asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons at present in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit or transitional payments who have been continuously unemployed for at least six months, and of those how many have been continuously unemployed for at least 12 months?

At 22nd May, 1933, there were 800,014 applicants for benefit or transitional payments on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain who had been on the registers for six months or more, and, of these, 482,951 had been on the registers for 12 months or more.

Can my hon. Friend give the House any information as to the numbers of unemployed who have been out of work for more than 12 months in previous years?

Yes, Sir. The earliest date for which strictly comparable figures are available for those unemployed for 12 months or more is January, 1932, when the total was 337,000. There were earlier investigations by sample, which gave results of 45,000 in September, 1929, and 120,000 in February, 1931; and the figure in September, 1931, was probably not less than 300,000.

Can my hon. Friend say how that increase in numbers has arisen?

I think that, when there is a large number of people unemployed, as there is at present, it follows that there must be an increasing number who have been unemployed for 12 months, and no doubt the present figures are largely the result of the slump started while hon. Members opposite were in office.

It has continued after two years of this Government.

What does the hon. Gentleman mean by saying that the figure "probably was" a certain figure at a certain period? Has he anything to substantiate that?

The actual figures were counted, starting from January, 1932. Sample analyses were made for various purposes previously, and the figures I have given are the results of those sample analyses.

The hon. Gentleman gives a figure for 1931, and says that the figure probably was, at a later date, some other figure. On what does he base that "probably"? Is it a mere piece of guesswork on his part?

It is the best estimate that can be made as the result of the sample figures.

As the ministerial delegate at the time to the International Conference, I used these figures for February, 1931. On what ground does the hon. Gentleman say, when the figure which I officially gave, as representing the Ministry of Labour, was 120,000, that there were probably 300,000?

I said that the figure based on a sample inquiry was 45,000 in September, 1929, and another inquiry was made in February, 1931, which gave a figure of 120,000. The figure is 120,000 for February, 1931. The best estimate that we can make is that the figure had risen, by September of that year, to 300,000.

On what ground does the hon. Gentleman make a statement like that?

Mr. Rhys Davies.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement on the question of the application of unemployment insurance to fishermen; and what changes are contemplated.

My right hon. Friend cannot make any statement in advance of the introduction of the Bill.

Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that, in considering this matter, full opportunity will be given to the representatives of the herring fishing industry to state their case?

I shall be very glad to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend if he cares to come and see me.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that 200 employés have been dismissed from Russian Oil Products, Limited, and 120 employés from other Soviet institutions in London owing to the embargo on Russian goods; and how many of these are drawing unemployment benefit, and, if possible, the weekly amount paid to them?

No, Sir; but I have no doubt that, if there are any such persons who are unemployed and qualified for benefit, they are drawing it.

Will my hon. Friend assure us that those who are not British subjects, but Russians, will be returned to Russia?

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that practically all these persons are British subjects and that they are unemployed; and it is apparent from his reply that they are not getting benefit?

I said that if they are qualified for benefit I have no doubt they are drawing it.

asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the circumstances under which the necessary funds for the payment of benefit at the Shrewsbury Employment Exchange on 2nd June were not available and 50 unemployed men did not receive the benefit to which they were entitled until the following week; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the necessary funds are made available in future?

I regret that, owing to an error in calculating the total amount of money that would be required, it was not possible to pay on the 2nd June a small number of men who attended for payment in the evening after having been at work on that day. The position was explained to them, and it was understood that they were all content to wait until the following week for their money. It was made clear that in any case of hardship special arrangements would be made for payment on the 3rd June, but no request for such payment was made.

In view of the undoubted hardship that was inflicted on a certain number of men, may I ask if it would not have been possible for the manager of the exchange to obtain a loan to make the necessary payments?

No doubt it would Rave been if the men had been coming for payment during the ordinary business hours, but, as they were being specially paid in the evening, because they had been at work the whole day, it was impossible, at the particular hour at which the mistake was found out, to rectify it by the means suggested by my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the resolution submitted by the insurance committee for the borough of Wigan, calling his attention to the number of unemployed persons who will lapse from insurance and be disentitled to medical benefit at the end of December, 1933; if so, will he state the nature of his reply; and whether he proposes to take any action by which persons who have been continuously unemployed will retain insurance and medical benefits?

I have received and acknowledged the communication to which the hon. Member refers. As regards the last part of the question, I cannot add anything to my reply of 9th March to the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie), and other previous replies on the subject of persons who will lapse from insurance at the end of this year.

asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the decision of the miners at Blaenavon, who have decided to adopt the scheme of sharing the work although it involves financial sacrifice on the part of the miners in that locality who are and have been employed for some time; whether he proposes to take any action to encourage miners in other parts of the country to follow the example of the Blaenavon miners and adopt the scheme, which is intended to help those who have been unemployed to retain their craft ability and prevent the results of continued unemployment?

The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." With regard to the second part, I am following with great interest and sympathy the development of the scheme at Blaenavon, and also of somewhat similar schemes already in operation in other parts of the country. I feel the greatest admiration for those who are deliberately giving up a considerable part of their employment that others may share, but I do not think that there is any specific action at the moment which I can, or should, take, since the matter is one for agreement between employers and employed.

asked the Minister of Labour how many urban district council areas in Middlesex have not got separate Employment Exchanges?

Out of 23 urban district council areas in Middlesex, there are 11 in which the necessary Employment Exchange facilities are provided in neighbouring areas.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange for building societies to make monthly returns of the sums of money advanced by them in respect of house building under the provisions of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933?

I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the circular issued on the passing of this Act, from which he will see that I am arranging to obtain returns of progress from the local authorities which will show the amounts of the advances made by building societies under the Act.

asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have made application for permission to build houses during each of the five months this year; how many schemes were sanctioned; and how many houses were involved?

Specific answers cannot be satisfactorily given to the three parts of the question as decisions on many of the applications are still pending. The numbers of houses approved for erection by local authorities in England and Wales during each of the first five months of this year were 3,423, 4,001, 4,584, 2,515, and 3,304, respectively.

Does this refer to new houses to be erected by persons other than local authorities?

I am dealing here with local authorities who have made application for permission to build. It is local authorities' houses.

(for Mr. MITCHESON) asked the Minister of Health the total number of houses built in the six months ended 31st March, 1933, and, for comparison, the corresponding total for the six months ended 31st March, 1932?

The total number of houses of a rateable value not exceeding £78 (or £105 in the metropolitan area) completed in England and Wales during the six months ended 31st March, 1933, was 104,981. The corresponding total for the six months ended 31st March, 1932, was 106,461.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what agreement has been reached between the Dominions Governments and his Department in regard to the imports into this country of processed milk; if the National Union of Farmers have been consulted upon these arrangements: and with what results?

I have been asked to reply. In regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend-to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) on Monday last, of which I am sending him a copy. In regard to the last part of the question, the National Farmers' Union were aware and approved of my right hon. Friend's intention to make the best arrangements possible in the circumstances.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if arrangements have yet been made between his Department and the Netherlands Government to reduce imports of processed milk from the Netherlands into this country or between his Department and Netherlands traders; if similar arrangements are being or have been made with other countries; and, if so, which and upon what conditions?

The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative, the arrangements having been made in each case through representatives of the Governments of the foreign countries concerned, namely, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, the United States, Germany, Switzerland, and France. For the nature of the arrangements, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 29th May, of which I am sending him a copy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the wholesale price of butter from New Zealand, Australia, and Denmark at the date of the passing of the Ottawa Agreements and at the present time, and the price of English butter on the same date?

In the week ended 16th November, 1932, the average wholesale prices of first quality butter were as follows:—New Zealand (salted) 105s. per cwt., Australian (salted) 97s., Danish 126s., and British 154s. The 1933 prices for the week ended 14th June were, New Zealand 88s., Australian 86s., Danish 96s., and British 112s.

In the case of New Zealand and Australia, were they shillings of those countries' currency or English?

:I could not say without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take in the matter of the application addressed to him by Scottish fishermen to the effect that fishing for herrings on Sundays should be made illegal?

The application referred to was addressed to the Fishery Board for Scotland a few weeks ago, and I am informed that the Board has not yet reached a conclusion on the subject. But my hon. Friend is no doubt aware that legislation would be necessary to give effect to the fishermen's proposal.

Will the Minister, before taking action, consult with the East Coast where there is strong opposition to the proposal?

Before action is taken the question will be viewed in its widest possible aspects.

Will he also bear in mind that, despite the reported indiscretions of the Opposition on the Lord's Day, in the East of Scotland the Sabbath is observed as a day of rest?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps it is proposed to take in view of the petitions addressed to the Fishery Board with regard to ring-net fishing in the Firth of Forth?

This matter has been raised from time to time during recent years, and the position is that hitherto the Fishery Board have not been satisfied that there is sufficient ground for restricting ring-net fishing in the Firth of Forth. The question is, however, being further examined by the Board in the light of recent representations from the Scottish Herring Producers' Association.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the loss of sleep and the injury to health caused by loud motor noises at night, he will issue a regulation prohibiting the use of horns and other noisy instruments by motorists in residential thoroughfares during the midnight hours except in cases of emergency?

This question has been considered from time to time but the Minister regrets that he cannot see his way to make a regulation such as my hon. Friend suggests. Apart from the difficulty of deciding what is a residential area and what is an emergency, the Minister is not satisfied that such a regulation would be in the interests of public safety. The installation of light control signals has, I think, had an appreciable effect in reducing noise from the use of motor horns at cross roads.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the number of fatal and other accidents taking place in the borough of Leyton, Essex; and what steps he is taking to alter some of the roads whereon some of these fatal and other accidents have recently occurred?

In December last my hon. Friend's attention was drawn to a fatal accident in the Borough of Leyton, alleged to be due to the slippery condition of the road surface, and immediate steps were taken to have the surface treated with non-skid dressing. My hon. Friend is not aware of any other recent accidents in the borough attributed to dangerous road conditions.

If I bring to the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend three cases of fatal and other accidents, will he get into touch with the railway companies concerned and the county council, together with his own Department, in order to arrange some sort of settlement whereby the roads may be made safe for men, women and children?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be prepared to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman.

(for Captain SOTHERON - ESTCOURT) asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the increased imports of foreign setts and kerb during recent months, he will consider the advisability of taking fresh steps to urge upon local authorities the necessity of using British setts and kerb in all their road-making operations?

My hon. Friend is aware that there has been an increase in the importation of foreign setts and kerbs during the last three months. He has no reason to suppose, however, that the increase is due to the use of foreign materials for grant-aided schemes, and it may be accounted for in some measure by seasonal fluctuations in the volume of road works put in hand. It is not thought necessary to address a further communication to local authorities in view of the Circular already sent to them, a copy of which is being sent to my hon. and gallant Friend setting out the conditions attached to all grants from the Road Fund towards the cost of works.

Will the hon. Member ask the Minister to look into this matter rather more closely to see whether there is any unnecessary increase in the use of foreign materials?

I will certainly put that request before my right hon. Friend and also inform him of the hon. Member who desires to get the information.

asked the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given to this House to debate the trade agreement with Sweden?

If it is desired to debate this agreement, an opportunity will no doubt occur in the normal course of business.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the embargo on Russian imports; and whether any negotiations are proceeding on the subject?

As regards the embargo I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood) on the 29th May last, since when the position has not changed; the answer to the second part of the question is "No, Sir."

Am I to understand from the reply that no conversations of any kind have taken place between the responsible authorities in the two countries on the subject?

My hon. Friend must understand the answer, which is, "No, Sir."

If the embargo against Russia is bad for our industries, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is time that the Government came off the high horse and did something about it?

Will my hon. Friend make inquiries to see what effect the embargo is having on the herring fishing industry of Scotland at the present time?

The policy of the Government on this question was very fully stated to the House, and I have nothing whatever to add.

May I ask if the Foreign Office has made itself conversant with the results of the policy upon an important industry in Scotland at the present time?

In presenting Estimates for the Department of Health for Scotland amounting to £2,800,000 odd it would be possible to cover an immense range of subjects because it is the function of that Department to deal with a large and varied number of topics in connection with the Government of Scotland. Even to enumerate them would take some time: they include such matters as housing, town planning, health insurance, hospitals, medical services, and the special features of many of these services in their relation to the Highlands and Islands. I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that but for the fact that the Estimate for housing has increased by £140,000 the total estimates for the Department would show a decline of almost £40,000. Part of that decline is due to the National Health Insurance Grant but almost £8,000 of it is due to administrative economies.

The Department itself has cost just short of £8,000 less to run this year than in the previous year, and that has been mainly, but not exclusively, caused by the fact that the staff has been reduced from the figure of 765 to the figure of 742, a reduction of 23. I am sure the Committee will be glad to know that of these 23 men who were dismissed from the Department, two who are surveyors, have entered into private practice with the best prospects of success; of the 10 who applied to the Employment Exchange for employment, nine have got into work; and we understand that of the balance the great majority have found places in private work. I say that, because anybody who is responsible for securing a reduction in the staff of an office must feel that it is all-important to know what is the fate of the men whom the exigencies of national economy make it necessary to cause to leave the public service. On the whole, I must say that I am not dissatisfied with the situation and with what has happened to the 23 men.

Of that great range of subjects to which I have referred, I propose to select a certain number of the most salient— many of them, I am glad to say, I think the Committee will regard as satisfactory, though one or two show undoubted features of anxiety—and leave to other hon. Members the duty of raising any particular question which I have omitted and in which they may be specially interested; and to such questions I hope I shall be able to give some answer which will be of value to those who raise them. Of the subjects which I would like to place before the Committee housing, I think the Committee will agree, remains of the greatest importance, and indeed it may be said that it is even more important this year than last, because the housing policy of the Government, both in England and in Scotland, has now materialised in two Acts of Parliament. It will be of interest to the Committee to indicate as well as I can at this early stage, because the Scottish Housing Bill became law only on the 18th May, the kind of tendencies and results that are already showing from the new legislation.

But let me first summarise the general situation with regard to housing dealt with in the report. Remembering that the report of the Department embraces a period up to 31st December, 1932, let me give the Committee one or two salient figures of the housing situation then. Houses completed in 1932 amounted to 15,818—not the highest figure there has even been, but among the best figures. Even more important, however, are the houses which were under construction and approved but not begun at the same date, namely, 3lst December last—that is to say, all the other houses beyond those already completed—and there the figure is most interesting. The houses under construction and approved but not begun were at that date at the very high figure of 30,777, the highest figure which has been reached in Scotland since the Housing Acts were first passed into law, and indeed almost 4,000 higher than the previous record. I think the Committee will recognise that that is a very satisfactory figure, and it will explain to many Scottish Members what they see with their own eyes when they go to their constituencies, namely, the immense activity in housing and the immense pressure there is on various forms of housing materials.

Let me now give the Committee the figure of slum houses completed, and I lay emphasis on the figure for this reason. Stated on broad lines, the general policy of the Government with regard to housing has been that the local authorities, both in Scotland and in England, should concentrate upon slum clearance and that normal housing should be done by unassisted private enterprise, though guarantees should be given to building societies, with the exception that there is in Scotland one other subsidy, namely, the £3 subsidy for houses to be let to low wage-earners at rents not exceeding 6s. per week, or 6s. 6d at the utmost. It is all-important, now that we are in a period when the attention of the local authorities is to be concentrated upon slum clearance, to see how the matter of slum clearance stood at 31st December last, and what progress has been made in the five months which have elapsed since Scotland knew that that was the policy of the Government.

I will therefore rive the slum clearance houses which were completed by the end of 1932. They were 19,699. What has happened in the five months since? Tenders have been approved for a larger number of slum clearance houses than have ever been approved in a corresponding period in any year Slum clearance began roughly in 1923. It was not until 1931 that the figure for tenders approved for this period of five months nearly reached the 2,000 limit; in 1932 they rose to 2,969; and for the first five months of this year that figure is 3,739. Therefore, in the first five months of this year, we have reached a figure 770 in advance of the corresponding period of last year, and a very much larger figure in advance of the year before that. I think those are satisfactory figures, because they show that the local authorities are concentrating upon slum clearance and are continuing the admirable efforts which I have repeatedly told the House and the Committee they have made in Scotland and are still constantly increasing the number of slum clearance houses which they propose to build.

Having made the point clear that the number of tenders approved for slum clearance houses for the first five months of 1933 are well in advance of any similar period, I will give the Committee figures which show how constantly since slum clearance was first begun the interest and efforts of Scottish local authorities in this vital branch of housing has increased. In the first year tenders were approved for 1,100; in the second year, 1,400; third year, 2,400; fourth year, 2,100; fifth year, 2,800; sixth year, 1,600; seventh year, 1,700; eighth year, 2,100; for 1931, 5,600; and for 1932, 8,300. Those figures show the valuable assistance of the 1930 Act and how fully the local authorities in Scotland are responding to the task of clearing the slums. Do not let it be supposed that that task is complete. We are all well aware that it is not, and no effort that my right hon. Friend and I and the Department are able to make to advance slum clearance will be left unmade. Any efforts we may make at the centre will not be taken on the whole with regard to unwilling authorities. We shall assist local authorities which have already shown that they are not unmindful of the need for clearing away slums.

The Committee will want to know about the £3 subsidy houses. It was freely prophesied in the Debates on the Housing Bill that the £3 subsidy would never be used. The Bill has been an Act for only just over a month. Already 104 £3 houses have been finally approved, applications are in for 668, and inquiries are going on about a larger figure which I cannot give the Committee. I do not think that the Committee will have any cause for dissatisfaction that there should have been that number in the first month. When we recollect how strictly the houses of that type are confined to the low wage-earner, we can feel that we are dealing with one of the difficult problems of Scottish houses.

In what part of Scotland are these applications?

I will see if I can give the information in my reply.

Are we discussing the 1933 Act? Surely we are discussing the Acts of 1932?

I do not think that it is outside the custom on the Estimates to discuss the whole situation. Indeed from a constitutional point of view we are dealing with money that is spent partly in this year, and although the report deals with a period up to last December, it is a useful peg on which to hang a discussion of the present position. I should be sorry to have the discussion on the money that the Committee is to be asked to vote for this year only about what happened last year.

I want to say a word on the subject of costs. The situation is satisfactory for we have constantly been reducing costs of houses in Scotland. I will give the average costs for all types of houses for 1932 and the average for the tenders approved for the first five months of this year. Even in that short time the fall in cost is considerable. For all types of houses for 1932, the average cost was £300, that is, builders' cost only. That average of £300 has fallen to £285 for the first five months of this year. Decreases to £232, £240, and £250 can be found over a wide range of towns. The figures justify the position we took up in the Debates on the Housing Bill, that there was a definite decline in the cost of houses. That is of interest again as bearing on the value of the £3 subsidy.

I will next deal with the question under the last Housing Act of private enterprise and the building society guarantee which was embodied in Section 3. My information must be in general terms. Fourteen building corporations have been formed, and I do not think that it would be unfair to say that they probably involve the construction of some 4,000 houses. It must not be taken that the activities of these corporations will be confined to building houses to let under the guarantee, and I am not able to say at the moment what number of that rough estimate of 4,000 houses will be houses to let. The formation of those 14 corporations shows the extent to which private enterprise is rousing itself to the task. Private, or what is called speculative, building is still going ahead in spite of the disappearance of the subsidy to that form of housing. I think that I am justified in saying that, short as has been the period since the Government sketched out their new policy, there are clear and satisfactory indications that private enterprise is addressing itself to the task of supplying the working-class with houses.

I would like to say a word about the progress of reconditioning rural houses under the Acts of 1926 and 1931. At 31st December, 1931, that is a year and five months ago, 11,000 odd approvals had been given for the reconditioning of rural houses, and the completions amounted to 8,000 odd. At 31st March, 1933, which is the last date for which I have got statistics, that is some 15 months later, the approvals had increased from 11,000 to 14,500, that is 3,500 more, and the cottages in which the improvements were completed had increased from 8,000 to almost 12,000, namely, 11,908. That is to say, in those 15 months almost 3,500 new cottages had been approved or reconditioned, and in almost 4,000 the improvements had been completed. When you consider the comparatively small number of rural cottages, these figures are not unsatisfactory. I, myself, think that they are most satisfactory. They show that the activity which is going on under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts is still great, and anyone who has seen the difference between a cottage before it was improved and after it was improved, must realise what it means to Scottish rural life that almost 12,000 rural cottages had by the end of March undergone that improvement.

There is one last topic upon which I would like to touch with regard to houses. I spoke last year, and I have spoken on various occasions since, as to the necessity of the houses which have been built by subsidy being tenanted by people who really are suitable to receive this assistance from the State, and I venture to recall to the Committee that the average State assistance given in the case of an Addison house amounts to 15s. 9d. a week, which is a very considerable contribution. Everyone knows the high class of house erected, and I think that public opinion is agreed that if Parliament has devoted immense time, a great deal of legislation, and large sums of money to the building of houses for working people, it is of vital importance that they should find tine right occupants. There are a great many propositions which receive general agreement, but when you come to apply them to individual cases, undoubtedly there are people who may feel that the shoe pinches, and I have seen indications in questions and answers, and, indeed, in a Debate on the Adjournment, that some Members were conscious of a certain pinch of the shoe when my right hon. Friend circularised the local authorities drawing their attention to the recommendations of the Consultative Committee which we had upon the subject, fortified as they were by the recommendations of the Lovat Committee. Let us see what is happening with regard to the means test. First of all, let me say what is the reaction of the local authorities to our original circular. Some immediately instituted inquiries, some have undertaken to apply the test in future cases, and some seem at present more doubtful. There are various degrees of virtue, but already the results show that the thing has been worth doing, and that not to do it would be a breach of duty on our part.

Let me take one or two examples. The Committee may remember that Aberdeen was the cause of some anxiety to some Members here, because the questionnaire on the subject of the incomes of the occupants of houses put before those occupants aroused at the time a certain amount of disturbance in that city. Well, that disturbance has been got over. We may hear something about it later on, but the fact is that, as a result of that questionnaire, 70 houses in Aberdeen have been left vacant by their tenants for the use of more suitable tenants. In all cases, I understand, tenants have been got and without reduced rent, moreover now, or presently 164 extra houses will produce a larger rent.

Does the hon. Gentleman mean by "more suitable tenants," people whose income is lower?

Yes, that is what I mean. In the case of 164 houses, the rents have been raised by figures between 25s. and £5. That is one example. It may be said that these are not very large increases, but it is important to realise that in the case of the vacated houses you have an immediate opportunity of putting into them overcrowded families, and that when you have an increased rent, you obtain, in the case of the Addison house, a definite, though small, reduction of the burden on the State, and in the case of a 1924 house a reduction of the local burden upon the rates contribution. These are results which, it may be said, are not spectacular, and will not give you money on a gigantic scale. But it seems to me that the first task of administration is to see that the intention of the law is carried out, and the second and not less important task of administration is to see that the money which Parliament supplies is spent to the best advantage.

I said a moment ago that all local authorities have not made exactly the same response. That is true. Some say they will take action immediately, some in the future, and some, with truth, say that their town is so small, and the number of houses built so few, that they know without any inquiries for this specific purpose that the tenants occupying them are suitable. But the fact is, I am satisfied with the start of this policy. I am satisfied that local authorities are anxious to help. I am satisfied that in this matter the local authorities of Scotland, and Scotland generally, are in favour of this effort to ensure that the houses built are properly used, and I desire to say to the Committee and to Scotland that any assistance the Department can give to local authorities in this work will be most fully given. I want to make it quite clear that the start has not been unfavourable, that we are convinced the policy is a right one, and that we are perfectly satisfied that it must be pursued in the interests of those people who ought to be in the houses which were built for them, or, alternatively, in the interest of the State where those people in houses could pay a higher rent, and to the interest of the locality which would benefit by a more full return for their money.

In connection with Aberdeen, the hon. Gentleman has told us of 70 people who, I take it, have such incomes that they can get houses outside the subsidy scheme. Will he tell us the number of people in the Aberdeen subsidy scheme who cannot afford to pay the rent, and is there any intention to subsidise those people to a greater extent?

I think it would be better if I followed the course of my speech than attempt to answer those questions, and, indeed, I prefer to deal with that subject in my reply. To answer the questions adequately means rather a full statement.

But the hon. Gentleman has that information about Aberdeen.

I have certainly not got that information. I am concerned at the moment in seeing that suitable tenants get into the houses. The question of the rent which is to be paid by the suitable tenant is a question which, broadly speaking, is settled when the housing scheme is fixed, and I am unwilling to go into the details which an answer would involve. I would prefer now to deal, not with details, but with the general situation. I content myself with saying, on the subject of the means test, that I am satisfied that it is worth doing, that it should be done, and that we should assist the local authorities, and I have no doubt that, as the months go on, more and more local authorities will find that this result can be obtained without any alarming degree of friction or heat being engendered. I may add, as a matter of practical example, that I have noticed, although I will not give names or places, that there is already a slight tendency for people to slip out of those houses without any particular inquiry being instituted, and I should not be surprised, and I do not think the Committee would be, if it turned out that there are a good many people in Scotland in those houses who know that they should not be there. I leave the question of houses.

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the means test for houses, or before he comes to reply, seeing that he wants to get better posted in the details—

I never said anything of the sort.

The hon. Gentleman said distinctly that he would prefer to reply in detail later on. In order that he may be prepared with a reply later on, I want to put this point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) on the means test. The hon. Gentleman is taking up a certain line as far as those who are well off and can afford to come out of those houses and go to other houses. The question which arises, a far more serious one to us, is, What is to be done about those who are being evicted because they are not able to pay the rents of these new houses? Are you making any provision for them? Take the case of my own constituency, because it was that case and not the case of Glasgow which I raised with the Secretary of State for Scotland—

The hon. Member must realise that I am in the middle of putting the Estimates before the whole Committee, and while I am willing to give way to answer a question or two I am not inclined to allow my speech to take the form of a sandwich composed of, no doubt, very dry bread, with extremely stimulating meat provided by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) in the middle of it. I think I have the hon. Member's point, and if not I will take the opportunity of talking over the matter with him.

On a point of explanation. It is not my fault that I have only just arrived. I have come here from the Committee considering the Road and Rail Transport Bill. We sat all the morning, and then it was decided, at the behest of a Member of the Government, that we should meet from 2 to 4 p.m. That is why I was not here at the beginning. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I was breaking into his speech.

I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I appreciate very much the courtesy which he has always shown to me over a long period of years, and I hope that when he occupies the position that I do—

What a hope.

he will realise that there are a large number of topics to be dealt with, and that one is anxious to get on with the job, so that continuity of attention on the part of the Committee may not be broken. I shall take the opportunity of having a private discussion with my hon. Friend before I reply. I think I have dealt with the main topics connected with housing sufficiently to indicate to the Committee the general situation, though, as the Committee well know, the interest in it is endless, and we could spend many happy hours in its discussion.

The next topic with which I wish to deal is town planning. It is of importance, and I think satisfactory, that the City of Glasgow, with its environs, is now completely town planned, and that the City of Aberdeen, with a circle of the country extending over 96 square miles, has now got an admirable town planning scheme. I am not going into the merits of town planning, but I will say two things. One of the results of town planning in the case of Aberdeen has been that the banks of the Dee, from, I think, eight miles inland to Aberdeen, are preserved for all time as a beauty spot, and as affording an admirable entrance to that city whatever degree of development may come to it. Let me give an example of the necessity of town planning which came to my notice the other day, not in Scotland but in the South. Only last Saturday I was approaching the outskirts of a town and, about four miles away from it, came upon a small country house of the rather large villa type. Immediately behind it a private enterprise building scheme was putting up rows and rows of small houses. What was the result? The villa house was already up for sale. Inquiries convinced me that the value of that house to the owner had been reduced by many thousands of pounds; but the loss of value was not confined to the owner. It had a rateable value which was going down,. and when in fullness of time it comes to be valued for death duties it will have a value not of £5,000 or £6,000 but of only £1,800 or £2,000. In such a case the absence of proper planning means an absolutely unnecessary and a cruel loss of value not merely for the individual but for the State and for the locality. Therefore, it is a matter for congratulation that the greatest city of Scotland, Glasgow, and the great city of Aberdeen, with certain of their surroundings, are fully town planned. The extension of town planning, although the full fruits of it are gathered only slowly, is most necessary in order that the future development of our country should be along right lines, that amenities should be preserved, and that values should not carelessly and ruthlessly be thrown away.

On the question of public health in Scotland, I cannot say that I am altogether satisfied with the figures which are before the Committee in the annual report. Here, I shall confine myself to the figures in the annual report, because they are the latest statistics before me. The question of human public health falls into three important divisions—maternal mortality, infantile mortality and infectious diseases. Maternal and infantile mortality are dealt with on pages 56 and 57 of the report. The figures for maternal mortality in 1932 show a slight rise, having gone up from 5.9 per thousand to 6.4. Fortunately, they are not higher than in the year before that, and some of the previous years, but the serious and remarkable thing about maternal mortality is that it has been increasing steadily ever since 1855. It is a most mysterious phenomenon, and I do not think it is confined to Scotland.

All I can say is that we are not being idle in the matter. We have had a close investigation into a number of fatal maternity cases but the doctors, our medical advisers and others who are skilled in this subject say that it is unwise to attempt to draw any final conclusions from the records of the fatal cases only, and that we must supplement them with the records of all cases. In the middle of December, 1932, we instituted an investigation, to extend over six months, into every case of child-birth in Scotland. That period has just closed, and when the results of that investigation are examined I believe that we shall have data more complete than exist elsewhere for the attempt to grapple still further with this most difficult and perplexing problem. Until we have put the new facts before the medical experts it is idle to attempt to say anything more about the subject.

The figures of infant mortality, too, I am sorry to say, show a slight rise, though a very slight rise, over those of the previous year. The figures for 1932 are 86 per thousand, which is four per thousand above the figure for 1931 and I above the average of the last five years. When I made efforts to investigate this matter for myself, the most striking feature which presented itself to me was not the comparatively small rise over the previous year's figures, though that is undesirable, but the fact that for a long period of yeans Scottish infant mortality has been definitely higher than the English.

That is due to our housing.

Let me give my own explanation. The medical experts are not so clear about it.

The weather has to be taken into account.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), with his knowledge of the weather, seems to be nearer the mark. At all events, the fact is that for a number of years the Scottish infantile mortality rate has been higher than the English, although for a previous period the English rate was higher than the Scottish. The difference has been in the nature of some 15 per thousand over a considerable period of years. What is interesting is that when one analyses the English figures one finds that, speaking broadly, infant mortality increases as one goes north, and that in Northumberland and Durham the figures of infant mortality are almost exactly comparable with the Scottish figures. When I made inquiries I found that the matter had been reviewed by Sir Leslie Mackenzie 10 years ago in a previous report by the Department, and the conclusion he came to, tentatively, was that there was some relation between climate and infantile mortality. The point that has been made, and it seems to have medical foundation, is that it is not the intensity of the climate but its variability that is the evil influence on the life of the very young. I was startled when I first saw the difference between the figures for England and Scotland, and then I was interested and not quite so disturbed when I found that the further north one went in England the nearer one approximated to the conditions in Scotland. I throw the facts out to Members of the Committee, and I have indicated the various assumptions which can be made from them.

Next I come to infectious diseases, a subject not to be lightly disregarded. Apart from the effects which follow them and the deaths for which they are responsible, infectious diseases are the cause of an immense disturbance of family life and of education and a considerable increase of expenditure both private and public. The only feature with regard to infectious diseases to which I wish to draw attention is the disturbing one that last year we had an epidemic of scarlet fever in Scotland which brought up the cases from 18,000 to 28,000. That raises the question of whether we are doing all we can to emphasise the necessity of the prevention of disease as well as doing our best to cure it. There has been an immense amount of work in recent years on the question of immunisation. which is the making of people immune from various diseases by inoculation. I notice with satisfaction that when scarlet fever spread to Zetland the local authority took steps to make available to private practitioners means of immunising their patients. I believe that that was a valuable help in dealing with the epidemic. I do not think that medical opinion would say that we are fully aware of the range of diseases in which immunisation may be of assistance. The practice of immunisation is far advanced in the case of scarlet fever, but many people think it is also valuable in influenza and other diseases because of our expanding skill and knowledge upon the subject. I shall not attempt to give any answer upon that point, but the fact that you can have a sudden attack of such a disease as scarlet fever raging through Scotland in one year in such a way as to be thoroughly disturbing, raises the question of whether we can, in the matter of infectious diseases, do more in the way of prevention. I propose, so far as I can, to follow up this subject, and perhaps a future Under-Secretary, in a future year, may have more to say to the Committee on this interesting matter.

So much for measures connected with human health. I will now draw the attention of the Committee to an extremely important function of the Department of Health connected with animal welfare. I refer to the inspections, one of which per annum is statutory, of the dairy herds of Scotland by veterinary officers. There are many counties who do not have one inspection, but three. The value of these inspections cannot be gainsaid. They result in an earlier detection of the tuberculous cow, and in an earlier elimination of the risk of infection therefrom. I wish publicly to express my thanks, the thanks of my right hon. Friend and of the Department, to those counties which have exceeded their statutory duty of one inspection. The Committee will see that if the veterinary officer goes round three times a year to each farm where there are cows, he thereby reduces the period during which a tuberculous cow may be giving milk, and the appearance of tuberculosis is noted at a very much earlier stage. I assure the Committee that no effort of mine will be wanting to see that the standard of this most valuable work is made as high as possible. For the benefit of those hon. Members who are particularly interested in agriculture, may I say that one of the ways in which the dairy industry, as a branch of our national agriculture, may most be helped, is by giving consumers a greater confidence in the purity of the produce. From that aspect, the increase and development of the system of dairy inspection is a matter of high importance, and I can hardly over-emphasise the hygienic and economic importance of this matter. Prevention is better than cure, and along the lines of preventive medicines our public health efforts may more and more have to be concentrated.

May I take this opportunity of reminding the Committee that my right hon. Friend announced some time ago that he was going to set up a committee to deal with public health services of Scotland, a question which originated in the report of another committee and is obviously one, of great importance. The House of Commons has had before it the terms of reference to the committee, which are:

"To review the existing health services of Scotland in the light of modern conditions and knowledge, and to make recommendations on any changes in policy and organisation that may be considered necessary for the promotion of efficiency and economy."

I am now in a position to announce to the Committee what the personnel of the proposed committee will be. We have been extremely fortunate in getting Sir John Dove-Wilson, a retired Judge, who was chairman of the Natal Supreme Court and more recently chairman of the Persistent Offenders' Committee, to take the chair of the committee. The other members will be:

• Mr. George Bonar, of Dundee.
• Dr. Brownlie, Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health.
• Mr. Ian Carmichael, a well-known local administrator in Lanarkshire.
• Professor Edward Cathcart, Professor of Physiology in Glasgow University.
• Dr. Robert Craig, of the Scottish section of the British Medical Association.
• Provost David Fisher, of Hawick.
• Professor Alexander Gray, Professor of Economics in Aberdeen University.
• Sir Andrew Grierson, Town Clerk of Edinburgh.
• Dr. John Jardine, of the Scottish Education Department.
• Dr. A. S. M. McGregor, Chief Medical Officer of Glasgow.
• Lady Leslie Mackenzie.
• Mr. W. Marshall, Clerk to the Scottish Association of Insurance Committees.
• Dr. Alexander Miles, a well-known Edinburgh surgeon.
• Bailie Violet Roberton, who is well known in Glasgow.
• Mr. J. M. Vallance, of the Department of Health for Scotland.
• Mrs. Chalmers Watson,

Mr. Joseph Westwood, whom I need not identify because he was well known in this House and, speaking for myself, I much regret his absence.

This Committee has a most important task to perform. I believe that the professional and public opinion of Scotland is looking forward with immense interest to the investigation that will proceed. I think that we may get, from the close investigations of this Committee, recommendations which will be of real and lasting value to the administration of the public health services of Scotland. I have dealt with these large topics— housing, town planning, and public health in its various aspects—and I do not want to go into detail now on the many large questions which are clustered round the question of public assistance. I will not go into the figures, but I will point out to the Committee that those figures are on pages 176 to 179 of the Report. They are heavy and the increases in them have been considerable, but between January, 1933, and April, 1933, there has been an improvement in the unemployment figures in Scotland of 42,700. No doubt the Committee will analyse those figures in various ways, but it cannot be doubted that a certain important proportion of that very considerable figure of 42,700 must result in relieving the burden of the local authorities in regard to poor relief. Without exception of party, the Committee will be gratified to know what those figures show.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has just informed the House of the decrease in the numbers of unemployed in Scotland. Can he now give us the figures of any increase that may have taken place in the numbers of those in receipt of Poor Law relief?

I have already said that I did not want to weary the Committee with the figures. May I just make my speech in my own way? I said that the Committee would like to know that there had been a decrease in the number of unemployed in 1933. I made no attempt to go into details. I venture to say that it is a satisfactory figure, criticise it and whittle it down as you will, that as between January and April there has been that decrease of unemployment. Satisfactory, too, is the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health this afternoon, that a grant of £500,000 is to be given to the distressed areas for the current financial year. On the ordinary Goschen proportion Scotland will receive a little over £60,000 of that sum, and it will be a most welcome addition to the finances of the local authorities who receive it. I cannot at the moment say what the allocation of that £60,000 will be between the local authorities, but as soon as we know the House of Commons and the local authorities will be informed.

May I ask the Minister whether that sum is absolutely definite? Is there no possibility of any extension? Is it absolutely final?

That is a question for a Cabinet Minister rather than for an Under-Secretary. The House of Commons received that figure this afternoon of £500,000, and all I have to say is that, in the ordinary course of things, Scotland will receive £60,000. We are rather inclined to associate the immense nexus of social services which the Department supervises with the great towns. We feel so much the importance in these areas of better health provisions, pensions, poor relief and so on, but I am inclined to think that the great advance which has been made in these services in the last generation, or generation and a half, has had its widest and most complete effect in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The Committee is well aware of the special services which are rendered there. Take the normal life of the crofter population—secure to some extent for their food requirements and in their housing and land, but scattered and living in isolated and difficult districts. There you will now find not only a pension coming in in many oases, but also a wide network of hospitals, doctors and nurses spreading all through the Highlands and Islands, where 30 years ago, it is not an exaggeration to say, such services were practically unknown. There are, of course, great improvements in the way of roads and transport. But if we try to assess the values of the development of the public health services which are grouped under the Department of Health, and consider in what part of Scotland those services have had the most profound effect, I would say that it is in those outlying, isolated, lonely and separated places, where there are difficulties from the nature of the geography and the nature of the social structure, that the efforts of at least a generation of parliaments of Scotsmen and Englishmen have had their greatest effect. Much remains to be done. I believe, and I think the Committee believes, most profoundly, that we must rely upon the welfare of the rural districts for the well-spring of national health and strength, and it is of profound importance that these services have been of such special advantage to, and have made such a difference in, the lives of these rural districts.

In my official position I have had the honour to be closely connected with the Scottish Department of Health for nearly two years. The Committee will realise from the report before them how varied and onerous is the work which the Department does. I should not like to conclude without expressing my appreciation of the work of the staff. Their experience, wisdom and unceasing care, for which no trouble has been too great, have made from my point of view such responsibility as our constitution most properly places upon the shoulders of a Minister lighter than it would otherwise be, and I wish at the opening of the Debate, in which there will be many comments and some criticisms, as there must be in all Departmental activities— and I think the Committee would also like me to do so—to express my feeling of deep admiration and respect for the work of those who serve the Department.

The Under-Secretary in an admirable speech has presented perhaps the best case that could be made for his Department during the past year. Respect for his work and his qualities is a matter of common agreement, and whatever I may have to say in the form of criticism will be from the same motive that animates the Under-Secretary and for the benefit of the country to which we both belong. The report, as usual, is a very well produced document. It is always a pleasure to read the report of the Department. Whether or not we agree with the comments in it is another matter. There are some things in this year's report with which I do not agree, but I am bound to say that each year the Department produce a document which is well worth the study of every Scotsman engaged in public life, whether in Parliament or in other directions.

The Under-Secretary covered a considerable amount of ground in his speech. In the first instance he dealt with the fact that the Department had to dispense with the services of 23 members of the staff. I do not know exactly what the actual work of the Department is, but in view of the fact that it is responsible for the administration of every phase of life in Scotland it seems to me that instead of having fewer members of its staff it ought to have more, especially in view of the statement made by the Under-Secretary as to the great progress made, particularly in housing. I must express my regret that it should have been found necessary, in the interests of what we believe to be largely false economy, to reduce the number of the staff. The Under-Secretary expressed his regret for the necessity of reducing the staff and indicated his sympathy with those who had been displaced. I do not think that he said that they had all found work. If there is any possibility of those who are still idle being restored to their original positions in the Department, I hope that will be done.

The hon. Member dealt very largely with the housing question and, quite properly, claimed a considerable amount of credit for the progress that has been made in the provision of houses. It is not altogether pleasant sailing in that particular matter. I am interested in what appears in Appendix 2 on page 148 under what is described as "Summary of Proceedings" so far as housing is concerned. It is there stated that the total number of houses inspected during the last year was 87,903, in the counties 29,815 and in the burghs 58,088. Of that total the number unfit for human habitation in the counties was 4,973 and in the burghs 9,287. As I read it that means that at least one-sixth of the total houses inspected were admitted by the Department to be unfit for human habitation. I should like to know, and I think the Committee would like to know, the number of houses in Scotland as divided between the counties and the burghs. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will give the information in his reply. We believe, although I do not think it will be acceptable in all parts of the Committee, that the single and two-apartment houses are slums, no matter whether they are in town or in country. If there is not sufficient accommodation to enable the sexes to be separated and for the father and mother of the household to have a room to themselves, we believe on this side of the House that that house ought to be swept out of existence, and we shall not be satisfied with any report from the Department until that position has been secured. A house should contain at least three apartments. I feel sure that every Member of the Committee will agree with that view, as an individual, and I feel certain that no doctor worthy of the name could do other than describe the vast number of these one and two-apartment houses as wholly unfit for human habitation.

The Under-Secretary indicated that he was very much alarmed because of the increase in maternal and infantile mortality, and he said that he was not sure of the causes of that increased mortality. There are a number of causes, but the main cause is poverty. There has been an inquiry into mortality in different occupations and I have seen figures, although I have not them in my possession, where eminent medical authorities have stated that the infantile mortality rate was something like one-third in the middle classes of what it is in the ordinary working classes. In the occupation with which I am connected the mortality is as high as 260 per 1,000 in the mining villages compared with only 50 per 1,000 infantile mortality in the middle classes. I know a large number of mining centres in the industrial west of Scotland, and I am sure that while there has been fairly decent progress made, and I am willing to give due credit to the Department for the work they have done, there are large numbers of unsightly and absolutely uninhabitable houses still occupied by members of the mining and other working class communities. The reason why they occupy those houses is not because they have a liking for them but because they have not the means to pay a higher rent.

Some reference has been made to the means test being applied. I am sure that that is not going to get over the housing difficulty. Where you have a considerable number of empty houses, a big proportion will be houses owned by local authorities. A great number of houses owned by local authorities are occupied by tenants who are unable to pay the rents that are being demanded. It is no use for Members of the House or for the Department to slide over the point which the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) attempted to put. It is a very material point. I am not so sure that even a rent of 6s. is capable of being paid, in view of certain statements in the report of the Board of Health, with which I very strongly disagree, in which attention is drawn to the fact that in some areas too much money is being paid in unemployment relief. In the chapter dealing with the Poor Law, on page 139, there is some criticism with regard to the difficulties of the treatment of the poor in different areas. The sug- gestion of the Department seems to be that some burghs and counties are allowing too much. Some of them are paying too little, and very much less than ought to be paid if any pretence is made by the local authorities of looking after the health and well-being of the people.

I said some months ago that one of the main reasons for the ill-health of our people was poverty, and that is true today. The Under-Secretary of State made some reference to an inquiry that has been held into infant mortality. He said that the increase had been mostly due to variable climatic conditions, and that the further North one went the higher the rate of mortality became. I suppose when you reach the North Pole you will not be able to live at all, and when you get to the Equator there will be no such thing as infant mortality. I hope that that is not a right description of the position, but I suggest that the further North you go, and particularly in the mining districts, the higher becomes the mortality. That is largely because of the poverty of those mining centres, because the people have too little to live upon, and because the housing conditions are not what they ought to be.

It would be impossible for a Member like myself to cover the ground in the same way as the Under-Secretary of State has done, and I am sure there are many Members who want to speak in this Debate. But before raising any new matter, I should like to draw attention to an element in the position which was not very fully explained by the Under-Secretary when he dealt with the question of poor relief or unemployment assistance. He patted himself on the chest and congratulated the Government on the fact that there had been a reduction of something like 43,000 in the number of the unemployed. The figures in the report itself do not give much cause for such a feeling of pleasure. I take from the report the following figures: In Clydebank, in 1931 the number of destitute able-bodied unemployed relieved amounted, taking the persons themselves and their dependants, to 3,600. In 1932, the number was 6,806, an increase of 88 per cent. during the last year. In Dumbarton, there was an increase of 67 per cent. In Port Glasgow, the increase was 80 per cent. In Falkirk, it was 61 per cent., in Glasgow 55 per cent., and in Hamilton 75 per cent. The average of those six burghs is, roughly, 60 per cent. increase in the number of persons for whom the local authority has been held responsible.

That has had this effect: In Clydebank, the rate per pound for the payment of destitute able-bodied unemployed in 1931 was 10·ld., in 1932 it was 1s. 4·5d. In Dumbarton, it has risen from 7·3d. to 1s. 2·9d. In Port Glasgow, it has risen from 9·5d. to 1s. 2·7d. In Glasgow, it has risen from 8·5d. to 1s. 0·4d., and in Hamilton, from 9·6d. to 1s. 5·1d. These burghs, of which I have spoken, with the figures which are to be found in the report, are in the counties of Dumbarton, Renfrew and Lanark. In those counties I do not think there has been any decrease in the number of the unemployed, but, if anything, an increase during the last year. If this were only for the last year it would not be anything about which you need make a very strong case, but when I remind the Committee that so far as Lanark is concerned last year was only one of a continuing series of years since the end of the War. I am putting a case that justifies a very big percentage of the £60,000, if it comes at all, being given to those three counties. According to the report, the destitute able-bodied in 1931 had increased by fully 66 per cent. That is a very serious position so far as Scotland is concerned because, with the possible exception of certain parts of Wales, Scotland has been worse hit than any other part of the United Kingdom. From this side of the Committee we put forward a plea for a much more kindly attitude and for more generous treatment on the part of the Department to the claims made by the local authorities for relief, particularly in those localities to which I have referred.

I have had a communication from the local health insurance committees dealing with the question of the application of the new Act. I had an application from Hamilton Local Medical Panel Committee, which I handed over to the Under-Secretary of State, who is in charge of that particular branch of Scottish administration. I received a reply from the hon. Gentleman which is not at all satisfactory. I think that either the hon. Gentleman or the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to be prepared to raise this matter in the Cabinet, and at least try to get some agreement reached by which medical benefit will be secured to those who are unemployed and who are threatened with the loss of medical benefit at the end of this year. I am sure the Under-Secretary of State himself is not quite so happy as he could wish about his reply. I and some of the other representatives of Lanarkshire in this House had a meeting with the county medical panel committee, which deals with these matters. There were present at that meeting representatives of different districts, and representatives of the doctors. Very strong feelings were expressed in regard to the proposed changes.

It will be generally agreed that if any part of the medical profession has made sacrifices during the last few years, it has been the doctors in the rural areas of the counties of Dumbarton, Renfrew and Lanark. I do not think that any more sacrifices should be asked from that particular section of the medical profession. I hope that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary will try to get some arrangement come to by which the position under the present Act will be modified, so as at least to make secure that there shall be medical attendance, and that the State shall pay the cost of that attendance, in the case of men unfortunately unemployed. I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give the Committee, which I am sure is as strongly interested in this matter as I am, some assurance that at least in regard to that particular complaint about the medical attendance of the unemployed some modification will be made, which will give satisfaction to the people in charge of this onerous work.

I wish to join with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) in congratulating the Under-Secretary of State on his clear elucidation of the Scottish Estimates and all their ramifications. The hon. Member for Hamilton began his speech with a complaint, after complimenting the Under-Secretary. His complaint was that the Board of Health was reducing its staff to the extent of some 23 persons. I think, on reflection, that the hon. Member will find he has made a mistake in grousing at those 23 people being dismissed. My great surprise is that there have not been hundreds of people dis- missed by the Scottish Board of Health in these times. We all know that to deal with this great housing problem which, so far as the Scottish Board of Health is concerned, began in 1919, there were great additions to the staff, which had to examine, lay out and advise. Architects and surveyors were brought up from private enterprise, and they mopped up ex-town clerks and made them housing directors. These men have done their work very well and efficiently. But now, after something like 14 years' experience of housing, housing standards are pretty well settled. Plans can now be produced in the form of blue prints. For years architects have sat laboriously over their drawing-boards, and they have produced satisfactory plans which are now adopted all over the country. Therefore, my great surprise is that the staff has not been reduced by much more than 23. It is, however, some satisfaction to know that, as the Under-Secretary has told us, most of these people are finding jobs, and I am glad to know that they are doing so under private enterprise. Now that the Government which we on this side support is giving private enterprise a start in housing, there are lots of jobs that these men can go back to, and thereby relieve the ratepayers and the taxpayers considerably.

I must congratulate the Department of Health on this report. It is something of which I am sure they are proud, and of which we who support the Government are proud. There has not been such a report on the work of the Department for many years. During the two years that the late Government were in office, they produced something like 10,000 or 11,000 houses. Last year something like 16,000 houses were built, showing an increase of 50 per cent. on the number produced by the Labour Government, although hon. Members opposite have been "grousing" at the National Government for not getting on with housing. It is something that the supporters of the Government ought to be proud of.

You have not much more to be proud of.