinion."

This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking which I gave in Committee that I would endeavour to provide, before the Board proceeds to pronounce a local authority in default and to carry out a housing scheme in place of the local authority, that there should first of all be an inquiry. It was pressed upon me that that inquiry should be held by an outside body or some impartial person. In order to fulfil that undertaking I put down this and the two Amendments which follow it on the Paper.

I bog to move, in Subsection (1),after the word ''cleared" ["when cleared"], to insert the words

"or that the land, or part thereof, when cleared shall be laid out as an open space."

As the proviso stands, the compensation payable for slum property is to be subject to reduction if the land, or part of it, is to be used for re-housing. The effect of the Amendment is to bring about the same result if the land, or part of it, is to be used as an open space. That brings the Clause into conformity with a similar Clause in the English Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) proposed during the Committee stage to amend the Schedule to this effect. I assured him that that would not effect his purpose, but I promised that on. the He-port stage I would see that this Clause was amended, in order to give effect to his wish. This Amendment has been put down for that purpose.

I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert in-stead thereof the words

"(3) Where any land is included in an area in respect of which the Board under the provisions of Section fifty-four, Sub-section (2), of the Housing, Town planning, etc., Act, 1909, have authorised the local authority to prepare a town-planning scheme, or is included in an area in respect of which the local authority under the provisions of Section thirty-three of this Act have resolved to prepare a town-planning scheme, and such land is required for the purposes of a housing scheme prepared by the local authority and approved by the Board under Section one of this Act, the restricted use to which such land can be put under the housing scheme shall be taken into account in fixing the compensation to the owner in respect of the compulsory taking of such land for the purposes of the scheme, provided that for the purposes of this Section land shall not include buildings."

The object of the Clause was to preserve to the local authorities the powers they already possess under the Town Planning Act, 1909, of placing restrictions upon the use of land without those restrictions being regarded as the subject of compensation to the landowner. Since that Clause was inserted, the hon. Members concerned have consulted the leading local authorities of Scotland, and in agreement with them we have come to the conclusion that the present Amendment embodies more accurately and fully the object we have in view; besides that, it obviates a good many of the objections raised, and I earnestly recommend the Amendment as it stands to the attention of the House. In the case of the local authorities, this Amendment will profoundly affect the finance of this scheme. The object of the Amendment is, generally speaking, to reserve to the local authorities the power they have under the 1909 Act of placing building restrictions upon land without them being regarded as a subject of compensation. Under the 1909 Act it is provided that property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected by reason of the making of any provision in a town-planning scheme which, with a view to securing the amenity of the scheme, prescribes or limits the number of buildings or prescribes the height or character of those buildings. Accordingly, the House will see that these important powers are already in possession of the local authority for putting restrictions upon a town-planning area.

Supposing the local authority has a town-planning area subject to those building restrictions, and that local authority has to go along with a housing scheme under the present Act, it may be contemplated by the local authorities that the area of the town-planning scheme and the housing scheme will probably be the same—that is to say that both will be upon land running along tramway and train routes with general facilities for transport. Accordingly, you may really regard a housing scheme as a sort of smaller town-planning area which will undoubtedly be embraced in what is at present or in the future will certainly be a town-planning area. The town-planning area is already subject to very important building restrictions regarding the type of the buildings, the amount of houses to be put to the acre of land, and all this sort of restriction. Along comes the housing scheme, and the land has not only to be subject to restrictions, but it has to be bought out-and-out by the local authority. Under the Bill as it stands at present the fear of the local authorities is that the arbiter who assesses the compensation in default of agreement will not have in view the building restrictions to which the ground is subject, but he will give the full unrestricted market value to the owner of the ground. That will, so to speak, nullify the power that the local authority has had under the 1909 Act of imposing building restrictions without those restrictions being regarded as a subject for compensation. This Amendment meets that objection, and obviates the local authorities' fear of that danger.

The House will note that this Amendment only relates to land which is already the subject of a town-planning scheme under the Act of 1909. It is only then that the arbiter has to have regard to the restrictions of the housing scheme. The housing scheme, of course, then takes the place of the town-planning scheme, because it is a concrete scheme, the actual scheme that is to be put into force, and naturally then it is the restrictions of the housing scheme to which the arbiter's mind will have to be directed. Accordingly, I recommend this very strongly to the House. Its intention is not, and I do not think its effect would be, to extend further the right of the local authority to put restrictions upon land without paying for them, or to take over land without paying the lull value. Its real object is to preserve what one may call the legislative status quo under the 1909 Act, and allow a local authority to place building restrictions upon land, and then have the land, so to speak, fettered and bound by those restrictions which it considers to meet the general needs of the people—their building needs and sanitary needs. The land would be taken over under these conditions, which would be regarded as the general conditions under which the land is to be bought and sold. It must not be bought and sold at less than the market value, namely, the tenement value or the factory value. If that is the case, the local authorities are at once faced with the situation that they would be buying at an unrestricted general market value, and when they take over their asset, the land in question, it at once shrinks to a restricted value, and perhaps they may lose 50 per cent. or even 75 per cent. of their money. This Amendment preserves to them the right which they have under the principal Act of placing building restrictions on the land without their being a subject for compensation. I accordingly recommend the Amendment to the House as meeting the justice of the case.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I should like to say a few words on this matter, as my name stood at the head of those who moved the original Amendment in the Scottish Grand Committee. On that occasion particular exception was taken to the original Sub- section. If I remember rightly it was urged that there was a great deal of land on the outskirts of cities like Glasgow and Edinburgh which was available or could be made available for industrial development. It was urged that if that Sub-section were passed the whole of this land could be treated for the purposes of building only, and could be valued for the purposes of building only, so that there would be a detrimental effect on industrial development; and that, whilst it was important to promote housing on the outskirts of cities, it was just as important to promote industrial development. In moving that Amendment we had in our minds that there was a considerable amount of land on the outskirt of these cities which could be utilised for housing purposes, without interfering with industrial purposes at all, and it was with that object that the original Sub-section was placed in the Bill. A further exception taken to it was that "land" might include buildings. In the amending Sub-section which is now moved that point is provided for and it is definitely stated that "land" shall not include buildings. Therefore, it would not be possible, as some hon. Members suggested, to go into Princes Street or Buchanan Street and say that the land, including buildings, should be valued at a price which it was worth purely for building purposes. If this Amendment as it stood precluded any liberty to the owner of land on the outskirts of a city or in a, city to raise the point on arbitration that the land was valuable and could be made available for industrial development, I should be the last to be associated with it. But that is not precluded; it can be done; and it is important, in increasing the number of houses for the people of these cities, that land should be made available on the outskirts at a fair and reasonable rate, and at a rate which makes it possible to let the houses at fair rentals. I believe that under the Amendment all the rights of the landowners on the outskirts of the cities are fairly safeguarded and preserved. I think it is very important, from the point of view of Glasgow and Edinburgh and other such cities, where there are large congested populations, to assure the people of those cities that this House does realise the necessity of obtaining land at reasonable rates, and that the House will insist that land shall be procured at reasonable rates. I therefore, in seconding this Amendment, desire to impress upon the House the importance of not allowing this subject to go by the board, or only to remain in the position in which it at present stands in the Bill.

One might judge from the speeches of my hon. Friends in support of this Amendment, or from a great part of them, that it was an effort on their part to see that less compensation was paid to the owners of the land. Their real purpose, however, is to give a legislative direction to those who are going to assess the value for compulsory taking of the land that they shall pay more. That is the real object. A net of that kind which is spread in so obvious a manner in the sight of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland is not at all likely to attract him. What are the powers which will shortly be in existence for dealing with this matter in a Bill which, I suppose, will soon get on the Statute Book, and which applies specifically to the very operation towards which this Amendment is directed? These new valuers are to pay the full market value. We know the struggle that we had over that question. The English Bill has gone through both Houses of Parliament and will shortly be on the Statute Book. No suggestion of this kind appears in that measure, and that my hon. Friends should introduce this Amendment in face of what has happened in regard to the English Bill, and the Debates on this Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, seems to me a very grave thing to do. That they should have the audacity or bravery to put forward this proposal at this time of day certainly gives me a great deal of reason to think that my capacity for understanding reasons and arguments must be strangely limited on a Friday afternoon.

I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press this Amendment, because I think he was wrong in saying that it profoundly affected the foundations of the scheme. This Amendment deals only with the amount of the compensation which is to be paid for land used in connection with the housing scheme, and it applies, as its words show, to a very limited class of case. The operative part of the Amendment is in the concluding words in which it is directed that restricting the use to which land can be put under the housing scheme shall be taken into account in fixing the compensation to the owners. My hon. and learned Friend was quite right in saying that under the Housing and Town Planning Act a more limited scale of compensation is provided in certain cases where a proprietor's property is taken for the purposes of the town-planning scheme, but under the Town Planning Act that compensation is directed to be paid only in certain cases and under safeguards. The hon. Member for Glasgow, I think, mentioned that safeguards were required. Under the Housing and Town Planning Act safeguards are provided. The proprietor has the right to object, first of all, to his land being included in the scheme at all, and he has a further right of saying that his land ought to be applied to a different purpose from that which the local authority proposes. The effect of this Amendment is really to abolish these safeguards altogether. The proprietor will not be heard, if this Amendment is carried, and he will have no opportunity, so far as I can see, of laying his case before the Local Government Board. I think that is a very serious objection to this Amendment. A further proposal which is involved in this Amendment is to give that proprietor only the scale of compensation which is provided under this Statute to the owners of slum property. I quite agree with the policy of this Bill in so far as it says that those who have allowed their property to get into an insanitary condition should not get the same scale of compensation as those whose property has been kept up, and the Bill very properly proposes to penalise that particular class of proprietor; but the effect of this Amendment is to put the owner of property which a local authority takes for town planning under exactly that same scale of compensation. That, it seems to me, is a quite indefensible proposal. The proprietor of property included in a town-planning scheme is entitled to get the same rate of reasonable compensation as his neighbour has got whose property is not included in a town-planning scheme but may be useful for the housing scheme. In short, this particular Amendment introduces a class of compensation for a particular species of proprietor which I venture to submit this House should not countenance at all. If the schemes really are to be successful they ought to provide fair compensation to all proprietors, and they should treat all proprietors alike where the conditions are the same. Why should a proprietor's compensation depend upon whether a particular authority's resolution for a town-planning scheme is carried or not? The moment you introduce considerations of that kind into the assessment of compensation, and leave what is the real question in compensation, namely, to pay fair value for such value as is taken, the supporters of this Bill would, it seems to me, get into a difficulty. With these considerations in mind, I respectfully suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that he will withdraw the Amendment.

As I was one of those who voted for this Sub-section, which it is now proposed to displace by the new Sub-section proposed, I would like just to say that I think we went a bit too far on that occasion, and I am inclined to think that the objections to this Clause put by the Solicitor-General have considerable substance. But it does appear to me that there is a real case which my Friends are aiming at, both in regard to the Amendment which was inserted in the Bill in Committee, and which the Government now propose to omit, and also in regard to this new Sub-section which my hon. Friends are moving. We have got to sec to it that in the building of houses on the outskirts of our great cities we do not put up buildings which will allow such a density of population as to become potential slums. Whatever may be their condition now, on the edge of the country, as they are absorbed into the inhabited area in the future, they will on account of their density of population tend to degenerate into slums. I know that under this Bill, and under the previous Act, the planning scheme will not permit of more than a certain density of population, and therefore the town councils feel that they ought not to have to pay for land at a price which postulates that you are going to put the maximum population possible on that land. That is the grievance of these town councils. The real remedy would be that we should have a general building regulation providing for not lore than a certain density of population in housing, except under the special circumstances provided. If you could have some such general regulation as that, the position would be that just as at the present time the value of land is limited by building regulations so the value of all land, and not merely the particular land scheduled, would be limited by this new regulation, and, I venture to say, would be rightly limited, inasmuch as it would be contrary to public policy that the land should be utilised in this way. What would be the effect of that? It would be that you would not then touch the land which would be utilised for industrial purposes. You would simply be dealing with land which was suitable land for building under purposes contempated by this Bill. I do really wish to urge that, because I know the matter is exercising the minds of many men in the town councils both of Edinburgh and Glasgow, it is a real point, which is not met by this Bill. I think that in attempting to meet it we went too far in the Amendment we moved in Committee, and I am inclined to think that the objections to the Amendment now before the House which have been urged by the Solicitor-General are good, but they still leave the original position untouched, and until it is somehow met there will be a grievance on the part of the authorities.

I beg to move, after the word "land" ["enter on and take possession of the land"], to insert the words

"or such part thereof as is specified in the notice."

The object of the Clause is to authorise immediate entry upon land which a local authority has been authorised to purchase compulsorily. and the procedure under the Lands Clauses Acts is short-circuited for that purpose. As the Clause stands, it points to simultaneous entry on all the land, whereas immediate possession may be necessary of only a part of the land. The Amendment makes it clear that possession of the land may be taken as it is required.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "order" ["the Board shall, before confirming the order"], to insert the words

"and subject to the provisions of the next succeeding Sub-section."

In one sense this is a drafting Amendment. It is consequential upon the insertion in Committee of Sub-section (2) of this Clause. Subsection (1) requires the Board, before sanctioning an order, to have regard to the Report of the person by whom a public inquiry has been held. Subsection (2), which was inserted in Committee, provides that for the next two years an order may be confirmed without any such inquiry, and in those cases the Board will have no Report to consider. The Amendment limits their duty accordingly.

The first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. J. Taylor) is not an Amendment to the enacting part of the Bill, but only to the descriptive part, which, if necessary, gets itself altered later on, according to what the House inserts in the enacting portion of the Bill. The second Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member appears to me to increase the charge, because these provisions relate to the provision of houses by public utility societies and housing trusts. If the hon. Gentleman brings in a number of building societies registered under the Friendly Societies Act, he opens a door which allows a number of other schemes to come in, the result of which will be to add to the public burden.

The Secretary for Scotland promised to meet me when I raised this question in Committee. I understood he was going to make provision whereby these friendly societies would be included. Instead of the words "Friendly Societies Act," I could have put in the words "the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893." It is not going to add any charge on the Treasury over and above what they have at the present time, because these building societies, being registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, are in essence public utility societies. The reason why I pressed this Amendment was to a certain extent a sentimental one. These building societies for the last fifty years have borne the brunt of providing buildings in Scotland for the working classes, and they now consider that they should be included in the Bill, and not public utility societies, which are an unknown quantity in Scotland, Public utility societies are not known in Scotland, but the building societies are known, and they wish to be included in this Clause, so that they may carry on the work they have been doing. I understood that my right hon. Friend was going to introduce either these words or other words to meet the point I raised in Committee. Having been absent from the House on public business in Edinburgh, I was unable to see him, and I therefore put down these Amendments to meet the point I raised in Committee.

If the expression "public utility society" include a building society registered under the Friendly Societies Act, then there is no necessity for adding the words; but if it does not include such a building society, and that society is something beyond and beside a public utility society, then it does increase the charge to which the taxpayer may become liable. I shall be glad to hear what the Secretary for Scotland has to say on the matter.

On the point of Order, I do not venture to intrude. So far as I can see, if I may respectfully say so, the Amendment might increase the charge on the public funds. But I want, if I may, to put myself right with my hon. Friend who has given notice of the Amendment. I certainly did not undertake, speaking from memory, to put down an Amendment in these terms or terms anything like them. What I did undertake to do was to look into the matter before the Report stage. I have done so, and have considered the situation very carefully. If I may say a word on merits which may meet my hon. Friend and satisfy him, I would say this: These building societies which he has in mind, doing excellent work, no doubt, are quite different from public utility societies. The main point about public utility societies which entitles them to assistance from Government funds is that they are debarred by Statute from making anything more than 6 per cent. profit. That limitation does not apply to building societies such as my hon. Friend has in mind. When I refer to the Report of the Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland, I find that what they recommended was not that building societies should receive assistance from the State, but that if they were not already in point of fact public utility societies they should become such in order that they might get the benefit of the Government subsidy. That is really the true remedy in the case my hon. Friend has in mind. It is because I have looked into the matter that I do not see how I could be justified in guaranteeing State assistance, even if it were in my power to do so, to a society which is absolutely unlimited regarding the amount of private, profit it may make. The remedy is that it should turn itself into a public utility society and so qualify for State assistance. That is the remedy suggested by the Royal Commission, and that remedy, I suggest to my hon. Friend, entirely meets his point. Therefore, if this Amendment were, strictly speaking, in order, which I venture to doubt, I hope he will find this explanation sufficient to justify him in withdrawing the Amendment.

It is quite clear, after what has fallen from the Secretary for Scotland, that these building societies are not included in public utility societies, and it will be an addition to the charge which may become payable. Therefore the Amendment cannot be moved, still less can the proposal to assist private persons.

This Amendment is put down in order to raise the whole issue of rural housing in Scotland. It was discussed at considerable length in Committee, and at the last meeting I moved the Adjournment for that purpose. I should like to read a few words from the speech of the Secretary for Scotland in which he replied to it, which shows that he intended to look into the matter again and ascertain whether it would not be possible to do something to strengthen the Bill. He said,

"If anything can be done to strengthen the Bill I will gladly take that course."

From that we understood that before the Report stage came on again the Secretary for Scotland would look into the whole question and see whether it was possible to strengthen the Bill from the point of view of rural housing.

It will have to be strengthened somewhere else. It is clearly outside the scope of the House. The House cannot deal with these financial matters. They can be dealt with in Committee, but not when the House is sitting as a House.

Would it be possible to raise this point of rural housing on the Bill, because it is a most important aspect of it, which I know the House believes has not been fully dealt with in this Bill? If I can raise it on any other part of the Bill, I shall be very glad to be able to do so.

I hope the hon. Member may find an opportunity, but he certainly cannot raise it on a proposal to subsidise private persons out of the public purse. That disposes of all the Amendments on Clauses 15 and 16.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "or housing trusts."

I move this in order that housing trusts may be included in those societies to which loans may be advanced. The Secretary for Scotland has expressed his desire to help agricultural housing, and he suggested that, by means of public utility societies and housing trusts, it might be possible to improve rural housing. It is not quite certain yet whether agricultural housing will be best promoted by means of public utility societies or housing trusts, and my Amendment is simply to put the two on the same level with regard to loans.

What is the difference between "housing trusts" and a "public utility society"? If it is a public utility society, there is no object in having it. If it is not a public utility society, but is something else, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is increasing the charge.

The definitions of "public utility society" and "housing trust" are contained in Regulations which are published by the Secretary for Scotland.

That is not quite an accurate statement. The definition of these respective societies is to be found in the Bill itself.

The heading to Clause 15 is

"Provisions for encouraging the Provision of Houses by Public Utility Societies and Housing Trusts, and otherwise."

Does not that cover the inclusion of housing trusts in that and the subsequent Clauses?

Those words are only descriptive of the Clauses that follow. What you want to look at is the Clauses themselves. This Clause must be limited to loans to public utility societies.

I beg to move, after the word "solely" ["on any land or dwelling solely"], to insert the words "may exceed two-thirds, but."

This is really a drafting Amendment. The Clause is intended to effect an amendment of Section 67, Sub-section (2, d), of the Housing Act of 1890, and that Act as amended by Section 4, Sub-section (1), of the Act of 1909. The operation of these Sections limits such loans in certain circumstances to two-thirds of the value, and it was thought desirable that the words of the Clause should fit in with the words of the Section which the Clause proposes to amend. It is for that formal purpose, and for no other, that I move the Amendment.

It is really stating what is the law?

That is so.

Is this the same Amendment which was placed in the English Bill by the other House and disagreed with by this House two nights ago, because it reads in exactly the same way?

I do not think so. I cannot speak from definite recollection. I have looked into the matter, but I do not think it is the same Amendment.

I beg to move, to leave out the word "two" ["during the period of two years"], and insert instead thereof the word "three."

In Committee the Secretary for Scotland agreed to an extension of time during which assistance would be given under the terms of the Bill to local authorities for housing from two years to three, and I suggest that in conformity with that arrangement the period for which assistance of another kind should be granted should be equally extended from two years to three. The whole object of the Bill is to provide houses as quickly as possible in Scotland, and if it has been decided, in order to encourage the building of houses, that it is necessary to give some certainty that assistance shall be continued for three years in one case it is equally desirable in the other case.

I beg to second the Amendment.

On the assumption, that this Amendment is in order—and I beg respectfully to doubt whether it does not fall in the same category as certain other Amendments which have been moved from the same quarter—it is a proposal which involves the extending of the period during which loan to private persona may be made on favourable terms from two years to three years, with the result, I apprehend, that more money will have to be found from public funds in order to meet the case for which the Amendment provides. It would be quite impossible for me to accept the Amendment inasmuch as it is an Amendment which finds no place in the corresponding English measure, and the Treasury would not, I think, be justified in granting different treatment an a vital matter of the sort of one side of the border which it does not accord on the other side of the border. Accordingly, from that point of view, be the Amendment in order or be it not, I cannot accept it, even if you hold, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member is entitled to move it.

I beg leave to withdraw.

I beg to move, to leave out the word "eighty" ["shall not exceed eighty"], and to insert instead thereof the word "seventy-five."

This Amendment and the one which follows refer to a matter which was discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee. When accepting Amendments which extended the limit of the amount which might be advanced and also the period for the repayment of the loan, I did so on the clear understanding that I should have to communicate with the Treasury and ascertain their view before the Report stage. Having done so, I am afraid that it would be impossible for me to accept the Amendments which were made in the Grand Committee on that tentative understanding and allow them to remain in the Bill. The terms which are in the Bill, assuming that the Amendments I am now moving are accepted, are precisely the same in Scotland as in England. Again, any differentiation in this matter of finance on the one side of the border from the other would, I think, be quite unjustified. I made it quite clear to the Committee, that my acceptance of the Amendments was entirely conditional, and the condition has not been satisfied.

It is regrettable that these Amendments have not been accepted by the Treasury, particularly that extending the period for borrowing in cases of this kind. The obligation is a very serious one at any time, and it is rendered very much more difficult now by the financial position of the country and particularly by the financial position of those who have to borrow the money. I think it is very unfortunate that the period of fifty years has not been accepted by the Treasury, and that it is to be reduced again to forty years, which I think will be the limit if these Amendments now proposed are carried. I suppose we must submit, and certainly I submit with very great regret. The argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman as to there being no differentiation in financial cosiderations between the two countries is an argument which is always used to suit the occasion, but it is not always acted upon. The Small Landowners Act in Scotland differs financially from the corresponding measure in England. It was not then felt that the financial considerations in each, case should be identical, and I do not see that it should be an argument in the present case.

Clauses 18 and 19 would assist in dealing with the question of rural housing in Scotland, and would to some extent meet the demand of those interested in agriculture throughout Scotland. We have not been entirely satisfied, and now the right hon. Gentleman, comes to cut down even the concession we have got. I know that it is at the demand of the Treasury. It seems to me that if this Amendment is accepted Clause 18 becomes mere camouflage. The Secretary for Scotland has never clearly stated what will be the exact interest to be paid on these loans. The Amendment to which I attach most importance is that relating to the provisions in Section (3), paragraph (a) of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, which was to apply to loans to private persons, and which it is now proposed to omit. If that proviso is left out it means that these loans cannot be granted by the Public Works Loan Commissioners at the lowest rate of interest. Therefore, it seems to me that the whole Clause is valueless. We do not know what the actual rate is to be, but we know that if this Amendment is accepted it will not be the lowest rate of interest, and a very serious burden will be imposed on those-borrowings. The effect will be that it will not be worth anybody's while to borrow under the terms of this Bill. I cannot see why the Treasury should object to treating these loans at a cheap rate of interest. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will seriously consider retaining his own Amendments, or if he cannot do so now of getting them re-inserted in another place.

He has referred to the question of England, but I submit that according to the Housing Report the conditions of rural houses in Scotland are quite different from those in England. In many cases they are much worse. Houses in England for rural workers are mostly in villages, and it will be possible for the local authorities to build villages and reconstruct the houses in villages which are not in a satisfactory condition, but in Scotland the rural workers are at present provided with cottages scattered all over the country, and it will be very difficult for local authorities to build houses dotted about the country. The result will be that the local authorities will not be able to help rural housing as they can in England. Unless some encouragement is given under this Bill the whole thing will be of little or no advantage to the promotion and improvement of rural housing in Scotland. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will reconsider the meagre concession he made in Committee; otherwise the Bill will not commend itself to those interested in agriculture in Scotland, whether farmers or farm labourers.

I join with other hon. Members in expressing regret at the decision which the Secretary for Scotland has been compelled to take, because I gather that his own view was similar to ours that this was a desirable position to take up under the Bill. Let us make it clear that this is not an attempt on our part to get a grant out of the Treasury. It is only a desire to get the loan up to the extent of 80 per cent. instead of 75 per cent., to which it is now to be reduced. The safeguards were most ample, because the Local Government Board must first have satisfied themselves as to the value of the heritable security and the financial soundness of the person himself. If the Local Government Board satisfy themselves on those two points, surely, where there is so urgent a question as the provision of adequate housing, the matter is one in which the Treasury might give way. I have another reason in supporting this proposal, which I dare say will not commend itself to Labour Members. I am strongly in favour of the development of individual enterprises which are trying to solve the housing problem. The futility of depending solely on local authorities and public utility societies, hampered in many ways as many of them are, to solve this question will very soon be apparent. I think it right that we should encourage public-spirited men, whether landlords or otherwise, who want to take this matter up in a public-spirited way. Many landlords feel this question very deeply, and in a manner which I know is in full accord with a splendid public spirit, and I very much regret the decision of the Treasury, 'which is neither well founded in finance nor calculated to relieve the situation.

In my opinion, the Motion to which we are asked to agree is most retrograde. I realise fully from the remarks made by the Secretary for Scotland that in this particular matter he is under the thumb of the Treasury, and I do not think that he sympathises at all with the Amendment which he is moving. I cannot understand the attitude of the Treasury on this occasion. It is not a case of the expenditure of more money. It is merely a case of extending the term of the loan, increasing slightly the amount of the loan, and, further, providing that the rate at which loans should be made should be upon a minimum basis. The question of loans by local authorities to private persons affects the whole issue of rural housing in Scotland. I have on former occasions moved Amendments providing that Grants should be made to private persons, but that has been ruled out of order. Therefore, the next best thing is loans to private persons which they would be able to take up, which would be provided at such rates as to enable them to make use of them. How are we going to deal with this rural housing problem in Scotland unless the private person is able to step in and improve the houses or even to erect new houses upon his estate? It is not possible for the local authorities in Scotland to take this matter up and deal with it effectively. Scottish conditions differ very largely in respect of rural housing from those in England. In Scotland we have large scattered areas, where the people are bound to live more or less in solitary conditions. I know that some hon. Members on the Labour Benches would like to see village settlements—I agree with that entirely—and that all the farm servants should congregate in these settlements; but, with the paucity of population which exists in many of these scattered areas in Scotland, it is not possible to set up the village settlement as is possible in the same way south of the border. In these large areas with a scattered population it is necessary to provide for shepherds on the hillside and ploughmen and others who cannot and will not walk many miles to their work from these village settlements.

May I remind the hon. Member that the only point which is under discussion at present is as to whether the amount of the loan to be given should be 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. That has nothing to do with shepherds' cottages.

I submit to your ruling, but if the amount is reduced it makes it all the harder for private proprietors to deal with this question of houses upon their estates. I regard this as a most retrograde proposal. I am not prepared to accept this Amendment, not because I believe that the Secretary for Scotland does not sympathise with the retention of the Sub-sections involved, but I suggest that we should divide against the Amendment in order to indicate to the Treasury that what they propose to do will affect the utility of the Bill from the point of view of rural housing in Scotland.

I also am extremely sorry that the Secretary for Scotland has felt compelled to reduce the amount from 80 per cent. to 75 per cent. I took an active part in this matter in the Committee upstairs. The suggestion there was that the amount should be 90 per cent., though 80 per cent. was proposed, and the Secretary for Scotland offered to consider the question of 80 per cent. with the conditions which he attached. I advised my friends to accept that offer, rather than press for 85 per cent., in the hope that it would go through. I share with them their fears with regard to rural housing, that with this limitation of the amount to be advanced for the purpose of improving or erecting houses on the estates to 75 per cent., and with the reduction of the period of repayment from fifty to forty years and the other limitations in financing a very hard blow is struck at rural housing. I quite agree with all that has been said as to the appalling conditions of housing in Scotland. I do not know how long we are going to be trailed at the tail of England in this matter, and why we should not strike out here against the Treasury conditions. We can urge that the special conditions in Scotland, as revealed by the Reports of the Housing Commission, represent a condition much worse than anything in England, and therefore better provision should be made in granting advances to private persons for the improvement of houses in Scotland, and that there should be a differentiation between the rates in Scotland and in England. The heavens would not fall if this extra concession were made to Scotland. The Treasury would recover from the blow; I am sure it would not paralyse the Treasury. There is perfect security here. Perhaps the Secretary for Scotland will give us some assurance that he will reconsider this matter. If he is going to press his Amendment, I would invite hon. Members to go into the Division Lobby against it, and so stiffen the back of the Secretary for Scotland to make a stronger plea with the Treasury and to urge the Treasury to give greater facilities for Scotland under the special conditions in which we are placed. Hopes were dashed in one respect in that advances could not be made to private persons. In Committee upstairs I thought that that was a dangerous course to follow, but I was hoping that under this provision for the extension of the period of repayment of loan and for the advance of the amount to 80 per cent. a way would be paved for a great reform in rural housing in Scotland.

By leave of the House I would add a few sentences in reply to the points raised. I would invite the House to exercise a sense of proportion in this matter. One would have thought, from the speeches delivered in some quarters, that the Government had decided that there could be no loans to private owners, and that the whole system which the Bill provided in that particular was to be destroyed. Really, all that we are discussing is the terms upon which these loans are to be granted. I quite agree with what my right hon. Friend opposite said, that the assistance of public-spirited private persons would be welcomed in the matter of housing in Scotland, as well as the exertions of local authorities, but I, for one, absolutely re-fuse to believe that the public-spirited person in Scotland would decline to go in for a housing scheme merely because the limitation is 75 per cent. instead of 80 per cent., and the period of repayment forty years instead of fifty years. I venture to suggest that the importance of these limitations has been considerably exaggerated from the practical point- of view. I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that the public-spirited person would not be deterred from the enterprise by the change I am seeking to make in the Bill. It is quite obvious that I am suffering for the precipitancy, the unwarranted precipitancy, which I displayed in Committee in accepting this Amendment instead of resisting it, but my hon. Friends will bear me out that that acceptance was provisional and conditional upon consulta- tion with the Treasury. I think the House is inclined to take too mean a view of the value of this Clause, even after acceptance of my Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend described it as camouflage. I cannot agree with him when I remember that there is a similar Clause in the Bill for England. Surely hon. Members will agree that a Clause which is regarded as entirely satisfactory in England cannot reasonably or accurately be described as unsatisfactory in Scotland. The Clause for England is satisfactory so far as I have read the Debates of the Committee.

Would the right hon. Gentleman state what is the exact rate on loans for forty years?

That is an impossible question for me to answer. That must be fixed by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. It always has been, and, I presume, always will be in the future. My hon. and gallant Friend will probably agree that that must be so.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the essential difference between the conditions in England and in Scotland. In the former case, where village communities prevail, the local authority will, no doubt, deal with the provision, of houses. In Scotland, where there are very few communities of that kind, housing must be the concern of private persons, and, therefore, there should be more generous treatment provided

I agree that that distinction does apply to certain parts of England and to certain parts of Scotland, but hon. Members will agree with me that the conditions in the North of England approximate to, if they are not identical with, those in rural Scotland, and I am informed—I do not speak from personal knowledge—that the conditions in Central

I beg to move, to leave out the words

"provided that—

(a) the maximum period for the repayment of the loan shall be fifty years;

(b) the provisions of Section (3). paragraph (a) of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, shall apply to loans to private persons."

I do not propose to move this Amendment for the following reason. I understand that a similar Amendment to that which I have put on the Paper is now a matter of controversy between the two Houses on the English Bill, and I think the proper course to adopt is to leave this Amendment over meanwhile and probably in another place adopt the terms of the Amendment which may finally be adopted as the result of consultation between the two Houses.

I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words

"in regard to which a town-planning scheme may be made under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909."

This Clause requires certain local authorities within a certain period to prepare town-planning schemes, with reference to any land within the area of the local authority. Section 54 and the other provisions of the Act of 1909 limit the land which may be town-planned to land which is in course of development, or which appears to be likely to be used for building purposes. It is not intended that local authorities should be required to town- plan land which is not of that character, and these words are proposed to be added to the Clause to make that clear.

I beg to move, after paragraph (d), to insert

"(e) The number of storeys in a tenement containing houses, and the arrangements of such tenements in blocks or otherwise;

(f) The provision of open spaces about houses."

This is designed to give effect to certain suggestions made by my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean) when the Bill was in the Committee stage. I ventured to put before the Committee that it was not absolutely essential that these words should be inserted, because I thought they were covered by the provisions of the Bill. Since then I have looked into the matter again, and I think perhaps there is a little doubt as to whether, apart from the insertion of these words, the points which my right hon. Friend pressed upon me would be sufficiently met. In order that there should toe no doubt about them I have put this Amendment on the Paper.

I beg to move, to leave out the words "Every local authority," and to insert instead thereof the words "The local authority of every district other than a burgh."

This Amendment and the next are intended, taken together, to remedy an inconsistency which was pointed out in Committee between the new by-law power as it would exist in burghs and in counties respectively. The Amendment makes the provision of these by-laws identical in town and in country districts.

The Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) and of the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson)—[to insert proviso in Schedule 2]—would impose a charge, and is therefore not in order.

I should like to say first of all how much we appreciate the courtesy and ability with which tae Secretary for Scotland and those associated with him have conducted the proceedings on this Bill. It has been no light task, because those who know anything at all about the law know how the intricacy of the existing Acts and the very complex administration, which also had to be taken into account, have constituted a labour which required not only ability but good-will to push them through to a successful conclusion. In a matter of this kind we always say, and with justice on this occasion, that we wish the scheme had been a larger and a better one, but such as it is I frankly admit it is a very considerable step towards such a state of things as will finally solve the worst housing problem in the whole of the United Kingdom, which I say, without hesitation, obtains in Scotland—far worse than in England. The statistics which were given on the Second Reading are enough to shock the sense of patriotism and to bring a touch of shame to the cheeks of all Scotsmen to know that such a condition of things still obtains in Scotland. I should like my right hon. Friend, when he replies, to tell us if he can what has been done, how many schemes have been approved, to what extent those schemes are in actual operation, and if a single house has yet been completed under them. I fear the position in Scotland is the same as it is in England. Notwithstanding all our promises and bright hopes last autumn, not a single house has under these Government schemes yet been officially delivered to the nation. Difficulties, I know, there have been and still are, but it is no excuse really and fundamentally. The urgency is so great. Very definite stops should have been taken much earlier, and we are now face to face with a serious position. Complicated as it is by our social unrest, the position with regard to housing, the delay in getting on with it, the fact that there are no houses yet delivered, is a matter which is, I fear, one which lies at the root of a considerable portion of the unrest which is rampant throughout the country.

I want to pass from that to deal with the question of the water supply. My right hon. Friend anticipated that I would put down an Amendment, and I fully intended so to do, on the Report stage to reopen this question, but after consideration I thought it might lead to very considerable discussion and unnecessary expenditure of time, and I feared that the result would be to leave the position just as it was before such a discussion took place. I therefore wish to refer to it as briefly as possible on the occasion of the Third Reading. What I desired to do was to give power, if possible, to small authorities who were pledged by themselves, and compelled by the State, to furnish new houses, within reasonable limits to require great authorities, which had already acquired the water-sheds, to supply them with the water vitally necessary for these housing schemes to be carried into operation. I regretted to find that that was practically outside the scope of the Bill. It could not be done. The other attempt I made was to secure that these local authorities should have swift and economical access to supplies of water which were untouched by any existing water authority, and I quoted the pre- cedent in the English Housing Bill, which, I thought, went a long way towards that end; but, on consideration, I have come to the conclusion that there are existing in Scotland already, not ample, but at any rate very nearly ample, powers for that to be accomplished, with this drawback, that where a Provisional Older, which any local authority can get, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, to acquire such water supply, is obtained where you have the landowner refusing, or whoever else has the right to refuse, he can drive the local authority to the floor of this House by compelling an order, which must be laid in the usual way, and is open of course to acceptance or rejection by either House of Parliament. That is an expensive and a heart-breaking prospect for the local authorities. I am glad, ever, to know, on investigation, that only in a very few cases has it been found necessary to bring a landowner to a proper sense of his public duty, and I hope that the much increased pressure of public opinion will reduce the risk of these Provisional Orders being carried through this House to a minimum. Still, there is very considerable room for improvement with regard to that, and I hope my right, hon. Friend will bear that whole question in mind.

But we all agree that that is only a very niggling way, so to speak, of dealing with the whole problem. The only effective way of dealing with the problem is that recommended by the Royal Commission, and endorsed by all citizens of common sense who know anything about Scotland, or indeed about England, and that is that

"A survey of the whole water assets of Scotland should be made with a view to ascertaining and recording in a Government register what are the available supplies for the use of the inhabitants, and to what areas such supplies should be directed. There is at present no co-ordination."

Then they give a remarkable instance, which I will quote again:

"In Mid-Lanark there arc no fewer than five large water undertakings in operation, each independent of the other, and having their source of supply not far removed from each other. The main pipes of several of these undertakings run side by side for many miles in the public highways."

I repeat it, because there is nothing like rubbing this in, so that the public should be informed of the present ridiculous position. There is common assent on the part of all those who know anything about the question that this matter of the water survey is of the very greatest importance. It will have another result, I am quite sure. In Scotland, as we now, in normal years, at any rate, there is no lack of water, and the water supplies of Scotland can be, I am quite confident, not only adapted to the needs of housing, but are quite capable of enormous extension for industrial uses, so that this survey, which we are all urging on the Government, should be taken immediately. It would not only be very useful—indeed it becomes vitally necessary—for the supply to houses, but would have, I am sure, a very beneficial reaction on the industrial development of Scotland, not only in the great centres of urban work, but also throughout the whole country.

With regard to the recommendations that have been made by the Royal Commission, I am glad to acknowledge that a very large number of them have been supported in the Bill, and while we thought the Bill, as originally presented, did not deal with quite a number of the points, I am glad to acknowledge that, as the Bill was going through Committee, a large number of improvements were made, and I want to say this at once, that the work in Committee was done by all parties—everybody was really bent on a common purpose—to improve the Bill as far as they possibly could. There are still one or two points which are outstanding in that respect, and which I would like to urge on my right hon. Friend. There is, first of all, the water, and then I do think power should have been taken in connection with the combination of authorities for carrying out a proper and adequate scheme, and, indeed, for the future water supply. I hope I am right in stating—I have not been able to check the figures myself—that there arc no less than eighty borough authorities in Scotland, and forty-six of these are under 3,000 population. That shows with what position they are faced. The smaller authorities cannot grapple with great schemes which are really necessary. I hope there will be, in some future proposal at all events, a provision for proper means of combination. You can do a great deal by agreement, but still, after proper inquiry is made, there should be some power of going even as far as compulsion, because often we know how really most useful schemes are stopped by petty rivalries on the part of bodies in their desire to perpetuate feuds, which may be-very interesting, but are essentially minor, and stop real, genuine public improvements. I suggest that something might be borne in mind in regard to that.

Another point which certainly appeals tome very strongly as a lawyer is the very urgent need of codification of the law in these matters. In Committee there was a vista opened up of Statute's old and new, of administrative orders, of practices grown up into almost the authority of Statute law. Not only a competent but a, highly skilled man who specialises in these matters can painfully wend his way through the maze of legal intricacies with which the whole of the law of local administration seems to be overgrown in regard to certain Departments. The need for codification of the law relating to this great topic is not merely pressing from the point of view of those people dealing specially with these questions, but really is an urgent public matter, because—and this is the last point on which I shall dwell—unless we have an informed public opinion in regard to carrying through these reforms which are overshadowed by these legislative enactments, they will fail of their high purpose. It is the driving force of public opinion which alone makes these things possible through this House, and on to the Statute Book. You can only achieve this by letting the people know what is the position. There is growing up, and has grown up, not only an educational interest in public administration, but there are growing up young men and young women who arc quite competent to read an Act of Parliament which deals with a question itself without reference to other Acts, and that awful legislation by reference. The need for codification is not only because of those who are handling problems of this sort, but because we require a thoroughly well-informed public opinion. In this respect I hope I am rather pushing an open door when I urge—perhaps vehemently, as I do—upon my right hon. Friend that in the course of the next few months something might be done, or at least something commenced, so that next Session codification might be really effectively dealt with.

I am thankful, as we all are thankful, I think, that we have arrived at the Third Reading of this Bill. I hope it will swiftly be placed on the Statute Book. I again repeat, Statutes are of little or no avail unless there is a high-minded public opinion behind them. I hope that throughout Scotland there will not be the doubtful benefit of considering that the public authorities are the only people to attend to this work. Such a spirit tends to undermine the whole of our social system. What is the State? Is it the Government in Whitehall, or Edinburgh, or the great municipalities, or the parish councils? These are not the State. The State is the individual. I am terrified—I say it quite frankly—wheh I see this constant devolution of the matter of individual responsibility, Really, I am frightened by it. I hope, at any rate, that whatever we may do in other respects in the solving of these problems of great, deep, vital urgency, that every person will regard their own individual responsibility in these matters. I trust they will say, "This is our job. It is for us to see that these things arc done." I trust no one will say that when a Statute is put on the Book, or an Act of Parliament created embodying a new scheme, that the thing is done. In the real sense it has not begun, or only begun. Things are not in active operation when we have only set up the machinery, and that machinery is no use unless we have the driving force embodied in the individual responsibility of people realising the State is themselves—that we are the State. It is our business to recognise our civic responsibility—to see that such a measure as this does not fall short of its beneficent intentions.

With my hon. Friend who has just spoken, I very heartily join in congratulating the Secretary for Scotland on having reached the end of his labours. I also thank him for the manner in which he has conducted the proceedings throughout. This is a very large measure—a much larger measure than perhaps a casual reading of it would suggest. It will involve an enormous financial responsibility, and very heavy burdens indeed. No doubt, as time goes on, we shall get urban houses in the urban districts, both large and small. But the measure seriously fails in meeting the difficulties of rural housing. These difficulties are greatly aggravated by the present financial position—the double disadvantage owing to the high rates of money and the very high taxation on the individual persons who have to pay these rates. I fear from this cause, and not from any other, the right hon. Gentleman will be prevented doing what he would like in regard to rural housing. Before this Debate finishes, I trust he will be able to give us some little information about the schemes already put forward. I know of many already more or less settled. In my own county they have been settled. All it was in our power to sanction have been sanctioned. I do not know how the financial difficulty is to be overcome. At the present time local authorities are asking from their bankers sums of money for these and other purposes. It is perfectly impossible for the bankers to tie up their money in this way, with due regard to their other obligations and the safety and security of their banking transactions. There is too great a disposition at the present time on the part of the Government authorities to think that the money for these schemes can be found either in that way or by local effort. I do not believe it can be found in that way. You are up against that difficulty, which is not, so far as I can see, an easy one to overcome. It will, I have every hope, be overcome subsequently in a way which, perhaps, is not very possible at the present moment.

The difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman has raised about the water supply is, of course, a very great one. Where there are large numbers of local and urban authorities there is a certain co-ordination in this respect, and a large number are included in the district committees of the counties. They do not independently deal with the matter or that of the county police, etc. This particular matter is not quite so bad as it looks. I know of a good many cases in which there is duplication. It would be a very great benefit if what is suggested could be done by various of these authorities, for such co-ordinated schemes would certainly save money. There is plenty of water, no doubt, in Scotland, but the difficulty is storage for it, and that will cost money. It is not the water that costs the money but the provision of storage, and there will be great difficulties in regard to the cost of land. We know that sometimes ridiculous prices have to be paid for land for these purposes, and I hope that will be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill which I hope we shall sec one of these days. We still have this very great expense in connection with storage. I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman referred at all to the question of rural housing, and I do not know how he feels with regard to it. I know he will be willing to make the terms as easy as possible. I know that, equally with myself, he regards as important the fact that the advances have been limited, and that the period of time over which the repayment is to take place has been greatly reduced. There is a very great difference between forty and fifty years in this matter, and, in view of the present rates of interest on the capital payments, they should be reduced to the lowest possible limit in order that the burden should not be too heavy. I have never thought that the Government were quite justified in taking up the lines they did in regard to advances to private persons.

First of all, I should like to join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Secretary for Scotland upon the way in which he has conducted this Bill through all its stages. I am sure we are all very much indebted to him for the way in which he has met us upon the various points, and the courteous manner in which he has dealt with them. There is one point which I think he has not dealt with, or, at any rate, he has not been able to deal with, perhaps, on account of the Treasury objection, and that is the question of rural housing. My hon. Friend who has just sat down has stated very clearly what the situation is with regard to that, but I should like to supplement his remarks from the point of view of the proposal which has been made by the. Secretary for Scotland, that private proprietors can and will be in a position to form themselves into public utility societies to get over their particular difficulties. The Secretary for Scotland told us in the Scottish Grand Committee that landowners could quite well combine and form a public utility society to improve rural housing conditions, that it was quite simple, and that he knew of no insuperable objection to its adoption.

What is the actual formation of a public utility society? First of all, the tenants will be entitled, if not required, to be shareholders of the society on equal terms. They can elect a tenants committee, and there is security of tenure, and the tenant can only be given notice to quit for non-payment of rent or bad debts. Supposing a number of proprietors in the neighbourhood form a public utility society upon these lines. Their express object would be to form that society with the object of erecting or improving houses on their estate. Would it be a practical thing for tenants who are farm servants and shop-herds and others to become members of the public utility society which they would be entitled to do. The point which arises is that of security of tenure. We all know that there are good servants and bad servants, and there are always black sheep among the farm servants and shepherds. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are black sheep among the landlords!"] Yes; I know there are, and I quite agree. Supposing a. public utility society is formed and houses arc erected for that purpose, and the farmer wishes to engage another shepherd. That shepherd may say, "I have security of tenure, and I intend to stay on." In that case you cannot turn him out. That is a difficult point which is inseparable in connection with proprietors or farms forming a utility society. I think that is a complete answer to the suggestion that proprietors should form public utility societies, and if they do so they will be able to compete with what is necessary for rural housing in Scotland.

There is Clause 18.

As the Bill stands, proprietors have to depend upon Clause 18, which provides for loans to private persons, which we have just had reduced in a considerable manner, whatever my right hon. Friend may say. Incidentally, I was interested to hear the Leader of the Independent Liberal Opposition state that he believed in individual enterprise, and did not believe in shuffling all responsibilities on to the local authorities, and notwithstanding this he went into the Lobby a short time ago against an Amendment which was intended to assist private individual enterprise and to prevent them shuffling all these duties upon local authorities. We have now to accept what is contained in this Bill with regard to-housing in Scotland, but it does not provide for rural housing in the way that it should, and I believe that when its provisions have been in force for not a very long time there will be further public clamour in Scotland to amend it in such a way as to give better provision for rural housing.

Another point that has arisen in connection with the Bill on its Third Reading is in respect to water supply. I believe it is necessary, if housing is to be effective in Scotland, that some measures should be taken to place at people's disposal, especially in rural areas, such water supplies as are available. But even the Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland were not able to deal with that subject within the four corners of their very efficient Report. I venture once more to make a proposal which I submitted in the Scottish Grand Committee, that a Royal Commission should be set up as soon as possible in order to go into this question thoroughly in Scotland, and to advise what can and should be done to co-ordinate these water supplies. I believe that, if such a Commission were set up, under the chairmanship of the gentleman who sat as chairman of the Royal Commission on Housing, who has very great knowledge of these subjects, and who during that Commission had opportunities of getting still more knowledge, it would be possible to obtain a Report within the space of, say, six months which would be very useful and helpful and upon which the Government might be able to act. I should like once more to congratulate the Secretary for Scotland on having got through this Bill. I believe it is a Bill which will go far in burgh areas to solve the housing problem.

I was exceedingly sorry to see even that small minority a few minutes ago, because, as far as I have been able to judge, the right hon. Gentleman who has been conducting this Bill has done so sympathetically and with consideration for all the parties interested. But if rural housing is to become an accomplished fact—and those who are most intimately acquainted with rural housing know best the need for it—I fear that, so far as this Bill is concerned, we have not yet solved the problem. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has, I believe, done his very best to consult all the interests concerned, and has endeavoured, as far as possible, to bring within the limits of this Bill a scheme that will provide what was promised by the Leaders of the Coalition party. I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having provided in the Bill accommodation for seasonal workers. Those who know agriculture best, and know the condition of things which attaches to the coming of agricultural labourers from Ireland and other districts for limited periods to work on farms, know the scandal that that life in the past has been, and that it would cause all those interested in the moral welfare of the people to blush for shame. I think that this Bill will solve in a very great measure the difficulties that have pertained to this kind of work in the past.

Another point that has been raised is that of water supplies, and I hope that something will be done to provide water for those rural houses situated miles away from any source of supply. There is no possibility of having a water system that will supply all the rural districts, but there are cases where there is water a few hundred yards away from houses which absolutely need it, but where, owing to its not being the property of the person building the house or houses, it is not possible to obtain a supply on reasonable terms. If the acquisition of land includes the acquisition of water, I should be thoroughly satisfied, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be able to assure us that that is so.

The answer is in the affirmative; it certainly does.

I am very pleased indeed to hear that, because those who know the country as I know it, know that, not-withstanding all the water that we hear about in Scotland, there is probably no other country in the United Kingdom where provision for the laying on of water in rural districts has in the past been so much neglected. In future I hope that these cottages will have the same privileges which obtain in the towns at the present time. In conclusion, I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill for the manner in which he has led us to this point, and I trust that he will endeavour to see that the Local Government Board for Scotland uses every bit of momentum that can be obtained to get on with housing. I think that in the other House a Noble Lord said the other day, in regard to afforestation, that what they wanted to do was not to discuss afforestation but to dig holes and plant trees. What we want to do is to get on with the building of houses at the earliest possible moment.

I think the Scottish public may well be gratified that the promises which the Coalition made at the election have so rapidly fructified in honest and sincere legislation. I am sure this Bill will produce a good effect. So far as legislation goes the Government have fulfilled their promise fully and honestly. I should like to echo most sincerely every word which the right hon Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said with regard to the need for codification. I gathered from the motion of the head which the Secretary for Scotland made that he generally believes in the necessity for codification, and I hope that the Scottish Office has that great and important question under consideration at this moment. I also echo what he said with regard to the necessity of unifying action, if necessary by compulsion, in order to drive the activities of different local authorities in one direction. This, of course, is only the machinery, as various Members have said. That is profoundly true, and everything depends upon the spirit in which that machinery is worked; and I am sure his Scottish colleagues will join in congratulating the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Glasgow on taking office under the Secretary for Scotland in such an important position at the Scottish Office, where, as I believe, he will have under his particular change the future of Scottish housing. I only wish that in addition to that hon. Member there had been in the Scottish Office, or connected with it, some gentleman of "push and go," a gentleman of tact and imagination and of endless perseverance and energy, such as the Minister of Health enjoys in the person of my hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield. What he has already done with regard to English housing, and particularly housing in London, is, I think, not sufficiently known to Members of this House. I believe it was only yesterday when one of the local authorities in London which had refused to have anything to do with the housing schemes of the Government was visited by my hon. Friend, and after discussion it unanimously rescinded its resolution and immediately proceeded on the right lines. I hope my hon. Friend will keep in mind the necessity for having some man of "push and go" of his own in Scotland, or else get in close touch with the hon. Member for the Brightside Division. I want to say only one thing more. It is necessary that the local authorities should be encouraged and not discouraged. My right hon. Friend will forgive me for giving him one particular instance which is in my mind. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent there is a town which requires at once twenty houses. The local authority have planned two streets. They have laid down the streets, they have laid the drains and have everything ready for building the houses. Then an emissary of the Secretary for Scotland comes round and says: "I see you have everything ready in Street A and Street B, drains clown and streets prepared, but you are not going to build your twenty houses there, don't you think it; you have got to go over to this entirely undeveloped site, and put your houses in that position." In these days of economy, when local authorities should be encouraged and not discouraged by incidents of that kind, I trust that my hon. Friend will see that in all matters of administration the greatest tact and sympathy are always exhibited towards local authorities, and such needless waste of public money avoided in the future.

I do not wish to add to the embarrassments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, who has had handed to him this morning so many compliments, but I do wish to acknowledge the unfailing tact and courtesy which he has exhibited all through the passage of this Bill in its various stages. I have to acknowledge that particularly, because on one occasion I put down what I believed to be one of the most important Amendments in the Bill and he was good enough to accept it. As representing an important industrial constituency in Scotland, I very cordially welcome this Bill, and, having regard to the lateness of the hour and the other business, I only wish to offer one or two observations to the House. In various speeches a great deal has been said about various matters which really are not in the Bill at all, and I want to confine my observations to what is in the Bill. What does this Bill do? It imposes certain obligations upon the Government, upon the Local Government Board, and upon public authorities. You cannot impose obligations of that nature without creating a corresponding right. The corresponding right which is created in this case is that every working-class family in. Scotland has the right to demand a decent and suitable house. That involves a tremendous obligation and responsibility, especially upon the Department administered by my right hon. Friend. Up to its present stage it cannot be said that this Bill has not been very fully debated. I think every line, every word, every comma, has been the subject of discussion, and as a new Member it has been a revelation to me that my fellow Members from Scotland possess eloquence and debating power in such a high degree as they have exhibited, especially in Committee. I have no doubt that all those speeches were delivered with a single eye to the good of the country and the benefit of this Bill. I am sure Members had no other object in view in making those speeches. I have only two observations to make about the Bill. The first is that I am extremely sorry the first cost of the houses is to be increased by what I regard as an unfortunate and inequitable system of acquiring the land on which the houses are to be built; but that matter is settled and is now beyond all power of interference. The second observation is the urgency of the position regarding housing in Scotland. This requires no reiteration and no further emphasis on my part, but I do know that the local authorities in my own Constituency of the Dunfermline Burghs are looking forward to the coining winter with the gravest possible concern, as many other local authorities are doing in Scotland. It is, therefore, up to my right hon. Friend to show in his administration of this Bill that he means business. This House has placed in his hands possibly the greatest instrument for remedial legislation in Scotland which the House of Commons has ever passed. The responsibility now rests upon him, and I hope he will not allow any officialism of any kind to stand in the way of furthering this legislation and getting houses actually built. The people are very much alive to this question, and it has a great deal to do with the prevailing unrest in Scotland and elsewhere. Now I have said all I want to say except this. We have had a great deal of speech-making and talk, and I think it is time that we finished the talking. In heaven's name, let us get on with the work of building houses!

I should not have intervened at all in the Debate at this late hour but for the fact that it would be unfortunate from some minor points of view if the Labour Members did not express their appreciation of the manner in which we have succeeded, as Scottish Members, in carrying this Bill through Committee, and acknowledge at the same time the very generous treatment we have received at the hands of the Scottish Secretary and Solicitor-General. There are only one or two points I desire to make in view of the discussion that has taken place. We placed a very large number of Amendments on the Order Paper. The aim and object of those Amendments was to secure the incorporation in this Bill of as large a number of the recommendations of the Royal Commission as possible. No Scotsman, whether acquainted or unacquainted with the course of public affairs in his country, has failed to appreciate the significance of that document, which is not only a great study of social and economic conditions in Scotland within recent times, but also an indication of the course of much of our legislation, besides the legislation that we have particularly under debate this afternoon. I am willing to admit that we did not draft these Amendments always in the most scientific way, but I am glad to think that, as a result perhaps, of their appearing on the Order Paper, they have been incorporated in one form or another in the measure which is now about to pass to another place.

The three points to which I want to refer are these: First, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition alluded—as I thought rather unfortunately—to the powers and responsibilities of the local authorities and indicated that we must not in Scotland or elsewhere rely too exclusively upon them. It is singularly unfortunate that we should be asked to rely so much upon individual responsibility in this matter. We cannot forget that private enterprise in housing has had tremendous chances for many years in our history, that the very burden of the Report of the Royal Commission was to the effect that private enterprise had largely broken down and that it must be to a considerable degree the duty and responsibility of the State. This Bill means in Scotland, as in England, a dividing line between an economic past and present and that we have to fasten upon the State through the local authorities the responsibility for dealing with this urgent problem. Even so the point made by the right hon. Gentleman is met to this extent, that within the structure of this Bill, which leaves no room for evasion in the solution of this problem, there is a provision with regard to the private individual, the public utility society, and so on. Therefore the criticism on that ground from his own point of view rather fails.

The second point I desire to make is that I associate myself strongly with hon. Members who have expressed the view that this Bill is weak in the matter of rural housing, although I differ very largely from the line of remedy they would adopt. In the matter of rural housing in Scotland the responsibility is equally clear for the local authority, be it county council or district committee, and there is also a place for the public utility society, if it can get to work. Beyond that, they sought to incorporate in the Bill proposals which have amounted to giving Grants of public money to individual people for the purpose of erecting houses. Our contention from these benches is that that is not the best or the proper way to go about the rural housing problem. My view of the weakness of the Bill deals with the fact that the Royal Commission itself outlined a more or less comprehensive programme for rural districts. There were rather more than thirty definite recommendations, some of which are incorporated in the Bill, but a very large number of which are not incorporated. Our suggestion was that there might have been a rural department of this measure, which would have linked up with all that was best and desirable in those recommendations and would have gone far to meet the point of view of hon. Members who have considered that the Bill is weak on this side.

3.0 P.M.

My third consideration is from the point of view of industrial unrest in Scotland during the coming winter. It is a matter of satisfaction to all Scottish Members that at this hour, acute as the industrial conditions are in some parts of Scotland, they are not so acute as in many parts of England which are now ravaged by industrial unrest. But we do feel strongly that unless measures of sound reconstruction are forthcoming immediately there is likely to be during the coming winter a very serious state of affairs in many of the large Scottish urban localities. Time and again the local authorities have been pressed to get done with debate and discussion of housing schemes and to see the houses actually in process of erection. If we can start at the earliest possible moment under this Bill, there is a chance that the very fact that the schemes have been approved and passed will secure employment in many spheres which are wailing for development at this time. We get the first security of a provision as regards employment, and beyond that we got a definite, precise knowledge on the part of the people that something is actually being done for their benefit when they see these houses in the course of erection. From that point of view I attach a significance to this Bill, rightly or wrongly, which extends far beyond its immediate Clauses. I believe it is bound up with all that is best in Scottish social and economic progress, and I am glad, as a Labour Member, to associate myself with the tributes to all those who have been primarily responsible for its passage through Committee and this House.

I do not agree that the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) has spoken the last word on this matter. I wish to place before the House a point of view which has not yet been mentioned. I would join in the hearty congratulations which have been showered on the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has conducted this Bill. I share the belief that the Bill is going to do a great deal of good throughout Scotland, especially in urban Scotland—the towns and cities. I am not at all sure that it is going to effect such a tremendous revolution in the rural parts of Scotland, especially in those parts which I more immediately represent. I noticed in the papers this morning that one of the Ministerial boxes in which certain great documents have been locked up has been opened. I have read the speech of the Secretary of State for War at a dinner given to a party—I do not know how they describe themselves. The only thing I know about them is that they dined, and no doubt dined well. They are called the Centre Party. The most important thing that the Secretary of State for War said was that the constitution of this party was short and obscure. In this Hill the position of the crofter, the cottar, the squatter and the rural worker generally is certainly obscure. The Secretary for Scotland admitted that the position of the crofter is obscure. It is all very well to say that on all local authorities has been placed a responsibility to produce a scheme for all the working classes in their areas. Those acquainted with the crafting areas of Scotland know too well that under the system of land tenure it will be very difficult to apply this Bill when if, becomes an Act. Measures of social reform, such as the Insurance Act and the Act dealing with tuberculosis, have a trick of passing over the heads of the people in the crofting areas. I know there is an alternative to the Bill, to say that through the Board of Agriculture the crofters and people of the rural community can be helped. But through the Board of Agriculture they can only get assistance by way of loan, and in that sense they are placed at a disadvantage compared with the worker in the town, who obtains not only a loan but a free grant. I do not sec how it is that the people in the crofting areas should be placed at a disadvantage in that respect as compared with workers in the towns. I hope in drawing up rules and regulations, the Secretary for Scotland will see to it that this Bill will become a real living force in the crofting areas, and, whether through the administration of the local authorities or through the Board of Agriculture, the 6,000 or 7,000 new houses which the housing Commission said were necessary will be provided.

I desire first of all, in words which are conventional but none the less sincere, to express my grateful thanks to my hon. Friends who have said so many kind things about me, and to thank my colleagues in the House for the uniform help and goodwill with which they have supported the passage of the Bill in Standing Committee and also on the Floor of the House Many Amendments have been accepted, with the result, I am free to admit, that this is a better and a stronger Bill than it was when it was introduced. That is partly what I mean when I express my indebtedness to my colleagues for their support and help in passing and improving the Bill. My right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) asked what has already been accomplished in the matter of housing even before this Bill reaches the Statute Book. I can give one or two. figures which have reached me in the weekly report for the week ending 19th July, from which I find that of building-site schemes there have been eighteen approved, representing something like an acreage of 1,311 acres, for the erection of 14,948 houses, of lay-out schemes there have been sixty-five approved up to date, embracing an area of 468 acres, and of site-plans, in respect of schemes submitted by thirty-five local authorities, approval has been given involving the erection of 12,382 houses in all. It will be seen that certain progress has already been made. The difficulties are very great—difficulties of labour, difficulties of material, and difficulties of transport—but every effort is being made to overcome them. It is perhaps worth noting that since this Bill was introduced the Board of Health has been formed. I think it will be a powerful and progressive organisation, and that it will be found in possession of that "push and go" which is no doubt desirable in a Board which has so heavy a task imposed upon it. That there must be some unavoidable delay, from the necessities of the situation, I fear cannot be doubted or disputed. The local authority first looks round to see how many houses are needed, then has to select a site, then to enter into negotiations with the proprietor and finally come to terms with him, get plans drawn up, submit them to the Board and have them approved. I am far from saying there will be delay. I hope there will be no avoidable delay, but I merely indicate these various steps, which are necessary in connection with every scheme that comes up to the Board for approval. I hope there will be no avoidable delay either on the part of the local authority or the Board of Health.

A good deal has been said about subjects which are outside the purview of the Bill, but which are none the less important. For example, my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) spoke of the importance of the water question. We are all agreed about that. In Scotland we have the good fortune to have a simple and inexpensive method by way of Provisional Order under the auspices of the Local Government Board, whereby a water supply can be secured. I am not aware that there is such a system in England. I rather think they have to proceed by way of private Bill. The system of Provisional Order has worked exceedingly well in Scotland. With regard to the wider questions, I quite agree that a survey of the water system of Scotland, whether by way of Royal Commission or otherwise, is eminently desirable, if only for the purpose of securing co-ordination, with the views expressed upon which I cordially agree.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps towards having such a Board of Survey set up?

I will look into the matter and see whether anything can be done administratively. With regard to legislation, my impression is that land is perhaps more pressing than water, although both are important. I hope to introduce a Bill dealing with the land question at an early moment.

Before the Recess?

Yes. My right hon. Friend referred to the question of the codification of the law of housing. I am in entire agreement with him. Nothing but want of time prevents the immediate beginning of the task of codification. I am very anxious that it should be done, and I hope such an opportunity may be afforded me. Certainly it is most desirable in the interests of local authorities and private individuals. A good deal has been said about the duty of local authorities, and my right hon. Friend emphasised that the responsibility of the individual was no less than that of local authorities. I agree with him. But the Royal Commission plainly indicated that the only solution of this question was to be found in making the local authority the instrument of the State in carrying out its policy. I am one of the very last to belittle the duty or the responsibility of the private individual, but still one hopes for a great, deal from the local authorities. I am glad to say that arrangements are being made for a conference with the local authorities at an early date on this particular matter My hon. Friend (Mr. Pratt) has this special duty remitted to him, and I understand during the Recess ho will make it his business to interview local authorities on the question of housing, with the same happy results in Scotland I hope, as were pointed out by my hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw) who spoke about the useful intervention of my hon. Friend (Sir T. Walters) in England. It would be of immense advantage if some of my hon. Friends, when the House rises in August, would find an opportunity of making speeches upon this subject in their constituencies.

When are we going to get there?

I presume the hon. Member for the Western Isles is going back to his constituency, and he will have an admirable opportunity of making a speech in Stornoway. No doubt other hon. Members will have opportunities, and will take advantage of them. Some comments have been made upon the shortcomings of the Bill in the matter of rural housing. I do not desire to repeat myself upon that subject, because I have discussed it at very great length in the various stages when the Bill was in the Scottish Grand Committee. I pointed out first that local authorities cannot divest themselves of their responsibility for carrying out suitable and adequate housing schemes in the country any more than they can in the towns. On them the responsibility rests in the first place, and if they do not carry out their responsibility properly then the responsibility will be discharged by the Local Government Board at the expense of the local authority in question. I hope that in very few instances in Scotland—I do not profess to speak with any knowledge of England—will that power which is reserved to the Local Government Board have to be exercised. Let it be clearly understood that the responsibility is upon the local authorities in regard to the country as well as in regard to the towns.

In this connection I would point out that it is possible even in country districts to form public utility societies for the purpose of carrying out housing schemes. It may be difficult. No doubt there are practical difficulties. I was told, in regard to a similar suggestion which I made some time ago in Edinburgh, that one particular society which was anxious to carry out a scheme could not by any possibility be formed into a public utility society. I was told that by a very eminent person who was chairman of the society, but that society is a public utility society to-day. All the practical difficulties have been surmounted. That is an example of what can be done. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. G. Murray) has pointed out some difficulties. I agree that there are difficulties, and at the present moment. I am conferring with the Law Officers with a view to finding out whether these difficulties can be met by way of Regulation or otherwise. I hope they can. I am by no means disturbed on the subject. Though it may be difficult, nevertheless the hon. Member will agree that if it is practicable then the opportunity should be taken advantage of in country districts by landowners and others who are interested in this problem and who want to solve it by way of forming themselves into public utility societies. That matter will be further explored, and I hope that a solution will be found upon those lines.

I am reminded by one of my hon. Friends that a powerful weapon has been placed in my hands under the Bill which the House is about to pass. I entirely agree. I am deeply conscious of the responsibility which is imposed upon the Board which I control for the time being and also upon myself, especially in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh said as to the industrial unrest which prevails, and which may prevail—though I hope not—during the winter months. Particularly in view of that one's responsibility becomes very obvious and very crushing. All I can say is that I and those associated with me will use our best endeavour to see that this machinery—for it is only machinery, as I have been reminded to-day—is put into active operation, to secure, if possible, that there shall be that driving force behind it to which my hon. Friends refer, the driving force of public opinion, and to ensure that neither on the part of the local authorities, nor on the part of the Board will there be any supineness in administering a measure which is vital to the prosperity of the country.

My right hon. Friend has referred to one or two matters which it is well to emphasise before we part with this Bill. There is the question of the codification of the existing law with regard to housing. He said that the difficulty there was that he or his Department had not time to take it in hand. Is it a matter which necessarily lies in his Department? Is it not possible to depute that work to some of his own professional colleagues, who could effectively within a very reasonable time codify the existing law? I do not see why he should retain that in his own Department. I do urge upon him that the codification ought to be gone about at once, so that before these housing schemes come into operation we shall have in our possession a reasonably succinct codification of the existing law in regard to Scottish housing.

I was thinking not only of the time occupied in drafting the measure, but also the time that would be occupied in passing it.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there will be no time wasted in the passing of such a measure?

It would have to go to a Committee of both Houses. I have sat on them myself.

If the hon. Baronet sat on one of these Committees I am sure that it would be brief in its deliberations.

Pretty long.

I am sure that the advice which the hon. Baronet would give to the Committee would be such that it would quickly get through its work. I do urge the Secretary for Scotland to set about this work at once, and see that the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs is put on the Committee, because he wants it.

Of course, I do!

We all want it; everybody in Scotland of all classes, Liberal, Unionist or Labour, agrees that this codification is necessary, and the right hon. Gentleman need have no fear in making his preliminary arrangements and getting along with the work. I freely admit in regard to the Bill itself that I have sat on no Committee during this Session, under the new Sessional arrangements as to Grand Committees, in which any Bill has been move fully and more adequately discussed than this Bill. It is by far and away the best Committee I have sat upon, and I agree that my right hon. friend has been extremely good and extremely courteous in all that he has done in meeting our view. The most urgent question that remains is that of the driving force. My right hon. Friend has given us the number of schemes that have gone through, but he has not yet told us, and I should be glad if he could tell us, of a single house that has been built. We are rising for an Autumn Recess in a few weeks, and we shall be in Recess probably till the early autumn, and what I want to impress upon my right hon. Friend is that we must have driving force behind those schemes. On that point my right hon. Friend is in a worse position than any other Minister of the Crown. He is the most occupied and the worst paid Member of the Government. Scotland is always neglected in the matters of this kind, and it is a standing disgrace to this House—my right hon. Friend acknowledges it because I have heard him make, in this House, the same speech that I am now making—that the Scottish Office is not better manned, and that my right hon. Friend who represents Scotland in this House has not got the advantage of the help which every English Minister has.

What about Ireland?

There are only two Irish Ministers and Ireland is in many respects seriously overstaffed; but that is a point that would be appropriate in an Irish discussion, and, at any rate, my hon. Friend, who represents a Division in London, will agree that on an occasion on which we have an opportunity of discussing the Scottish position, we arc entitled to put our position with the same force as he would put the Irish position if he had the opportunity. The appeal which my hon. Friend has made will he responded to. We are all going into our constituencies and we will take the opportunity as far as we can to stimulate the authorities to make this Bill operative. After all, the responsibility of making it operative rests upon himself, and he could do no greater service to his own constituents than seeing that this Bill is pushed forward with as much energy as possible. I hope that he will not allow this Bi1lto drop into the hands of officials. There are too few officials in the Scottish Department. They are overworked and overburdened and have to take their own way. I hope that he himself will see personally that the Bill, about which we have taken so much trouble, is worked as energetically as possible. Incidentally, it is well to remember, as some hon. Members think that Scotsmen occupy too much time in this House, that, as a result of our discussion in Committee, the House of Lords has accepted certain Amendments to the English Bill, which were passed by us for the Scottish Bill, so that the English Bill is now a better Bill than when it left this House. I hope that my right hon. Friend will follow that up, and see that this Bill is made operative and that when he comes back this Autumn ho will be able to report not only that schemes have been prepared but also that houses have been built.

I am rather doubtful about this Amendment. It seems to me to be a contradiction of what Sub-section (2) contains and really to amount to negativing the Section. What the hon. Member wishes to do is to omit the Section and that would be to negative the whole Bill.

I take the view that to insert this Amendment would be to negative the greater part of Sub-section (2).

I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words,

"Nothing in this Section shall be taken to apply to any industry or branch of industry which was before the War not already established and organised in this country or to any establishment carrying on any such industry or branch of industry."

Sub-section (2) is rather ambiguous in language. It is desired to deal with pre-war industries whether they are carried out in pre-war establishments or in specially adapted establishments. The object of my Amendment is to make the intention of Sub-section (2) perfectly clear. In moving this new Sub-section I wish simply to carry out what I believe to be the intention which the draftsmen had in mind when framing this Bill. That is to limit it to pro-war industries. I think that the House will probably agree on the merits of this limitation, because if the Bill is extended beyond this rather narrow scope it will have a far-reaching effect on employment in conditions which developed during the War, especially the employment of women. This Amendment does not deal only with the question of women. Its object is to make certain that the Bill will in no way affect the employment of dilutees in these new industries and especially the employment of discharged and demobilised soldiers and sailors. I do not for a moment believe that the Labour party will object to the principle of this Amendment, and that they will wish to put any form of labour, which did not take part in active operations in the War, in a position to profiteer in new industries at the expense of those who were fighting by land or sea or of those women who came forward in the hour of national emergency. It is quite possible, unless we put in some such limiting proviso, that in certain industries there may be a certain temptation tending, perhaps, to litigation to try to widen the scope of the Bill. In the Committee discussion the Government told us that any such proviso as this was unnecessary. The Parliamentary Secretary said:

"The view of the Ministry is that it is entirely unnecessary, and that nothing in the Bill has anything to do with new industries."

Further he said,

"The whole object of the Bill is simply to bring back to those establishments carrying on before the War the practices which had been altered."

That is satisfactory so far as it goes. The question is whether the language of the Bill carries that out. I am not a lawyer, but I am sure that to anybody but a lawyer the meaning of the Clause is extremely involved. In a Law Court it will not be possible to quote the opinions given by the Ministers of the Crown in Debate either in Committee or in this House, and it is necessary to make the Bill absolutely beyond doubt in its meaning. We were told that this Bill was practically verbally inspired, that it was the result of seven months' delicate negotiations between employers and trade unions under the close watch of the Government. But the Debate rather showed that the Government and the trade unions may, perhaps, not attach exactly the same sense to the language of the Bill, because, in spite of the Parliamentary Secretary having said that no such limitation was necessary, the hon. Member for Preston, speaking from the Labour point of view, said he was going to vote against the Amendment, believing it to be unnecessary, arid believing that it might be provocative of legislation in future to remove it, but certainly of proceedings in the Law Courts. The only meaning of that is that, in the mind of the hon. Member, there was the idea that this Bill is not limited to pre-war practices, and it will not be satisfactory to one party to the discussion if it is so limited. Surely we ought to make the Bill quite clear in its meaning. We ought to try to avoid litigation. If the House wishes to extend the Bill, let it say so; let it say the Bill is to apply to all industries, but do not let us imagine we have agreement on a form of words, when really the agreement does not apply to what the words cover. If we extend the Bill to apply to new industries, we shall, I believe, bring about a great injustice and a handicap of certain classes of labour which have done valuable service during the War.

On a point of Order, I would suggest that this Bill does not apply to new industries, and I respectfully submit that the Amendment is not within the scope of the Bill. The title of the Bill is

"To make provision with respect to the restoration after the present War of certain trade practices, and to amend the law relating to munitions tribunals."

It is only pre-war practices that are mentioned, but the hon. Member is now talking of new industries. I respectfully submit, therefore, that, the Amendment is not in order.

It is puzzling, I am bound to admit. The Bill is intended to apply to practices which were established before the War. The hon. and gallant Member says there is some doubt in the phraseology of this Section as to whether that limitation is established by this Bill or not. I understand he is proposing this Amendment in order to clear up such doubts. Before I give any decision I would like to hear the views of the -Minister of Labour on that point. If it is quite clear that the Amendment is unnecessary because it says nothing beyond what is m the Bill, I should be justified in ruling it out. If there is any doubt in the lauguage of the Bill, the hon. and gallant Member would be entitled to move the Amendment in order to set the doubt at rest.

I do not wish in any way to press the Amendment, except to make the meaning of the Bill clear. If the meaning of the Bill is as has been stated by the hon. Member for Gorton, I do not think it could do any possible harm to accept it and thus to put ambiguity out of the question.

The Clause to which reference has been made seems to me to lay all matters of doubt at rest. The intention of the Bill is to deal only with pre-war practices, but practices existed with regard to certain trades, not merely in shops which had existed before the War, but in shops which were erected after the War began where the same class of work was done, and, therefore, the practices were carried on in the new establishments but not in new trades. Again, many shops which had not been carrying on any munitions business began to make munitions in the course of the War, with the result that practices existing in other shops doing the same class of work were introduced into these establishments, now given over to work they had not previously done. The intention of this Sub-section is to deal with these cases—not to deal in any way with any industry that is new, but only with industries which were being carried on prior to the War. The Bill does nothing whatsoever to interfere with any conditions that may arise in any new industries, and the view I venture respectfully to submit to you is that the Amendment is entirely unnecessary. It does not really arise upon anything which is in the Bill, and so far from getting rid of confusion or ambiguity, it tends only to create both. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to what might be the legal interpretation. I happen to know a little of the law, and I can imagine, in fact it is perfectly certain, that if this Amendment were added you would immediately have a skilful lawyer arguing that because you had that Amendment there the second Sub-section does not mean what it says. Further, if you want to start confusing your meaning, I cannot imagine any language which would provoke it more readily than the language of the Amendment. The phraseology refers to industries which before the War were not already established or organised. What do those words mean? I can imagine the most hopeless confusion of argument in connection with this matter before any munitions tribunal in which the question was raised. I submit that the Amendment is in no wise relevant either to the language or the purpose or the title of the Bill, and that it is out of order.

I think I am bound, after the statement of the Minister of Labour, to remain of the same opinion, namely that the Amendment does deal with a matter outside the scope of this Bill.

I respectfully submit that this Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill. It introduces something which occurred since the termination of hostilities, and, therefore, it cannot be in any way a restoration of pre-war practices.

—reading Sub-section(1)—

"Nothing in this Section shall prevent the employment of a discharged soldier who has served in any of the various theatres of war—"

I think the same line of argument applies to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills).

I quite agree that the main part of ray Amendment is covered by the ruling, but my Amendment in the last sentence deals also with the wage question. On the whole, and in view of the very clear statement that has been made, I think it is of little use my trying to move it. I only hope that the Minister of Labour will himself have regard to the last part of my Amendment, for since women may be admitted to the post-war trades there should be some regulation of the wages under which they are admitted Otherwise we shall see serious undercutting.

At the end of Sub-section (2) there arc the words "circumstances most nearly analogous." I presume that the "circumstances most nearly analogous" are confined to considering the circumstances of the establishment and not the circumstances of a particular new kind of work carried on in the establishment?

I handed in notice of an Amendment which may come under the ruling that has been given, and which applies to a defence which the employer might be entitled to set up in addition to those already provided for. It would have the effect of putting into legal phraseology the lucid explanation given to us to-day by the Minister of Labour, who told us that this Bill does not apply at all to new industries. The proposed Amendment was as follows:

"It shall also be a good defence in any such proceedings aforesaid that the trade practice involves the discontinuance or restriction or employment of females in an industry or branch or process thereof which was not established in this country before the War, or prevents the employment of females in industries or branches or processes thereof which have been started in this country since the commencement of this War."

That would permit the employer, in addition to the defence of an agreement altering the practices and another defence, to put in a third defence that it was in fact and in substance a new industry, and we have had the admission from the Minister of Labour in respect of new industries and therefore an employer in that position would be entitled to protection. The reason I ask this to be inserted is this. This Bill is coming into operation immediately and is to operate for one year from the passing thereof. If it is applied rigidly and harshly, even to new industries, and it might be, the whole harm would be done and there would be no opportunity whatever of remedying it. I am much obliged to the Minister for having cleared up a matter which had given rise to a good deal of confusion. That confusion of thought was entertained by a good many people throughout the country, and the explanation to-day that this Bill is not intended to apply to any new industry will clear up a good deal of that confusion.

If it be a new industry, is it not open to the employer to make that point and say, "This Bill does not apply to me?"

I want to put it into legal language, so that the employer may have this third defence in addition to the other two which are open to him, otherwise he would be confined absolutely and minutely to the defences which the Bill permits. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I should like to see this third defence specifically stated. It is in accordance with the principle of the measure and the declarations of the Minister and of hon. Members opposite who support the Minister. Surely it is only fair and proper and wise and just that the anxieties of women in these industries, especially new industries, should be allayed. I happen to know an employer who employs large numbers of them.

If the Amendment be out of order, is it necessary that the hon. and gallant Member should argue on its merits?

With my usual patience I permitted the hon. and gallant Member to explain the meaning of the Amendment, but it now seems to me that it is really unnecessary. If the employment is a new employment which was not in existence before the War at all, then obviously this Bill when it becomes an Act will not apply to it. Therefore, in those circumstances, all that the employer has got to do is to say, "You are charging me under this Act in relation to this, that, or the other thing, but this employment is a new employment and does not come within the Act." It is just as if a man were charged with committing an offence under a Statute and said, "I do not know whether it is an offence or not, but it is certainly not an offence under this Statute, and therefore you cannot convict me." That being so, it seems to me to be unnecessary.

I am extremely obliged to you, Sir, for what you have said, and in those circumstances I do not move.

I wish to say something in support of the Bill from the standpoint of the unskilled and general workers who are supposed to be the special protégés of hon. Members opposite. We are prepared to take care of ourselves and we trust our fellow workers in skilled trades. Attention has been drawn to discharged soldiers and sailors. May I remind hon. Members opposite that they arc discharged soldiers and sailors and have now become workmen and as such are entitled to all the consideration that workmen deserve? I am afraid that some hon. Gentlemen who are now using them for political purposes are not prepared to deal with them fairly from an economic standpoint, because some of our unions have had to conduct strikes for the purpose of seeing that the pensions of discharged soldiers and sailors are not taken into consideration in the fixing of their wages. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] In Norwich and other parts of the country. We object to men coming in, whether discharged soldiers or sailors, or anyone else, who reduce the standard of wages by pensions being taken into consideration. We are not the opposition party: we are the supposition party. May I also be allowed to say in support of the Bill that we are pre- pared to say that the general workers are not going to allow themselves to be squeezed out of industry at the dictation of what might be called the skilled work man. We have rights as well as duties, and we are prepared to defend our rights, but we are not going to allow ourselves to be used as tools to defeat the principles of trade unionism. Consequently, so far as this Bill is concerned, we agree to accept the Bill, because our fellow-workers in the organised labour movement undertook that in the event of any difficulties negotiations would take place to settle them, and that is sufficient for us. We do not want trade unionism supported by the State, and especially that kind of trade unionism that is backed up by its principal enemies. The people who would never help us are now willing to kiss us. They remind me of that animal in the Zoo, of which I have often heard, which slobbers over you before it finally devours you, and the sympathy for Labour of some of the Gentlemen who have spoken this after noon seems to me to be of that particular character. I thank them for nothing. We are going on with the Bill as it stands, and Labour itself, skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled, will look after the interests of our men and of our wives and of the women in industry. We do not want our women to be used to cut down the standard of wages for Labour. If a man is good enough to work he is good enough to maintain a family, and he ought to get a wage sufficient to maintain a family, and his wife and daughter ought not to be introduced into industry in order to reduce the general standard of living in that industry; so that, so far as we are concerned, speaking as a member of the Committee that negotiated with the employers and the Government, we accept the Bill as it stands, and trust our fellow-workers, but we do not trust those whom we could never trust before.

There is a Section in the Bill which deals with workmen in Royal establishments, and I have a command from His Majesty to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, gives his consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit.

He is a better trade unionist than some of his supporters.

I beg to move,

"That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I should like to explain that the Amendment which was put in another place was put in in consequence of an undertaking given by the Prime Minister in this House that some words should be found which would give an opportunity to this House to consider any Orders in Council which were made under and by virtue of the Treaty of Peace. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) will recollect that he raised the point in Committee on the Bill, and it was pointed out that two objects had to be attained. One was that there should be no delay in carrying into effect any Order in Council made under the Treaty, because it was necessary that the Order in Council should have immediate legislative effect, but the Prime Minister undertook, in response to my right hon. Friend, that an opportunity should be given to this House to discuss and, if necessary, to annul any Order in Council made under the Treaty. The result is that these words have been introduced. They are not unfamiliar words; they have been used in several other Acts before now, but they have the advantage, and they have been specially chosen for this purpose, that the Order in Council may have immediate legislative effect, but that at the same time the powers of this House are fully and I hope finally preserved, because as soon as the House sits after an Order in Council has been promulgated, there will be an opportunity for the House to consider it, and I think the Prime Minister went so far as to say he would see that an opportunity was given for the consideration of the matter before eleven o'clock. If an Address was presented by either House of Parliament, and the House determined to ask the King to annul it, it would be possible to annul it, subject to this, "without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder." That is necessary in order to validate such Acts as are necessary immediately to carry it out; at the same time, the future operation of the Order in Council would be prevented. I hope my right hon. Friend will think that full effect has been given to the undertaking, as was certainly the intention, and, indeed, I think these words precisely carry out what was indicated would be necessary by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil).

I am very glad that the Amendment has been made in another place. This matter was one of very considerable importance. It is really a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), who was particularly anxious that Parliamentary opportunity should be given for a Debate should it be necessary on these Orders in Council. The Prime Minister said very definitely it should be a Parliamentary opportunity in the accepted ordinary sense of the term—that is, one before eleven o'clock—so that we could have an opportunity of discussing it in a fairly adequate way. I do not know whether it was mentioned in the previous Debate, but I would like to mention it now, as to the intention of the Government with regard to the operation of these Orders in Council. What was in contemplation by the Government was some such Orders in Council as would be immediately necessary in dealing with that Section of the Treaty which covers the very intricate but nevertheless most important question of the enemy debts, and it was not intended by the Government to launch Orders in Council which would really affect our domestic concerns or interfere with the ordinary practices of the country in such a way as was necessary during war-time. The intention of this Section was to deal with matters which have an international significance but require some corresponding domestic operation of our own laws, which could only be adequately covered in this way. That was the scope of the intention, and now, so far as we are concerned, I think we have had a quite satisfactory answer and that a satisfactory arrangement has been made.