It is my duty this afternoon to ask the Committee to give its sanction to the payment out of the Exchequer of certain contributions in aid of the provision and improvement of housing accommodation for agricultural workers and for persons who are substantially in the same position. The Committee will remember that in the Bill—the Second Reading of which was passed by this House on 3rd August last—provision is made for assistance for this purpose, either by way of loan or by way of grant, but as Exchequer contributions are only contemplated in a case where assistance is given by way of grant, I propose, in the very few observations with which, I think, it is necessary to trouble the Committee, to confine myself to that side of the proposal.

It will be seen, by reference to the Resolution, that the giving of contributions by the local authority, aided by grants from the Exchequer, is accompanied by certain conditions, and to those conditions I will call the attention of the Committee. First of all, there is the limiting condition with regard to time. It is proposed that the operation of the provision enabling these grants to be made, shall last only for a limited period of time—namely, five years, and application for assistance under the Bill must, therefore, be in the hands of the local authority before the 1st October, 1931. I think the reason for that limitation is fairly obvious, because the number of houses and other buildings which can be affected by these proposals is strictly limited, and it is very desirable, in the opinion of the Government, that if they are to be improved, they should be improved at the earliest possible moment. We have, therefore, provided a limit for the time during which the special terms shall he available, and we think we have given all reasonable opportunities for people to take advantage of them.

The second limiting condition is a limitation of amount. It is provided under the Resolution that the contributions of the local authority and the Exchequer put together shall not exceed two-thirds of the total cost of the alterations which are to be carried out, and, moreover, that they shall be subject to a maximum sum of £100. It is also provided that the Exchequer grant is to be half of the total contribution made by the local authorities, and it thus follows that the expense of the proposed alterations will be borne in three equal shares by the owner, by the local authority and by the Exchequer. Each of them will contribute one-third of the cost, and the maximum amount which will be demanded of the Exchequer in the case of any single house will be £50. There is also in the Resolution a condition as to the method in which the contribution is to be made. It takes the form, which is familiar in housing legislation, of an annuity for 20 years. The contribution in that form will be made in respect of the loan charges contracted by the local authority which borrows money for the purpose of making these contributions.

The conditions which are embodied in the Resolution do not include all the conditions which are found in the Bill. In Clause 2 of the Bill there are other conditions limiting the amount of the improved value of the dwelling, and also specifying that a certain minimum sum must be expended to enable contributions to be made. I have deliberately left those particular conditions out of the Resolution, for the reason that none of them, it seemed to me, was vital to the principle of the Bill, but more a matter for discussion in Committee; and it would hardly have been fair to the Committee to tie their hands in discussions on those points by drawing the Resolution in such a rigid form as to exclude any such discussion. I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more about the Resolution itself, nor do I think it necessary to go over all ground which I covered when describing the Bill on Second Reading, but there are just a few points on which I might add a word in connection with the Bill. These concern, first of all, the nature of the work which we contemplate will be done; secondly, the persons to whom the contribution will be made; and, thirdly, the character of the local authority which we propose shall be the responsible body.

With regard to the last point, I can hardly see how that can arise on this Resolution; otherwise we should have a repetition of the Second Reading Debate.

I had thought that as the Exchequer contribution had to be paid to a local authority and administered by them, that possibly the nature of that authority would be relevant to the Resolution; but if that is not, so I do not wish to press that point.

If the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the successful operation of this Resolution depends on the character of the local authority and their powers of repayment, I could not object to his observations on that point, but, obviously, it would open the way for a much wider Debate than I thought was contemplated.

In that case I think I will omit all reference to the authority, and leave that to be discussed, as no doubt it will be fully discussed, in Committee. As to the nature of the work, that will be found described in the Second Clause of the Bill, where certain particular kinds of alterations are specified. I notice that there is on the Paper an Amendment to leave out the words and other buildings. I am at a loss to understand why objection should be taken to those words.

Those words are merely a repetition of the words in the long Title of the Bill, and their inclusion or rejection will make no practical difference, and therefore I do not propose to accept that Amendment.

I will have one more try, and say that the only other point to which I had proposed to make any allusion was the person to whom the contribution was to be paid. I am not at all sure whether I shall be in order in doing so, after what has fallen from the Chair, and I think I will confine myself to this observation, that in putting conditions into the Bill we have endeavoured to secure that the Exchequer contribution shall inure to the benefit of agricultural workers and of other persons in substantially the same condition as they are, and that it shall not be diverted to the personal profit of the landlord, or to other tenants who are not of the character described in the Resolution.

Will this Measure apply to crofters' houses in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland?

There is no reason why it should not.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will elucidate further—

A habit has grown up of putting questions immediately after a Ministerial statement, and sometimes developing those questions into speeches. I would remind hon. Members that on the present occasion we are in Committee, and that the Minister and others can speak more than once. If the hon. Member will defer his observations, I will keep an eye on the quarter of the House in which he sits.

I feel somewhat nervous in rising as a result of the attitude of mind towards the discussion that the Chairman revealed when pulling up the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Resolution; because I do not know that I can hope to succeed, where he has failed, in keeping within the very narrow limits which have been laid down for the discussion. We on this side object to the Resolution as we objected to the Bill of which the Resolution is the soul. There is one interesting thing about the Resolution to which, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me to refer. It reveals to the Committee more clearly than anything which has yet been said or introduced the real mind of the Government with regard to working-class housing. We are invited to-day to increase expenditure on the patching of old houses. Later in the Session, according to information submitted by the Prime Minister, we are to be called on to reduce the public expenditure on the provision of new houses. That is a reversion of the traditional Tory policy. Anything which the party opposite has done in the way of contributing to a solution of the housing problem during recent years is something into which they have been forced and for which they deserve no credit. The traditional policy is that while houses are legally healthy and commercially profitable, they ought to be privately owned. It is only when they become unhealthy and unprofitable that the State is expected to come in as a relieving officer to the owners. The party opposite are traditionally hostile to Socialism in new houses, but they are traditionally favourable to Socialism in regard to slums. They have a happy knack of serving this policy in phraseology calculated to appeal to the highest human sentiments. When we are dealing with the city it is described as a slum clearance. Pictures are drawn of the conditions in which the people in the slums dwell, and a slum dweller is painted almost as a person who brought his slum with him into the world. In fact, it is considered part of his original sin, and a Conservative statesman poses as his redeemer. If people on this side of the House for any reason raise an objection to the expenditure of public money on a policy such as this, then they are painted as defenders of the slums and oppressors of the poor.

On a point of Order. I would like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman is in order in going so very far from the subject?

I think the right hon. Gentleman is only stating certain premises. I am awaiting the conclusions; but I cannot wait indefinitely.

I wish to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience, and I will not trespass upon your ruling, or on the feeling—I hope the shameful feeling—of the hon. Member opposite, or upon your impartiality in the Chair. In this Resolution the policy is referred to as the improvement of houses. Of course, this is a very respectable garment, but I think we are entitled to examine what is underneath. According to the Resolution, financial assistance is to be given for the reconstruction and improvement of houses and other buildings for agricultural labourers, and persons whose economic conditions are similar to those of such labourers. I want to draw the attention of the Committee, first of all, to the fact that this financial assistance is asked for a particular section of the population. This is what Conservative speakers are accustomed to call class legislation. The stockbroker and the company promoters are not to share in the beautiful buildings which are to accrue from the expenditure of this public money. On the other hand, their ill-gotten gains are to be levied for the benefit of the agricultural labourers, and persons who may hope one day to be as poor as the agricultural labourers are now. I think Conservative speakers are accustomed to call this legislation for the favoured few and to regard the policy as in some way a violation of one or other of the Ten Commandments. I think this is important, and I submit it because I am afraid of trespassing on your ruling. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the money we are asked to vote here is not to be spent solely on the repair of dwelling-houses, but it is to be spent partly on the reconstruction or alteration of new buildings. I think that is a very important part of the Resolution, and one which the Committee is entitled to have made clear.

The operative words are in respect of dwellings.

And other buildings.

I may have misread the Resolution. I submit this point for your ruling because it is very important at this stage, and at this point we should have a ruling. If the sum asked for here is voted by the Committee to-day, will it be within the power of the Minister, or the party to whom he delegates his authority, to spend a part of that money on the alteration or reconstruction of any building that is not now a dwelling-house?

The words are limited to dwellings.

May I call your attention to line 6 of the Resolution, which says, "and other buildings"?

I have already pointed out that those words are quite inoperative, and have only been put in to identify this particular Bill.

In the first Clause of the Bill as printed the word "buildings" is used, and it says "houses or buildings" and not other buildings. As we have had no explanation from the Minister on this point in his Second Reading speech, perhaps you, Mr. Chairman, could now give us a ruling as to what that means?

The money must be spent only on dwellings. I think that is quite clear.

4.0 P.M.

It is not my usual custom to come to the assistance of the Government, but I hope I am not mis- interpreting their view when I say their intention was to use the financial resources of this Bill for the purpose of reconstructing or altering other buildings that are not in the nature of dwelling-houses for the purpose of being used in the future as dwelling-houses. If your ruling is to stand and it is to be quite clear that through the passing of this Measure the House is not putting any power into the hands of the Government or of its delegates to reconstruct such buildings and convert them into dwelling-houses, then, I think, a considerable portion of our opposition to the Bill falls to the ground.

The contribution must be for a dwelling, but, whether a dwelling may include an out-house or not, it cannot be a contribution to general agricultural improvement. I do not say that it cannot be used for conversion into a dwelling of something which is not now a dwelling.

I think that to some extent clears the air. At any rate, it confirms my view of the Bill, and it harmonises with the acquiescence expressed by the Minister of Health in the view when I submitted it to him. The money that we are asked to vote here, as you have ruled, may be used for the purpose of so altering a building that heretofore has not been used as a dwelling-house that in future it may be used as a dwelling, and the Committee is entitled to consider the class of building to which this provision may be applied. You, Sir, have referred to out-houses. I do not know what is the legal distinction between an out-house and a stable, but I have no doubt that a shrewd lawyer would include a stable within the description of an out-house. At any rate, it is well known that part of this money, in pursuance of this policy, may be used for the conversion of stables into dwelling-houses.

Scattered all over the country, and particularly in the country districts, we have a large number of stables that are no longer required for their primary purpose by the owners. No real gentleman now drives out in his carriage and pair; indeed, no real gentleman would house his favourite motor car in one of these obsolete stables. Yet it is a pity, in the view of these English gentlemen, that this property should be allowed to decay. There is a shortage of housing accommodation in the country. A gentleman may feel that for one purpose or another he requires another labourer. There is no housing accommodation available for that additional labourer, and, even if there be, the wages which the gentleman is prepared to pay to the additional labourer would not, if it were all spent in rent, meet the present economic rent of a healthy, desirable house. So, what should me more natural than that there should emanate from the political party of that gentleman a proposal to put the labourer where he would not put his car? We have now reached the stage where "Stables for the workers" is a plank in the Conservative programme.

After all, if you consider the history of that party, this is not a long step in degeneracy from where they have already arrived. [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Gentleman says— sotto voce, I suppose, is the term—that this is a speech for the platform. This is not a Resolution for the platform, unless it be for the platform in which we are to see the temporary seclusion of the Conservative party. As I was about to say before being interrupted from a quarter from which we do not expect interruption, this is not a long step in the degeneracy of the Conservative party with regard to the housing of the working classes. We have all been accustomed to the policy of large dilapidated houses, once occupied by the rich, being made do for the poor. Those who have some experience of local authority work, and I am sure those who are acquainted with the work of the Ministry of Health, know quite well that these houses are usually the slummest of the slum. They were not originally constructed for a large number of families and to make them hygienically suitable for their new purpose would very frequently cost more than the erection of new houses. No one expects local authorities or anyone else to spend unnecessarily on the provision of shelters for the poor. Any old thing is supposed to do. So, no matter how far these fell short of human requirements, the poor were packed into them in a manner which resulted in an accumulation of disease and in unnecessary human distress. As I have said, this is only one step further. Instead of asking the workers to be content with the leavings of the rich, they are now inviting them to be satisfied with the leavings of the animals. I do not know how long the Conservative party, on the slippery slope, may be content to rest even here. One day they may find fresh uses for their kennels, but for the moment, and perhaps only for the moment, a Conservative statesman, if I may paraphrase words well-known in English poetry, treats the agricultural labourer as A little higher than his dog, And a little lower than his horse. Naturally, we cannot subscribe to such a policy. We rate the agricultural labourer a little higher than the horse, indeed, although hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may regard it as extravagance and, perhaps, blasphemy, we rate the agricultural labourer as higher than the stockbroker and higher than the company promoter. In our opinion, he is more essential to the life of the nation, and being more essential to the life of the nation than either of the professional gentlemen to whom I have referred, he ought, in our opinion, to be at least equally well housed.

Why does he always vote against you?

He knows who are his friends. That is why he votes against them.

Hon. Members opposite are naturally irritated at a public exposure of their real views regarding the treatment of the man from whom they obtain their daily bread. Some of them may be inclined to say that they agree with us that the agricultural labourer is worthy of a better dwelling than the one contemplated in this Resolution. They will, I hope, tell us that they agree with me that he is worthy of a better dwelling than the rejected stable of a horse—

What authority has the right hon. Gentleman for saying this?

—or the out-house towards the conversion of which this money will probably be used. But they say that we must face the economic facts. Stockbrokers and company promoters have very good houses—

And trade union leaders!

— — because the economic facts of the present system entitle them to that type of house. They say, in regard to the agricultural labourer, that he must be prepared, like all other sections of the community, to face the economic facts in his desire for a higher standard of living. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, Hear!"] I am very glad that an hon. Member on the other side, speaking, I suppose, for his party, agrees to that being the view that is behind the Government. But this Resolution does not ask the agricultural labourer to face the economic facts. This is a Resolution which asks for a subsidy. The economic facts, as submitted by the party opposite, are that the farmers of this country cannot, out of the price which they obtain in a competitive system for their produce, pay a standard of wages that will enable their labourers to pay the economic rent of a healthy and a desirable house. That is the view of the party opposite, and I have no doubt that there is a considerable amount of substantial foundation for that view. I do not think that the farmers of this country have any monopoly of hard-heartedness. I believe that there must be among them many humane gentlemen who would prefer to pay £4 a week than 30s. a week to their labourers. But the party opposite would say that the economic facts are against them, and not only are they unable to pay anything like a decent living wage, but they are unable to pay the labourers the wages that would allow those labourers to pay the economic rent of even the very small houses that are provided for the working classes to-day; and so, instead of facing the economic facts, and saying to those labourers, "The economic conditions do not allow you to have any kind of house," they come and ask this Committee to vote national money to subsidise the agricultural industry to an extent that will enable it to house its workers according to the standard contemplated in this Resolution.

Had the Government or the party opposite stuck to the economic facts, could understand it, but this is not a Resolution based on recognition and acceptance of the economic facts; it is a Resolution that recognises but ignores the economic facts, or, in so far as it does not ignore them, says, "The agricultural industry is essential to the life of the nation; the agricultural labourer is essential to the life of that industry; the industry itself, in a competitive system, cannot provide the requirements, even the very minimum requirements, of the agricultural labourer, and, therefore, we come to the whole nation, of which the agricultural industry is an essential part, and we ask the whole nation, out of its surplus, to provide the subsidy that will enable the agricultural labourer and the agricultural industry to live." That is the attitude of the Government; that is the policy adopted by the Government; and, as I have said, if they had stuck to an economic basis, one could have sympathised with their difficulties, but could have understood their policy.

I do not say that I am opposed to the general principle behind this Resolution. I am prepared to go very much further and to say I am prepared to accept it whole-heartedly. But what I do object to here is the particular form of this application. The Government ask us to provide money, and thereby to accept responsibility for the housing of the agricultural workers. They say, "The farmers can no longer accept the responsibility; we come here and we ask the State to provide money, and thereby to accept the responsibility, for the housing of these people." What I object to most strongly is that, while asking the State, or asking this Committee, to accept responsibility for the housing of these workers, they ask us to spend our money on houses such as these. If the State is to accept responsibility for housing agricultural workers, should not the State house those workers in a manner creditable to the State? And is anyone in any quarter of the Committee going seriously to argue that it will be to the credit of the State that these workers will be housed in the conditions in which they will domiciliarily exist when the provisions of this Resolution have been put into operation? It is not as if the State could not afford to house its agricultural workers properly. The State spends £300,000,000 in paying interest on the War debt to people who have surplus wealth. In my opinion, the agricultural labourer has a prior claim on the generosity of the State. We have millions of people in this country, giving much less useful service to the country than the agricultural labourer, who revel in luxury and in surplus wealth. We on this side would use part of that surplus for the provision of a decent standard of living for that section of our workers who are probably the most useful in the maintenance of Britain's prosperity.

I want to say, in conclusion, that this policy is based on a. belief that there is no future for British agriculture. It is based on the idea that it is folly to provide new houses in those districts, and that, as the end of British agriculture is in view, you should devote a certain amount of public money to patching up the old houses, because they will serve the purpose for the short time for which houses will be required. That is a most pessimistic and, I submit, a most unpatriotic view to come from the party opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "It comes from you!"] If I am wrong in my interpretation of the views of the party opposite—[An HON. MEMBER: "You are!"]—why should they not pursue a policy of erecting houses—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are!"] —healthy dwelling-houses in which we may have a healthy agricultural community half a century from now? Why should they be supporting a Government whose policy it is to withdraw the necessary financial support from the erection of new houses, and to divert only a part of it to the patching and maintenance of the old? It is because, in their soul, they know that the system for which they stand offers no permanency to Britain and no permanency to any of its particular industries. We on this side of the House take a more optimistic view of our country. We believe that the agricultural labourer will outlive the company promoter; we believe that, long after the company promoter has been forgotten, the agricultural labourer and this country will survive; and so, wishing to provide for the future of the agricultural industry, our policy is that public money, when it is to be spent, should be spent in the provision of new, healthy beautiful houses, to which the agricultural labourer, on account of his valuable service to the country, is entitled, and we wish to offer the most strenuous oppose- tion to the standard of housing provided for in this Resolution.

I am not interested in the imaginary stables which, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), are to be found in our villages, but am much more concerned about the derelict houses and empty cottages which, unfortunately, are to be found in our rural districts. To give one instance, which may interest hon. Members above the Gangway, there are no fewer than 120 cottages which have become empty and derelict in a very small agricultural district within the short space of living memory, the whole population being, I believe, roughly speaking, under 3,000. I am concerned about those cases, and I think they need the first attention of the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman, however, made one remark which I think ought not to go unchallenged, because it would be apt to mislead the public. In talking about buildings, he rather suggested that, even when these are remodelled, they would still be unfit for habitation. It is, however, a direct provision of the Bill that the local authority must be satisfied—[Interruption.]—is it the case that hon. Members above the Gangway have no faith in democratic control?—that the dwelling will after the completion of the works be in all respects fit for habitation as a dwelling by persons of the working classes. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the economic condition of the farmer will not allow him to pay a wage to the labourer which will enable him to pay an economic rent. I rather hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have gone a little further, and would have told us what is his remedy for that position. We know the economic facts. They are exactly as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. The labourer's wage at the present moment is not such as will enable him to pay an economic rent on the present cost price of any building which is put up by way of a house. I am afraid I should be out of order in suggesting that the remedy proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would have been a duty which would have fallen on the urban dweller, and I will not pursue that. There are one or two practical points to which I should like to refer in con- nection with the Bill itself. I understood from the Minister of Health that the Bill would provide for the building of houses, but, if I understand the Bill aright, it is a Bill for the reconstruction and improvement of dwellings and other buildings. There is another point that I should like cleared up, with regard to the repayment of loans. A grant, I understand, is not to be repaid, but, if a loan is made, then it is to be repaid. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the responsibility for the repayment is a personal one, or whether it is merely the value of the dwelling itself. A man obtains, say, a house which is covered by a mortgage. That mortgage contains two things. It contains, in the first place, an undertaking and covenant by the man to repay the money personally; and, in the second place, it contains a charge on the property itself as security for the repayment. I suggest, for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, that no house can at the present moment be put up in a rural district which will not be, in three or four years' time, of less value than the actual cost of its construction, and it is, therefore, rather important for the building owner to ascertain whether he will be personally responsible for the repayment of that loan regardless of the fact that, owing to economic causes, in all probability the value of the house itself will be a good deal less than the money which he has borrowed. My suggestion would have been that, instead of asking people to build houses themselves and take the whole risk, as I think they must under the provisions of this Bill, serious attempts should be made, at any rate in the rural districts and country villages, by the housing authority, to provide these houses itself at the cost of the State, and that the risk, which is a serious one, as to the value of the building in the next three or four years, should be undertaken by the State, and not by the individual.

I hope it is not unseemly for two Members who bear the same name to speak together on this matter. I cannot help thinking that those of us on this side who have had the pleasure of listening to the very humorous speech of the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health, will regret that his interventions in Debate of late have not been more frequent. We can only presume he meant to be taken as humorously as his speech sounded to those who listened to it. We could not help being reminded of two adages in the course of the stream of eloquent electioneering with which he favoured us, that no stream can rise higher than its source, and that "unstable as water thou shalt not excel." In his remarks, in which he went out of his way to twist everything in the Resolution and to try to bring in all manner of irrelevant material which could not possibly be affected by it, he spoke of owners, farmers and capitalists, but failed to give any consideration to that person in whose interest alone this Measure has been brought forward, that is, the tenant of cottages in agricultural areas. We have had various Housing Bills, which have, achieved unexpected success in the way of numbers and the short time in which they have been produced and in the fact that they have been largely produced by that section of the population who were most in need of assistance and improvement in their housing conditions.

But with all those Measures on the Statute Book, and all of them assisted, as in my opinion they needed to be in order to produce the results, by Government subsidies, we have found there has been one important part of the community which has been untouched, and that is the cottager employed largely in agricultural pursuits or others germane thereto and therefore in a similar economic position, and that after all is the outstanding consideration in regard to this Measure. Here is a large and essential portion of the population who have been untouched by the advantages which have been provided for every other branch of the country. That is not the fault of those who framed the Measures. We come back once again to the economic facts of the situation. Therefore what we need, it seems to me, to concentrate upon is not whether this is going to give some assistance to the wicked landowner, not whether it is going to bolster up the inefficient farmer, not whether this is going to convert stables into palaces, but whether it is going to any extent to improve the outlook for getting better cottages and living conditions for those agricultural workers in the community, concerning who we do not talk such claptrap as we have already had to listen to, but whose interests we are much more familiar with and have much more seriously at heart than hon. Members opposite.

After all, the outstanding fact is that not only are new cottages not being built under these conditions, for very obvious reasons, but the available housing gets steadily worse for two or three reasons. One is that cottages are taken by such people as village policemen, employés of railway companies, industrial workers earning the better wages that industry, when it is not interfered with by senseless industrial disputes, is able to earn, and therefore the available supply of cottages for those for whom they were intended is constantly diminishing. We have also the week-ender, who comes in and buys one or perhaps two cottages, making them into one, and does his share in reducing the available housing for that section of the population towards which our efforts are directed to-day. Finally, we have this situation, that the unfortunate and much-criticised landlord, whose business, privilege and responsibility it has been in the past to provide houses for the agricultural worker, has been put in a position, on account of the depredations of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, that he can no longer carry out those responsibilities, much as he wishes to do so. Even the Leader of His Majesty's Opposition, not very long ago in a public speech, said precisely what I have been saying just now and said that was a reason, among others, why his conclusion was that there should be nationalisation of the land and the State should come in and do it all for them. We on this side of the House do not believe in that form of legislation, but we are faced with conditions that need to be dealt with.

How can we apply to the agricultural worker in the rural districts those housing benefits which have been secured for others by existing measures. It seems to me that this is an extraordinary hopeful line of advance though I do not think anyone suggests it is going to solve the question. There are large numbers of people, large and small, perhaps just the owners of one or two cottages, who see them deteriorating but cannot afford to make the proper repairs and they are rapidly becoming untenantable. Compared with them a good sanitary cow stall would be an infinitely better habitation. If that kind of thing can be checked, if sufficient assistance can be given to the owner to enable him to contribute a certain portion towards building, assisted by local authorities and the State for the other two-thirds, I look to see in a reasonably short time a material improvement, by means of the financial measures in this Bill, in the condition and the improvement of the houses of our agricultural workers. I am satisfied that if we, who are closely interested in and connected with the land, are given opportunities, not only such as this, but others which may perhaps be discovered by experience to be wise and applicable, if they come within the limits of economic laws, can improve the housing conditions of workers in the rural areas and prevent their cottages being taken by others who are more fortunate and can pay higher rentals for them, we shall have gone a long way towards securing an improvement of the general conditions of the countryside which will stem the drift from the country to the town and keep those who were born in the country and know it and love it in those surroundings where they are best able to develop their manhood and their life.

I am glad the Government have had finally to do what we said it was necessary to do. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken referred to senseless industrial disputes. If he referred to the present dispute, I would remind him that it was not the miners who locked out the coal-owners but the coalowners who locked out the miners. But it was not for that purpose that I rose. My mind is exercised as to the scope of this Measure. The Resolution refers to persons whose economic condition is substantially the same as that of such workers. In the mining world the owners are, or ought to be, responsible for the housing of their workers. I have to admit that for the last 10 or 15 years they have forgotten their responsibilities, and have not found houses for the workers but have given them some financial assistance in place of free houses. There are thousands of houses in our mining villages that are wholly unfit for human habitation, and have been condemned by the local authorities, but because there was no other place to house the people, they have had to exist there all these years. If agricultural labourers can earn, as I have been told, 35s. to £2 a week, at least two-thirds of the married workers in the coalfields in Durham are in a worse position, so that if it is based on the economic conditions of the people who inhabit the houses the Bill must of necessity take in all these houses owned by colliery owners in the villages. I want the right hon. Gentleman to think what he is doing. They talk of the conversion of stables into houses, but no sensible man would put a dog in some of the houses the miners have to live in in Durham. People live there because their economic condition will not allow them to pay for a house elsewhere. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is taking on something larger than the Bill intended. I do not want these miserable dens patched up. That would be adding insult to injury. The position he ought to take up as a sensible Minister would be to get rid of these houses and build new ones in their place. Patching them up will not mend matters and will mean that this state of things will be perpeutated. The proposals of the Bill will give no relief to the tenants and the whole of the money that is spent will be entirely in the interest of those who own the houses.

As the representative of a county constituency I give this Resolution my whole-hearted support, because I know that in our country districts there are two things needed. We need more houses for our rural population and better houses than we have already got. This Financial Resolution deals with that matter. It proposes to enable our existing houses to be improved. Can anyone with a practical knowledge of our country districts and our rural life deny the fact that there are many houses, I know there are in Scotland, in regard to which if they were reconditioned, and improved, the people living in them would not only have far more inducement to remain on in our country districts, but they would be able to spend happier and healthier lives. This Financial Resolution deserves the whole-hearted support of everyone who has a desire to help the rural life of our country.

The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in bringing forward his criticism of the Resolution, made a great deal of the point that in the wording of the Resolution it might be permissible for stables to be converted into dwelling-houses. I am sure that the intention of the Government is not in that direction. The intention of the Government is to enable funds to be made available whereby our existing houses can be reconstructed and improved for the benefit of the people. In basing criticism of this Resolution merely upon the fact that it may be permissible to turn an outhouse or a stable into a dwelling-house, is going very far beyond what was really meant. The right hon. Gentleman surely, when he condemns public money being used as a subsidy for improving the houses in our country districts, forgets what we have been doing in the matter of housing reform during the last four or five years. He himself has been responsible for bringing in and passing an Act whereby public money was given as a subsidy for houses in our towns and cities. Is it not right that our country districts should get a share of these public favours? It is because by this Resolution I see a prospect of our country districts getting some of the benefits which our towns and cities have, rightly, had in the past, that, as a county Member, I support it in a wholehearted manner.

The position of agriculture is a very large question, and to discuss it would go beyond this Resolution; but we all know that the condition of agriculture hitherto has been such that the workers engaged in it cannot pay an economic rent for the houses in which they live. Surely, when we desire to improve the housing conditions of these people, we need to face the facts as they are and, recognising that an economic rent is not possible in agriculture under our present system, is it not right that we should take the next best step and try, by a moderate and safe means, to bring practical benefits to these most worthy people in regard to their houses. As the representative of a county constituency in Scotland, I am sure that this Financial Resolution and the Bill which will be based upon it will be wholeheartedly approved, and if hon. Members opposite desire to oppose the Bill I can assure them that if they go to the country districts in Scotland they will meet with very little support. We can do a useful little piece of business by approving of this Resolution and passing the Bill, and thereby bringing health, happiness and comfort to many deserving people in our country districts.

I beg to move, in line 7, after the word "expenses," to insert the words "not exceeding one hundred thousand pounds."

As you, Sir, have ruled out of order the Amendment standing in the name of two of my hon. Friends, I move the Amendment which stands in my name. It will be observed by those who have read the Resolution that there is no limit of expenditure which may be incurred under it. In moving this Amendment to put some prescribed maximum upon the amount which shall be contributed by Parliament, I feel sure that I shall have with me hon. Members sitting on other side of the House. This Resolution: is one of which in principle we do not approve, but there is another reason why some definite limit should be put upon the amount to be expended. Hon. Members opposite for a considerable time have been anxiously pursuing economy. Numerous efforts have been made by the Government this year to reduce national expenditure. The financial straits of the Government have been so serious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was impelled to put his hand into the pockets of several funds and extract money to enable him to carry out his responsibilities.

The financial straits of the Government were so serious that they decided to reduce the State contribution to health and unemployment insurance. In view of so serious a situation, it seems inconsistent and illogical on the part of the Government to come to the House with a new form of expenditure such as has been unknown in this country previously. Moreover, the Minister of Health is now engaged in manipulating a decrease in the contributions to be made by the State under the existing housing schemes. If it be necessary to reduce the subsidies under the Acts of 1923 and 1924 at this stage, it seems to be highly objectionable that whilst he is, so to speak, with one hand negotiating a decrease in respect of new houses for the country as a whole, he should, on the other hand, be negotiating expenditure on old houses in the country side. When we have such a position, it cannot be defended. If the financial position of the Government is so serious that it feels called upon to reduce the subsidy for new houses that are being built in towns and country districts alike, it surely is most inexpedient at the same time to provide a subsidy for rural landlords.

Another reason why we would reduce the subsidy is that it appears to us to be a form of unconditional gift to people who can well afford to do without it. It has always been assumed in our previous housing subsidies that such subsidies were given in respect of houses that would not or could not otherwise be built. Many cases, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, have arisen where some enthusiastic person has begun to build a house, and the subsidy has been denied on the ground that as he begun to build the house it would have been built in any case, and, therefore the subsidy could not be paid. That sort of principle, if the Government persist in this policy, ought to be applied to the rural landlord. No one will deny that a large number of rural landlords can well afford to put their cottages into a proper state of repair. Some of them have done so, and more could do so if they were driven to do it, and the law was enforced. Is it right that these people should be subsidised by the State? I think it cannot be defended. Certainly, it cannot he defended as an act by an economy Government.

There are clearly two sets of cases. There are those landlords who can well afford to improve their cottages and those who cannot. Our submission is that no money should be spent on the former; that the law should be enforced against them, just as it is enforced in some degree against the town landlord. As regards those who cannot afford to put their houses into a state of repair, again we see no reason why public money should be spent upon them if those houses remain in the present hands. If these landlords over a long series of years have permitted their cottages to get into a state of disrepair so serious that they may be permitted to spend under the Bill large sums of money upon them, what guarantee have we that once the cottages have been put into a state of repair, these people are going to be in a position to keep them in a proper state of repair. There is no reason to suppose that whatever. All that this money will do will be to pass over to a number of landlords who cannot fulfil their responsibilities money which will enable them to tinker up their houses prior to another period of general decay.

If it be true that the rural landlord is in dire necessity and must receive financial assistance, surely a case equally strong can be made out for many landlords of urban dwellings. I would go so far as to say that the neediest landlords to-day are among the small landlords in the towns. No one in any part of the House would dream of coming here with a Money Resolution to permit these town landlords to dip their hands into the public purse in order to put their cottages into order. This money will go as a sort of generous gift to a particular kind of bad landlord, those who fail to keep their cottages in repair in the countryside. I hope that the Committee will see the wisdom of putting some limit upon the right hon. Gentleman's expenditure in this matter. He has established a certain condition. He has put a maximum in the case of each house; but no one knows the number of houses that are to be repaired or how many outhouses are to be converted into cottages. It may well be that the landlords will succeed in restoring their cottages at an enormous public expense, if this proposal were carried out on a large scale. We think that some definite figure should be put into the Bill in order that a limit should be placed upon this public expenditure.

I put this test of economy to hon. Members opposite as a very real one. They have an opportunity under this Amendment of proving whether they believe in economy or whether they do not believe in economy. They have an opportunity of showing whether they believe in economy of a real kind or whether they are only prepared to sanction economy at the expense of the workers. At a time when our national situation in regard to finance is so serious as to warrant the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the steps he has taken this year at the expense of the masses of the people of this country, the expenditure proposed under this Resolution is entirely unwarranted, and a severe limit should be placed upon the expenditure permitted to the Minister.

5.0 P.M.

If I thought that the Amendment meant what it said, I should characterise the hon. Member's speech as being quite phenomenal in its irrelevance, but it is perfectly obvious that the object of the Amendment is to try to wreck the Bill. Taking the actual wording of the Amendment, it proposes that the whole cost to the Exchequer shall not exceed £100,000, although the hon. Member must have read—I presume he has read—the White Paper, in which it is stated it is estimated that, giving an average cost per house of £75 and the number of houses totalling 20,000, the cost would be £60,000 a year for 20 years.

That is only an assumption.

May I ask the hon. Member, for the sake of information, whether his £100,000 is meant to be a total sum or £100,000 per annum?