asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to what extent his Department is participating in the British Trade Fair in Hong Kong in December; and whether it is proposed to hold a, similar exhibition in Shanghai, with a view to extending British trade in Central and Northern China?

The Department of Overseas Trade does not propose to arrange an exhibit at the British Empire and China Trade Fair, but His Excellency the Governor has accepted the position of patron and His Majesty's Consul-General and the Trade Commissioner have been authorised to accept honorary positions as members of the council of the fair. I am not aware of any proposal to hold a similar exhibition in Shanghai.

Will the hon. and gallant Member tell me why we decided not to have a stand there? It is so important for trade in the East.

On the ground of expense.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Interdepartmental Committee on Artificial Propagation of Fish recommended in 1932 a Government grant of £3,250 for a scheme of experiments, which grant was not made owing to national economy; and whether, in view of the importance to fisheries throughout the country of research of this nature, he will now reconsider the advisability of making this grant?

The Interdepartmental Committee to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers recommended experiments estimated by them to involve an outlay of £3,210 of capital expenditure and an annual sum of £1,150 for 10 years, making a total expenditure of £11,500. They also recommended some experiments in the rearing of parr, at a cost of £3,010. While I am afraid I can see no immediate prospect of Government funds being available to enable these experiments to be put in hand, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the work of the committee, and particularly of the unofficial members who gave so much of their time to the investigation of this question. I fully recognise the importance of the work pro posed by the committee, and I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the possibility of putting the scheme into effect will be kept under review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the fishery research station at Alresford has undertaken any research to determine whether spring salmon breed spring fish and autumn salmon autumn fish and if so, with what result?

The Alresford station is concerned mainly with freshwater bio logical questions bearing on the subject of pollution, and no research of the nature indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend has been carried out there.

Does not this problem of fishery management require urgent attention?

Yes, Sir, but I think this is not the most suitable occasion to carry out some of the experiments which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind.

Cannot some of this information be obtained from the Fraser and Columbia River fisheries?

I cannot answer that question without notice.

asked the Minister of Agriculture the consumption of bacon per head of the population of Great Britain for the years 1924, 1931, and 1934, and the average price of best qualities for the same years?

As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with per mission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the inconvenience and, in the case of old age and wound pensioners, hardship to traders and stall holders on Edmonton Green, as well as to the general public, particularly women who shop there, he will reconsider his decision to close the existing post office on the Green, at least so far as ordinary postage business is concerned?

I regret that I cannot depart from the decision already conveyed to my hon. Friend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave dissatisfaction in the district Is he aware that there is a railway line between the Green Post Office and the proposed new post office, with gates over a level-crossing which are closed a number of times a day, thus making it difficult for old age pensioners and others to get to the new office?

I must remind my hon. Friend that my Department is making adequate provision for this particular district. We are going to establish a Crown Office which I understand is only a furlong away from the locality to which my hon. Friend refers. The district council asked for it, and I think the establishment of a Crown Office is in keeping with the importance of the district.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difficulty arises from the level-crossing, which is frequently closed? Is he further aware that a petition signed by over 6,000 people has been presented, and that a deputation has been received by an officer of his Department?

There is difficulty and in some cases hardship where an existing office has to be closed, and sometimes persons are affected, and one naturally has a good deal of sympathy with them, but in this case provision is being made for a Crown Office adequate to the needs of the district.

Will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to see that the employés in the Green Post Office have the first chance of employment in the new office?

I will think about that.

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether any of the stands in the Mall will be retained until the 3rd June so that they may be available for spectators when His Majesty proceeds to the Horse Guards Parade for the trooping of the colour?

I have given very careful consideration to this suggestion, but it has not proved possible to adopt it as regards all the stands. The stands were primarily erected to enable Members of both Houses of Parliament, of the Defence Forces, and of the Civil Service, and certain visitors from the Dominions, India and the Colonies to view the State Drive to St. Paul's Cathedral on 6th May. The seats were sold at a price no more than sufficient to cover the actual cost of erec- tion. The materials of which the stands are composed are either hired by the con tractors or otherwise earmarked in connection with their other work, and the retention of the stands beyond the original contract period would entail considerable expenditure to meet the claims made against the contractor for non delivery of the materials. To maintain the stands until 3rd June would in addition involve further expenditure in re conditioning. In these circumstances it is not possible to retain the stands as they are. But I am glad to say that the contractors have very generously agreed to the retention without any payment at all of one stand which will be handed over to the General Officer Commanding London District for the use of relatives of the troops on parade on 3rd June, and of the Old Comrades Association. In addition I have been able to arrange satisfactory terms for the reservation of two more stands, the seats on which will be made available on payment to visitors from the Dominions, India and the Colonies on application to the High Com missioners or Ceremonial Secretary, Colonial Office, and to Members of both Houses of Parliament. As regards the latter applications should be made forth with to the Lord Chancellor's and Mr. Speaker's secretaries. Two tickets will be available for each Member and the price will be 3s. 6d. per ticket.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider re moving one of the stands towards the Horse Guards Parade so that an extra stand may be placed there to be used for the trooping of the colour?

I gather that all the stands in the Mall are to be removed except three, which are on the South side of the Mall and West of the Artillery Memorial.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is a shortage of trained hospital nurses; and whether he will consider allocating some portion of public funds in the distressed areas to educate and train a limited number of suitable girls as hospital nurses either in the great hospitals locally or in hospitals in the South of England?

I am aware that there is some shortage of trained hospital nurses in certain places. I understand, however, that the shortage is not due to any lack of training facilities, as in the majority of hospitals the training is provided free.

asked the Minister of Labour whether the permits granted for the entry into this country of instructors at the factory of the Bata. Shoe Company, East Tilbury, are still operative; if so, when they will expire; whether he is satisfied that the firm in question are carrying out their undertaking to observe the wages and conditions laid down in the national agreement of the boot and shoe industry in this country; whether he is aware that the firm's undertaking not to compete in the British market is not being observed; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

There are at present seven foreign instructors employed under permit in the factories of the Bata Shoe Company at Tilbury; four of these are in the rubber shoe factory and three in. the fabric and leather shoe factory. In addition 10 foreigners are employed under permit in managerial and technical posts. In three cases the permission runs until December next; in the remainder—including all the instructors—the date of expiry is 6th June. I have no reason to think that the company is not carrying out the arrangement made with my Department in regard to the rates of wages. The arrangement did not include an under taking not to compete in the British market.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in Lancashire, including the county boroughs, on transitional payments, and also the number receiving less than the rate of standard benefits?

As regards the first part of the question, I am having the in formation extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as it is available. As regards the.second part, I regret that this information is not available.

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of mine-workers employed in the Derbyshire coalfield at the latest date available and the comparative figures for 1934 and 1931?

I have been asked to reply. The number of wage-earners on colliery books in Derbyshire at 4th May, 1935, was 45,677. The comparative figures for 1934 and 1931 were 47,492 and 53,318, respectively.

asked the Minister of Health whether the Government have yet begun to pre pare a River Pollution Prevention Bill; whether it is hoped that such a Bill will prove to be non-controversial; and when it is proposed to be introduced?

My right hon. Friend presumes my hon. and gallant Friend's reference is to a Bill to provide for the reception of trade effluents into sewers. The state of Parliamentary business precludes any Measure this Session, but my right hon. Friend has in mind the case for such a Measure and, while he cannot say that it would be without controversy, he hopes that the negotiations which have taken place will result in substantial agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what allowances were made to the special con stables that were on duty in the Metropolitan area on the 6th May, and the cost?

The only allowance made was by way of refreshment for those on duty for long periods. In the Metropolitan district a cash allowance was paid where claimed; in the City of London where many special constables did night duty food was provided. The total cost is expected to be about £20.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. Edwin Todd, of Hampstead Road, was arrested by plain-clothes police in Marylebone Lane, on Monday, 6th May, and charged with being a suspected person and attempting to pick pockets; that he had his measurements and finger-prints taken at Marylebone police station; that he appeared before Mr. Snell at Marylebone police court, and was discharged; that he is 50 years of age and a workman of good character; and that he lost one and a half days' wages as a consequence of his wrongful arrest; whether it is pro posed to compensate him for his loss of wages and wrongful detention; and whether his finger-print record will be destroyed?

I have made inquiries and am satisfied that the police officers concerned in no way exceeded their duty in arresting Mr. Todd, and bringing him before the court. The fact that a charge has been dismissed by a magistrate does not in itself afford ground for any claim for compensation, and I do not propose to take any action in the matter. In accordance with the usual practice, Mr. Todd's finger-prints were destroyed, after the case was disposed of.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man has been a. member of his trade union for 28 years, is widely known in the industry, and that everybody who knows him has the highest regard and respect for his character. Why should he be taken away and lose a day and a half's pay because someone commits a blunder and then get no compensation?

I do not think there is any question of his losing a day and a half's pay. He was taken at nine o'clock in the evening and his case was heard by the court the next morning.

His firm, one of the best in the country, had agreed to pay half wages for Jubilee day, provided the men were at work the next morning. Consequently, when he was arrested he was unable to get to work and lost a day and a half's pay.

If the hon. Member can give me fresh information, I shall be glad to consider it.

asked the Home Secretary what proportion of the proceedings against motorists for exceeding the 30-miles-per-hour speed-limit which have been instituted in the Metropolitan area for the month of April, have been taken in respect of motorists who were unaccompanied by passengers and therefore not in a position to pro vide rebutting evidence?

This information is not available and I know of no foundation for the implication in the question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Metropolitan area there were 700 of these cases, and that over 90 per cent. were those of single drivers?

Surely this information is obtainable at the Home Office?

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a matter which should be examined?

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to advise all motorists that if they are likely to exceed the 30-miles limit they should always have a passenger with them.

Since when have passengers become automatic speedometers?

What protection has the single driver of a motor car against conviction in these circum stances?

A driver is convicted upon evidence. A single driver must obey the law as well as other drivers.

Are not these very overwhelming and sinister figures? Will not the right hon. Gentleman look into them?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of dozen packs of playing cards assessed to customs duty during the month of April, 1935?

The number of packs of playing cards assessed to Customs Duty during the month of April, 1935, was 27 dozen.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the approximate amount of Customs duties collected on foodstuffs in 1931 and in 1934?

The approximate amounts of Customs duties collected on foodstuffs in the calendar years 1931 and 1934 were £14,460,000 and £32,590,000, respectively. The figure for 1934 includes feeding stuffs for animals, which cannot be separately distinguished.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a book written by the Prime Minister en titled The Awakening of India has been proscribed in India; whether he can state the reason for this action on the part of the Government of India; and what steps it is proposed to take in regard thereto?

The book has never been proscribed in India.

Is the book on sale and available in all parts of the country?

It has never been proscribed.

Has a supplement been written to the hook entitled "The Labour Party are not yet awake"?

Has the book ever been read by anyone in India?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any particulars regarding the in juries and loss of life suffered by a number of women and children at Bahrein, in the Persian Gulf, on 14th April; and, seeing that the indirect cause of the trouble was the poverty of the population, will he say whether any steps are being taken to establish better economic conditions in the island?

I am sending the hon. Member a summary of the report received on this incident, which was the consequence of a panic in a crowded passage-way at a distribution of alms by a local merchant and a full account of which appeared in the Press at the time. Economic conditions in Bahrein have been adversely affected by the falling off in the pearl trade, but I cannot accept the suggestion in the latter part of the hon. Member's question that this un fortunate incident is the result of them.

Is this not the last of a number of such cases in the past few years, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to ensure the safety of these people when they assemble for that purpose?

The hon. Member seems to forget that Bahrein is an independent State. I can give him information on the subject, but we have no right to intervene in the matter.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Government of Bahrein on the matter?

If the hon. Member can get the price of pearls put up, I am sure every one in the Persian Gulf will be very thankful to him.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of pearls is very much put up, and that even the synthetic pearl has not put them off the market? I would not mind discussing pearls with the right hon. Gentleman.

I shall be very glad to accept the hon. Gentleman's offer.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the House any information in regard to the Lewisham firm of card board-box manufacturers who are accused of supplying false information to one of the Ministry of Labour's inspectors relative to arrears of wages paid and the production of false wages records; whether he can state the amount of arrears owing to a number of employés; whether he is aware that two girls working for the firm were instantly dismissed after giving evidence before the Ministry of Labour's inspector and for not agreeing to accept less than the total amount of arrears owing to them; and what action he proposes to take in regard to the girls' dismissal?

There was no dispute as to the amount of the arrears, totalling about £118, due in this case. A charge was preferred against the firm's manager of producing false records and giving false information relating to payment of these arrears, and after a full hearing it was dismissed by the court on the ground that the charges had not been made out. Of the two girls who were summarily dismissed, one has found other employment and it is expected that the other will do so shortly.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what has been the expenditure up to the present time in the subsidies to beef, milk, and tramp shipping, and the amount of quota payment distributed under the Wheat Act, 1932; and whether he will state in each case from when these payments date?

As the answer involves a table of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Messrs. L. B. Holliday and Company, of Huddersfield, chemical manufacturers, are contractors to the Admiralty, and that they are paying 1d. per hour less than the rates agreed to by the National Joint Industrial Council for the chemical industry in October last, of which council the firm in question was a member; if he is aware that other chemical manufacturers in the same district are paying the full rates agreed upon; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The first intimation received of this complaint was given in the hon. Member's question addressed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 14th May. As definite particulars are now given, the complaint will be investigated.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the examination into the question of the raising of the school-leaving age has yet been completed by his Department; and when he is likely to be able to make a statement on this matter?

The examination into the question of the raising of the school-leaving age is still proceeding, and I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to say when it will be possible to make a statement.

Has my hon. Friend seen the statement in the Press to-day that a decision has been taken?

Yes, and it is quite inaccurate.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Department

It is an exceedingly complicated matter and must take some time to settle.

Will title Minister bear in mind, in coming to a decision, the grave shortage of juvenile labour in industrial areas?

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

The specific object of the new Clause is that no clearance order made under the 1930 Act or any other Measure should include the buildings of a non-provided school. I should not be in order if I were to attempt on this occasion to develop the obvious corollary to this proposal, namely, that in the arrangements for the re-housing of the population, pro vision should be made by the Minister for the erection of new schools. I do not pro pose to say any more on that aspect of the question. As I say, it would not be in order now to press that point, although it is one about which many of us feel very strongly—more strongly perhaps than we do about the new Clause which is actually on the Paper. We feel, however, that it would be something if the Minister could see his way to give us some concession on the basis of the proposal in the new Clause, namely, that there should be no demolition. When the Minister replies I hope he will make clear the attitude of the Government on this matter and that he will also bear in mind that it is not merely this proposed new Clause to which he is replying. It represents the only way in which we can raise the question in Parliamentary form on this occasion but it deals only with a part of a. subject about which the deepest concern is felt by many persons in the country. I ask him therefore to indicate if he can to some extent the Government's general attitude to the position.

We have introduced this Clause because some of us are rather afraid that the Bill may aggravate a position which is already by no means satisfactory. I think these few observations indicate clearly both my own feelings and those of my hon. Friends on this matter but I hope the Minister will not mistake the shortness of my observations for any lack of very deep concern on, the subject on the part of those of us who are interested in it. This is a matter which we regard as of prime importance. It is a matter which touches very deep principles which some of us hold, and therefore I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to indicate that our feelings will not be violated in this Bill.

I beg to second the Motion.

I do so on account of the deep interest taken in the schools by the people of the North of England, particularly in the densely populated area in and around Manchester. In these schools we get religious education, and as probably at the present time religious education is not so popular as it was some years ago, I should regret anything being done to pre vent this education being given in our schools. If any evidence is required of the interest taken in these schools, and in the Sunday schools, in the North of England, I would refer hon. Members to what will take place three weeks to-day in the city of Mancester, where thousands and thousands of children will rally under their respective Sunday-school banners and walk in procession through the streets. I welcome this procession be cause an effort is being made by this means to provide children with much needed clothing.

I understand that in the provided schools the Board of Education have paid something like five-sevenths or six-sevenths of the expense of maintenance, and the remainder is found by the people of the denominations which originally built the schools, and it would be a great pity if these schools were to be included in any demolition order. I therefore appeal to the Minister to see if he cannot do something in connection with this matter. May I suggest that where a clearance is made and a Sunday school is left high and dry, without any population round about it, it would be very hard lines, and indeed impossible, for people to build new schools without the assistance of the Government, and as these schools are used for five days out of seven for secular purposes, I feel that it would be economy on the part of the Government if they could be assisted. I think it would be asking too much for the Government to rebuild them, but some measure might be devised, even a generous measure, which would preserve these schools from falling into disuse. I put this suggestion forward to the Minister, hoping that he will see his way to make some proposal in regard to this matter.

I am very pleased that the Mover and Seconder of this new Clause have mentioned this matter, but I hardly think it is possible for the Minister to deal with it in the manner proposed. I am fully aware, with regard to the congested areas of great cities where demolition may take place, how essential it may be that from the point of view of non-provided schools assistance should be given to those receiving religious education, and I am aware also, as to the possibilities of going elsewhere, of the trouble that that may be to many local authorities. I feel that the two hon. Members who have spoken must be complimented on bringing in a Clause on a subject which is causing so much trouble to those interested in church schools, but when I look round at the various areas that are being cleared, the problem that arises in my mind is not so much that of keeping a particular non-provided school in a particular area, but of the opportunity that there may be of the whole of the environment being changed and the people having a chance of getting schooling away from the neighbourhood which has been demolished. If the people have to go, certainly a difficulty arises with regard to the responsibility and cost that must fall upon the governors of these schools.

Is it possible for the Minister to envisage, when people have to leave a neighbourhood and remove three or four miles away, so that a particular school is no longer required in the neighbourhood, the question of rebuilding and rehousing under better conditions for school life? I should imagine that it would be possible, when church school managers, in consultation with the Ministry of Education, find that it is no longer essential that a particular church school should remain in an area that has been demolished, that arrangements might be made for the responsibility of rebuilding in a new area to be one of the functions of the Ministry in arranging its housing proposals. I am going, not into the problem of the schools, but only into the question of housing, and if the Minister would look at that aspect of it, I think my two hon. Friends would be able to say that they had achieved something. So far as school managers are concerned, this is a problem that is hitting them very heavily, and if the Minister would give this matter some consideration, I am sure it would give much satisfaction.

I would like to ask the Minister what is the practice at the present time with regard to non-provided schools which fall within a scheduled area. That would help us, I think, to see a good deal better where we stand. I suppose that there would be some form of compensation granted by agreement with the local authority, but there does not seem to be any general practice in the matter. In one of my areas there is a considerable institution, which is not exactly a church school but is a combination of welfare, mission, creche and a few other things. It falls right within the area of a clearance scheme, but some arrangements have been made with the local authority which will enable it to be carried on. I do not know what those arrangements are, and that is why I ask if any guidance is given from the Minis try in such cases. The non-provided schools are in a difficult position. A clearance scheme not only removes the scholars but, far worse from the point of view of keeping the school going, it re moves the church communicants who paid for it when it was built and who must look after the building outside the ordinary wear and tear clause. Many people actually live in slums solely in order to allow their children to attend a school of a particular religion which is their own. That may seem rather strange, but it is true. Therefore, if the school re mains within a clearance area these people will have to go back to the school and the church if they are to be carried on as they have been in the past.

The whole subject is such a highly important one, particularly in Lancashire, that we would be very obliged to the Minister if he could tell us what the position of these schools is under clearance schemes. I have spent a good deal of time with the different churches and schools, but I have not yet discovered any regular practice to guide me. In consequence, I have made one or two mistakes in adopting a course which I should not have adopted if I had known more about it. I have gone to one authority after another, to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and the City Council, but I have not yet been able to ascertain what is the regular practice. I feel that the proposed Clause is hardly sufficient to convey to hon. Members the importance of the subject. Its narrow ness would preclude us from dealing with the whole question in the way in which we would like to deal with it. In Manchester there are many churches and schools which are deeply concerned, and some sympathetic reference by the Minister would be received in that part of the world with a great deal of joy.

I support the object of this new Clause. I can only conceive of two reasons why a school of this description should be included in a clearance area. The first is that the building is not in an adequate condition for the proper housing of the children, and the other is that it is a bad neighbour inasmuch as it would be impossible to develop the area as it should be developed if the school remained. With regard to the first reason, nobody is more desirous than I am that the children should be housed in a proper manner, and the object of the school authorities is to see that the schools are in such a condition and so constructed that the children are able to benefit in health as well as in other ways when they are attending school. That, however, is the function of the local authority as an education authority and not as a housing authority. Consequently, the question of the condition of schools is adequately safeguarded by the powers which are held by the local authorities. With regard to the question of a school being a bad neighbour, I support the new Clause because' one of the greatest difficulties which local authorities have is to provide a site for a school within reason able distance of the housing accommodation which they give. Consequently, if a school is already in a clearance area it should not be demolished and taken away without some provision being made for an alternative site for a school. As worded, the new Clause may not be such as the Minister can accept, but, if the principle were accepted, he would be able to provide suitable wording in order to carry out the object which many of us have in supporting it.

The speeches we have heard have had very little relation to the new Clause. Its effect would be exactly the opposite from that which hon. Members have in moving it, and it would be against the interests of denominational schools. It would mean in many cases that schools would be left high and dry and isolated and without any child population. There would be no compensation and more harm than good would be done to the denominations concerned. In some cases, too, it would spoil the unity and the form of the remodelling of the area. I would remind hon. Members that if a denominational school were in the way the local authority would have to buy it out on its market value, because it would not come within the definition of a house. Hon. Members who support this Clause would not earn the gratitude of the de nominations concerned if they were successful in carrying it.

I do not doubt that the hon. baronet is right when he says that this Clause is unnecessary and possibly undesirable in itself. I do not think that is the spirit in which it was put on the Paper. What we really want is an assurance from the Minister that nothing can be done under this Bill, with all its great aims and intentions, to add to the difficulties of non-provided schools. If that assurance is given, I have no doubt that the proposed Clause will not be pressed. There is great anxiety in the North about the position of the non-provided schools under slum clearance, clearance areas, re-development areas, and so on, and a comforting word from the Minister would be of great value to them.

I have great pleasure in supporting this new Clause, not that I have the slightest hope that my right hon. Friend will accept it in its present form, because I am inclined to agree with the hon. Baronet for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that in its present form it might do the cause of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) more harm than good. Nevertheless, he has undoubtedly done a great deal of good by raising this topic here, because through out the North, and particularly in Lancashire, there is a great deal of fear, perhaps groundless, that injury may result to non-provided schools. I think that fear has arisen in these circumstances. Clearance orders have been passed in respect of certain areas in which there is a non-provided school. Examination by independent architects and surveyors has shown the school to be of such durability that it has at least 25 or 30 years more life in it. If the clearance order were carried out, that non-provided school, which has been provided to a great extent at the cost of the religious denomination which supports it, would be lost. The supporters of that denomination would then have to follow that population to wherever it was moved and erect another non-provided school because in the industrial areas of the North of England people who are keen on non-provided schools have the greatest reluctance to send their children to a provided school. There is that feeling; whether it is wise or not I am not going to say, but it exists; and we ought, as far as possible, to meet the wishes of people who have so nobly provided these so-called non-provided schools.

But I do not agree with the hon. Baronet when he says that the school might be left high and dry by the clearance order, because I think this suggested new Clause refers to areas where it is the intention of the Minister of Health to rehouse the people on the site. If that is the intention—and it is so, I have been led to believe, as regards sites cleared in Manchester—and the non-provided school were left there, when the population was rehoused on the site the school would again be in demand and there would be no need to build another one. I do not go so far as the hon. Member for Gorton in saying there ought to be no demolition order at all, because I agree that in some cases which I have seen myself the schools are beyond repair. I am referring, however, to schools which have a certain number of years of ser vice left, and if there is such a school in a clearance area where the Minister intends to rehouse the people on the site I think a case has been made out for that school to be retained. We are not allowed by the ruling of the Chair to touch on the financial aspect of the question, but if the Minister could give some reassurance on the points raised it would go a long way towards allaying the fears which do exist in the North?

I should like to reinforce the remarks of the hon. Member opposite with a practical illustration drawn from just outside my own division. A few months ago the Minister made an exhaustive tour of the housing estates of Sheffield, which I admit are a credit to the authorities, and perhaps he will re member a large estate known as Wood thorpe, rehousing more than 3,000 people who had been moved from the over crowded centres of the city of Sheffield. For almost two and a half years the children of that new estate have received their religious teaching through the action of certain mothers in taking classes of half a dozen or a dozen children once or twice on Sundays, because there was no school within easy reach of the estate. As soon as the corporation authorities got to know about it, and following a disastrous accident at Liverpool, they banned any such teaching in corporation houses, and there being no alternative accommodation the vast majority of the children are absolutely denied religious teaching—there is neither provided nor non-provided Sunday school. Under demolition orders there is a danger of a repetition of that state of affairs, and I do not think the House or the Minister would desire that it should happen any where. I am inclined to agree that there is a possibility of a non-provided school which is left becoming high and dry, as explained by the hon. Baronet; but there is the other side of the question, the danger, if a school is displaced under a demolition order, of there being no school whatever, and it is the business of the House to see that facilities are provided in any rehousing scheme for such form of teaching as parents desire their children to have. The industrial areas would give a unanimous verdict in favour of the principle embodied in this new Clause. If the wording is not suitable the Minister could alter it to suit the convenience of those areas which are most desirous of obtaining this concession, and it would also be in the interests of the spiritual well-being of the country as a whole.

I think the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) and the hon. and gallant Member for Ashton-under Lyne (Colonel Broadbent) have raised a subject which it was very desirable to consider on this Bill, and one on which the House is entitled to have a statement showing the general attitude of the Government towards the matters raised. It is clear from the discussion, which has been a- most illuminating one, that there are two points with which I have to deal, the first concerning the actual wording of the Amendment and the second the wider aspects of policy. As to the wording of the Amendment, I think I can set at rest the apprehension expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Chorlton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), because it is a fact that the Amendment would not do anything to the existing law. It is the fact, and I would particularly direct the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone to this point, that under the law as it will be when this Bill is passed it will be impossible to include a school in a clearance order so that it could be expropriated on site value terms. That is secured by Clause 60 of the present Bill, which rules out the bad neighbour from the site value basis of compensation.

The Amendment, however, goes a little farther, and would prevent non-provided schools being expropriated even on the market value basis of compensation. I think that would be a mistake, both from the point of view of the general position and the point of view of the schools. The situation was clearly analysed, and I followed it with appreciation, by the hon. and learned Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming). The situation would be this: either the population moves away, or it does not move away, but is rehoused on the existing site. If the population moves away, clearly it is in the interests of the managers and others concerned with the school that it should be bought out, because then they would have the purchase price to help towards rebuilding on a fresh site. It would be a great mistake if the law were to prevent them from being expropriated on a market value basis of compensation. In the other case, where the population is not going away, but is to be rehoused on the existing site, what is most in the interest of the school is that it should be left alone, allowed to remain there without interference.

This second case brings me to what I have to say in reply to my hon. Friends on the general aspects of this question. Let me make it as clear as I can that I am perfectly in agreement with my hon. Friends on the difficulties which confront managers and others interested in non-provided schools When there is a shifting of population which may make their school of comparatively little local value, while, at the same time, there has grown up elsewhere a corresponding need for similar schools. It is a most difficult situation, which needs, and deserves, the sympathy and consideration of His Majesty's Government. The situation is, of course, one which may occur under the Act of 1930, before the coming into operation of the present Measure, and undoubtedly under the operations of the two Acts those conditions will occur in some cases. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the difficulty is the expense of providing new schools. Now we begin to see the way towards a practical solution of the difficulties, in which the Government can help. Let us preserve, as we have preserved under existing legislation, the power, and indeed the obligation, of the local authority, if they desire to move a school out of its present place, to pay for it at the full market value, so that, in the event of the population shifting and changing, those interested in the school will have the price to assist them in providing a new school.

Let us recognise, as a supplement, in order to assist those responsible for non-provided schools, that the way in which the Government can assist in the matter is when the population is not to be shifted away, but remains on the site, that it shall be most careful and sympathetic in its administration in order to protect the school against any unnecessary interference. I believe that when we have those two practical points before us, and when, as I hope, I have convinced my hon. Friends that it is not only right but necessary and within our intention that we should assist non-provided schools in this respect, we shall really have given in the most practical manner those assurances which my hon. Friends can rightly expect to hear from the Government on this occasion. I would sum up, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley), by saying that I accept, as it were, the very phraseology of his own invitation as being very well calculated to express what is the Government's intention in the administration of this matter, and that we shall do nothing to add to the difficulties of non-provided schools by our administration under the Act.

My right hon. Friend has made a most sym pathetic reply, of which I hope I may infer from the cheers those who have taken the initiative in this matter are fully appreciative. There are, of course, as my right hon. Friend says, two quite distinct problems. There is the problem of the population which is moved, and which needs a school near. There, I agree with my right hon. Friend, and, I think, other hon. Members who have spoken, that it is to the interest of the school to be expropriated and to follow the population which it serves. But, I think I am more personally or immediately interested in the case of areas which, though they may be cleared and rebuilt, will still house a population who have been accustomed to use, and still desire to use, the non-provided school. There are not a great many of them in my constituency, but those who are associated with them cling to them with traditions of great affection, and with a sense of obtaining there something of the highest value to man which they feel they do not obtain in the council school.

The case that I want to put to my right hon. Friend is this: An area which is to be replanned and rebuilt, but still to house, perhaps not as large a population, but as much at it can of the old population who are attached to the district by ties, or who are bound to the district by the conditions of their work. What exactly does my right hon. Friend mean by the "most sympathetic administration" of the case of those schools? I venture to think he might go a little further, because if you have a school in one of those areas destroyed as part of a replanning scheme, is it not almost certain that it will be unable to obtain an alternative site within that area at any price which renders construction of a substitute school possible? I think my right hon. Friend means that in a case of that kind he will take care that the school shall not be included in the order. If that be so, I have nothing more to say, and if he can tell me that I am right in interpreting his mind, shall be perfectly happy. If he is not prepared to go as far as that, perhaps he can say one word more as to what he means by "sympathetic administration" in a case where the district will remain with much of the old population, perhaps the whole of the old population, if buildings are raised higher and the ground plan is re-made, or, at any rate, with as much of the old population as possible, and where the old need for the school, and the desire for it, will remain. Will he say how he means to treat that case, and to secure that the school shall be able to continue its existence?

Before replying, will the Minister take into consideration also the point of view of the school where there is rehousing in the matter of tenement dwellings? The right hon. Gentleman is aware that from the city of Liverpool many thousands of people have gone to the outer areas, but the fact remains that inside the city the problem of the re housing of people still remains, and the question of the schools is still a problem. I would like to know, with regard to these cleared areas, where the school forms a part, what view the Minister takes in regard to the school on the site already cleared, but on which the population can again be rehoused?

My right hon. Friend put to me a question in a form to which, if I understand it, my answer can be unhesitatingly yes. We are dealing here with the position of the non-provided school in an area which is to be rebuilt, and it is therefore in the interest of the school that it shall remain undisturbed on the existing site. As to that, when I say "sympathetic administration," what I mean is that we should look upon it with the strongest possible presumption that in that case the school should not be disturbed. But my right hon. Friend will understand that I must protect myself and my successors. It would not be possible for me to give a promise in the House to-day, on behalf of myself or my successors, that in no single case, however absolutely pre-eminent the need for re-adjustment of lay-out and so on in a particular area, should a non-provided school ever be included in a compulsory purchase order. What I can and do say, after listening to the Debate, is that I am confident it would be the desire not only of the present, but of any, Government which administers the Act, that we should look upon it with the strongest possible presumption in favour of leaving the non-provided school in those conditions undisturbed.

In view of the very sympathetic attitude of the Minister, and appreciating the fact that it is far more important that the Act should be interpreted in that spirit than in any paricular Clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, after "time," to insert:

"if any person sleeping in the house must sleep in other than a bedroom or."

I hope that this Amendment will receive the same sympathetic reception that was given to the Clause just withdrawn. My hon. Friends and I regard this Amendment as one of the utmost importance. On the Second Reading of the Bill I drew attention to this problem, and, if I may, I would like to refer to the words which I then used:

"The right hon. Gentleman is now leading his crusade against overcrowding…He has established standards of over crowding. It is a very bold man who will put standards into black and white. I am not nearly so cautious as the right hon. Gentleman, but I should be a little wary about establishing standards of overcrowding, because the public will get it into their minds that people who are living under conditions slightly better than the First Schedule of the Bill lays down are not overcrowded. That would be a monstrous thing for the people of this country to believe. I think it is clear that the standards of the right hon. Gentleman are much too low….There may be difficulties in dealing with this problem, and I think it is bound to take time, but the right hon. Gentleman's standards as regards overcrowding are not standards which are tolerable in the twentieth century. He contemplates as a normal thing that living rooms should be used as bedrooms. I can never agree to that. I think it is wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1935; col. 389, Vol. 297.]

I return to this question on the Report stage, because it is of fundamental importance to this House now to rectify what I regard as one of the weaknesses of the Bill. I do not want to be unduly controversial on this Amendment, but the right hon. Gentleman has not been quite consistent. He has admitted, or is going to admit presently, that it is most desirable that for the dwellings built under this Bill, when it becomes law, a bath room should be provided, but on Friday we used what sweet reasonableness we could command to ask him to establish more general standards with regard to the specifications and amenities to be provided under the various Clauses of the Bill. In his wisdom, he refused to accept our Amendment, although I am quite satisfied that hon. Members on all sides of the House would have been prepared, had the Minister given them encouragement, to have supported us in accepting our Amendment. I do hope that the House will be prepared to accept at least this standard.

The right hon. Gentleman is going to establish, for the first time, a legal standard in an Act of Parliament dealing with housing. You can do that with regard to the minimum and the maximum size of house on which you are prepared to expend Exchequer money, but nobody has been able to define in specific terms exactly what is a slum. We have approached nearer and nearer to a definition as time has passed. The Act of 1930 tightened up a little further the definition of a slum, but it is still very difficult to define a slum in precise legal terms. There is a danger, because, once you have done it, if the standard of housing is just a little bit over the standard of that definition, the public conscience is salved and people feel happy. That is also the danger of putting into the Bill a specific standard in regard to over crowding; either it is too low or it is too high. It may be too high for immediate application. Those who have had to deal with these problems know that it is not always possible to attain in the first month or in the first year or two the standard one would like.

I know the case against accepting our Amendment. It is a simple Amendment to make it clear that we do not regard it as normal for people to sleep year by year in living rooms. I have heard an hon. Member say that he lived in a bed-sitting room when this House was in Session. I could live in a bed-sitting room, and so could all of us. The hon. Member who says that does not live in a bed-sitting room with a number of other people who are using the room as a living room for 52 weeks in the year. He uses it on four days a week, when the House is sitting. I am not complaining about that, because it is quite reasonable. We were told that there would be difficulty if people visited houses during week-ends. Sometimes when I am speaking during the week-end, the only way I can be accommodated with my comrades is with a bed in a sitting room. I am not complaining about that, because that is an accidental occasion. I am not complaining if a mother-in-law comes to spend a week with her son-in-law or daughter-in-law and has to sleep in the sitting room or in the living room. Those things are not normal.

The only other argument that has been adduced against the Amendment is that, in the largest cities, and particularly in London, the idea—I do not want to use the word "ideal"—and the standard could not be immediately applied. That is probably true. I give my friends on the London County Council credit for grappling with the problem in the hope of solving it in a satisfactory manner. If certain areas are not able to live up to a standard for the time being, that is no reason why we should anchor the whole country to a lower standard. The position could be satisfactorily dealt with by dispensation, or by power given to the Minister for a limited period of time to waive the restriction in regard to persons sleeping in living rooms. That would be a complete answer to the case against the Amendment.

The case for the Amendment is much stronger. I have dealt with the difficulty of establishing a legal standard. The further difficulty is that, unless we insist now that people shall not be required, in ordinary circumstances, to sleep in living rooms, we shall be heading for the creation of new slums. Moreover, we shall saddle the community, during the next 10 or 20 years, with a very large number of houses—I am taking into account the decline in the birth-rate—which will be too small, according to the standards of 20 years hence. Once built, these houses and tenements will have to accommodate two generations of our citizens, and, if we build an enormous number of houses of so small a size that it becomes normal for people to have to sleep in living rooms, the community will be saddled with dwelling-houses which the public conscience 10 years hence will regard as a disgrace. If we have to break two houses into one or make two flats into one, the community will be faced with a charge which will lie at the door of this Government, unless the Government have sufficient wisdom to see the danger in the course upon which they are embarked.

There is another argument. Once you establish a standard in an Act of Parliament, even though it be a minimum standard, it tends to become the normal, if not the maximum. My hon. Friends on this side of the House have always been opposed, especially during the last 25 or 30 years, to putting minimum figures of wages into an Act of Parliament. They know that the figures tend to become the general standard. It is dangerous to say that people are not overcrowded if they can sleep in living rooms in small dwelling-houses. The effect of that new sanction from Parliament, never given before in an Act of Parliament, would be to establish standards which might be followed by private builders or, I am grieved to say, by a number of corporations. We may find the more parsimonious, or the more hard-pressed, local authorities saying that a house is not overcrowded if built down to the scale set out in the Act of 1935. The result of the new standard may well be that, after a 17-year period of steady improvement in housing standards in this country, there will be a degradation of the general standards of house building. On those grounds, I hope that the House will accept the Amendment, which we regard as eminently reasonable.

Hon. Members who have never had to live under conditions such as those of people who are now overcrowded, may think that it is rather fun to sleep in a sitting room one night a week, and rather amusing to sleep in a very large bed-sitting room for four nights a week. We are not dealing with circumstances of that kind, but with working people, and with a type of house in which there is only one living room, and not even a parlour, and where the whole of the domestic life of the family is lived; where tae cooking is done, a good deal of the washing and ironing are done, the feeding is done and the family conversation is carried on; where father sits and smokes his pipe and mother does her knitting; where children play around the hearth in almost all circumstances, in a relatively small room where people have been living all day. After the hour when everybody else decides to go to bed, some unfortunate person has to sleep in the fetid atmosphere, probably tobacco smoke laden from father's navy cut. That may be a growing person or a young child, a student in a secondary school or any other member of the family, who can never go to bed until all the household has retired. That is an intolerable state of affairs. It is not a matter of mere sentiment, but one which affects the health, vitality and standards of morality of the people. The right hon. Gentleman may tell me of cases where that will have to continue for a time; I am not unreasonable, I can understand that, but to put, as specific terms in an Act of Parliament, standards which commit this House to regarding conditions of that kind as normal will be wrong, and the House will be ashamed of doing so.

We have had our differences on the Bill. There have been occasions in Committee when my hon. Friends and I have supported the Minister, and even on Report stage when we have not opposed him. There have also been a number of occasions when we have been bound to oppose him. In this case, I believe hon. Members on all sides of the House will agree that the Minister would be well advised to accept the Amendment, because he is opening a new chapter in the establishment of standards of overcrowding. I would beg hon. Members who understand housing conditions in their areas to have regard to the fact that in my native county, and in the adjoining county, it is regarded as a disgrace for any member of the family to have to sleep in a living room. In York shire and Lancashire, nobody ever sleeps in a living room or a sitting room except in case of grave illness or of visitors staying for a short time. People in the north of England will regard this new standard as objectionable, and rightly so. I should be sorry if we accepted it as the ordinary standard, and I hope that hon. Members will support us and thereby do something to save the House of Commons from great discredit.

This matter is really the keystone of the Bill. The whole purpose of the Bill, the whole justification for its introduction, is to deal with overcrowding, and I think that anyone who has given any attention to the problem will recognise the difficulty of finding appropriate words to define what overcrowding is. A great number of people who have studied the problem have contended that it would be wiser to have no definition, but to leave the matter to the discretion of the local authorities and allow them to make their own bylaws. Rightly or wrongly, however—and I do not criticise the right hon. Gentleman in this—it has been decided that there should be a definition. The right hon. Gentleman is taking his courage in two hands. It is his pride and boast that here for the first time in an Act of Parliament there is a definition of overcrowding, and an attempt is to be made to apply it universally throughout the country—a most difficult thing to do. A similar attempt in the case of unemployment relief broke down because of the difficulty of applying universal minimum standards of relief to the whole nation, especially in relation to rents. However, these words are to be the guide to local authorities throughout the land, not only for the towns but for the rural areas, not only for big cities like London, but for the provincial towns.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) rather approached the problem from the point of view of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and he emphasised the danger of houses being built to this low standard. But that is not the problem in London. In the houses which are now being built, whether by private enterprise or by local authorities, proper provision is always made for living rooms, and usually a parlour is included as well. There is a different problem in London, and not only in London, but throughout the Metropolitan area. It is a mistake to think that it is by any means limited to the County of London; it occurs in all those suburban dormitory areas which have sprung up during the last few years around London. The problem there is that houses originally built for one family are being divided up for use by two, three, or even four families. That is going on under our very noses, even in good neighbourhoods—aristocratic districts like Paddington, Westminster and Kensington—owing to the fact that suitable accommodation has not been constructed on a large scale for the working classes in the last 10 years since the War. The landlord is not always the criminal. Probably he is quite willing, and indeed would prefer, that one of the rooms should be allocated for use as a living room, but owing to the pressure of population, the shortage of accommodation, and, still more serious, the high rents, it is a general practice among the working class in large parts of London to use the living room as a bedroom. I agree that there is nothing very serious in the use of a parlour for sleeping purposes. Very often it is a room that is only used for social purposes or for great occasions, but, in my constituency particularly, the living room, where food is cooked and where the whole life of the home is carried on, very commonly contains a bed and is used for sleeping purposes as well.

It has been argued that, although the standard set by the Amendment is a right one, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce it in London. There is such a tremendous leeway to be made up, and there is still such a great and growing shortage of accommodation in some parts of London, that these standards are almost impossible of immediate attainment, and therefore, it is said, we should be satisfied with the standard laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. But I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill give large powers of exemption, and, whatever the standard may be, it will not be possible to achieve it immediately—it must be a matter of time, and must depend on the local authorities' activity in building houses. I understand the purpose of the Amendment to be that, if an Act of Parliament is to contain a standard which is to be recognised as indicating that there is no overcrowding, it should be a reason- able one which people have a right to demand, and I say that the present standard provided in the Bill is, according to all housing authorities, too low.

I have on the Paper an Amendment, which I moved in Committee, suggesting an alteration in the Schedule, which might provide a means of achieving our purpose, but the right hon. Gentleman up to the present has resisted any alteration in the Schedule. If the Schedule is not to be altered, I think that the Act itself should contain something better as a recognised standard than is at present provided in the Bill. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that this country, to its credit, has been looked up to hitherto as the country above all that has laid down the right standards at which to aim, and it is not right that we should allow it to be suggested that in this Bill, in 1935, we are lowering the standards which have been recognised under the Public Health Acts as indicating absence of overcrowding. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment attaches special importance to its wording, and, if the Minister is prepared to find some better definition, I would suggest that he might very well give way. The standard provided in the Clause as it stands at present is far too low.

There is this to be said about a general standard for the whole country, that it is apt to be too low in one district while it may very well be too high in another. I do not think that the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss), for example, would suggest that this standard is too low for London in present circumstances. My real reason for rising, however, was to draw the attention of the House to one of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). He was speaking about the undoubted fact that people in the North, in Lancashire and Yorkshire, do not sleep in kitchens, though in London they do. I quite agree, and I was worried about kitchens being included. I asked a question on that point in Committee, and received 'a most specific assurance from the I'4inister that, in districts where a particular type of living room was in variably used as a living room and not as a bedroom, that type of room would be left out of the Schedule. [HON. MEM- BERS: "It cannot be."] I would like to ask again for a reassurance from the Minister that, in districts where people are not accustomed to sleeping in the kitchen, the kitchen will not in fact be included in the number of rooms in the house for the purpose of the survey. I think that that is the point.

Every room is included.

I do not think the hon. Member has looked at Clause 12—

I have looked at all the Clauses.

Then I suggest that he should look again at Clause 12. If he does, I think lie will see that Clause 12 should be read in conjunction with the Clause that we are now discussing. It says:

"'Room' does not include any room of a type not normally used in the locality either as a living room or as a bedroom."

Surely the hon. Member will agree that in that sort of locality that sort of room is in fact ordinarily used as a living room.

Yes; I think I am wrong on that point.

Is it not the case that in Yorkshire and Lancashire the living room is generally the kitchen?

Yes, I agree; I think I am wrong on that point, and I apologise. I feel that the Minister did intend to give me an assurance when he replied to the question that I specially put to him in Committee. He said:

"Let me take up here the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) as regards kitchens in the North. He said that there should be proper elasticity to deal with that matter in the Bill. As a matter of fact, elasticity is provided for the purpose which he has in mind, namely, to deal with the cases in which local housing habits are strongly ingrained in the people of a particular locality. Clause 11 provides that the definition of 'room' is not to include any room of o, type not normally used in the locality either as a living room or as a bedroom."

I would ask if the Minister could give me some assurance—

Would my hon. Friend read the next sentence?

Yes. He went on to say:

"A type of kitchen which is not norm ally used as a bedroom or a sitting-room is not to be counted as a room 'under the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 19th February, 1935; col. 59.]

I confess, however, that that does not meet the point which I intended to raise, and did raise, in Committee, and which I raise again now. In a kitchen, the average floor space, I believe, is about20 square feet. The average space covered by furniture is about 45 square feet, and, if there is a bed in it, the aver age space covered by the bed is about 30 square feet. That does not allow much additional space. The room can only be cleaned in the morning, and altogether it is not a very sanitary arrangement. It may be necessary in London, but there again I would ask the Minister whether he could not compromise in districts where the inclusion of a kitchen will really help to destroy the intention of the Bill, and whether he could not specifically exclude kitchens from the rooms to be included in the First Schedule? I apologise to the House for having made a serious mistake in the first part of my speech, but I did not intend in any way to minimise the point I wished to bring forward.

It will be generally agreed that it would be very easy to introduce into the Bill a definition of overcrowding which would make the Bill unworkable, and I have no desire, in supporting the Amendment, to introduce a definition which would in any way slow down the effort to deal with this matter. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Crossley) that we in Lancashire view the question possibly differently from what seems to be the view of London Members. We consider that a house is overcrowded if any room other than a bedroom is used for sleeping. I could give cases to-day of hundreds of houses in my division which are over crowded where no one is sleeping in any room but bedrooms. The Minister, if he visited my division as he has visited other divisions and gone through slum areas, would agree that a goodly number of the houses were overcrowded, but no one in those houses sleeps in a room other than a bedroom. To suggest to people that because they have an additional child some member of the family should sleep in the kitchen or the living room would be looked upon as treating them very unworthily. It is from that point of view that I want the Minister to deal with the question.

I realise his difficulty. He is bound to apply his definition to some areas for the time being. I do not expect him to say that he will accept the Amendment as it stands on the Order Paper, but, in his desire to deal effectively and expeditiously with overcrowding, he should have some regard for the habits of people in the North of England. If he would say here and now that, in areas where they had never known such a thing as having to sleep in rooms other than bedrooms as a normal habit, he would make provision in this Bill to meet their case, I should, speaking for myself, feel that I had been well met. I agree that in London the habit is for people to sleep in rooms other than bedrooms, but even in London it is a bad habit which ought not to be encouraged, especially by the Minister of Health. We ought not to encourage any habit in London or outside which endangers health, and I am sure that he would agree that sleeping in a living room as a normal habit does endanger health. As habits vary throughout the country, will he not provide for the position to be dealt with in the Bill in the way we suggest, so that sleeping in living rooms shall not be imposed upon people in areas where the practice has never been known?

I cannot speak of the North although I know the country pretty well, but I was hoping that hon. Members would have regarded this Bill as a housing charter and would have recognised that for the first time a Minister has had the courage to come to the House of Commons and lay down a standard of overcrowding. The problem of London is a very difficult one. A lot of working-class people, particularly in London, are living in what one might almost call houses handed down by more fortunate neighbours. Houses in certain areas in London become worn out The habits of the locality change, and the houses gradually go down the scale and become slums. When our suits of clothes come to the end of their life and get on to the scarecrows in the fields we regard them as finished with, but it is not so with houses. You pass them down to your poor relations. Houses round the Islington and Finsbury districts and in the different parts of London which were built to accommodate a different class of person are now slums with which we have to deal.

What is the first problem that will confront those who are called upon to carry out this great work? They will have to find the measure of their job, and that task is to be put upon the borough councils. The borough councils will have to make a survey in each of the areas that are to come under review. In doing so, they will for the first time find the weight of population that can be carried in the houses within their area. The next thing is that either the borough council or the county council will have to find the additional accommodation to meet the overburden of population. Hon. Members above the Gangway say: "Let the Minister accept the Amendment and everything will be all right."

Oh, no, I have not said that. I do not accept the standards at all. I hope that I did not lead the House to believe that if this Amendment were accepted the remaining standards would be all right. That is far from the truth.

We will progress in stages. Let us accept that the fact is, as the Minister says, to set up a standard of two persons per habitable room. If we are to impose anything in the nature of the present Amendment that no one should sleep in a kitchen or what is known as a kitchen, or what had at one time been a dressing room you would have to say to the unfortunate workman in the tenement house that he must have another room for his family. The first obligation that would be put upon him would be an increase in rent. I beg of hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that we are dealing with this problem in the transition stage, and that it is a very difficult one. If you say to a workman who is occupying two or three rooms in a tenement house that his family is of such a size that he must have additional rooms, you will put an intolerable burden upon him.

I have inquired into many cases in London. In one particular area I know of an eight-roomed house which was originally built to accommodate one family. The weight of population there, if we take the Minister's standard to-day, will be 16 persons, no matter how they may be distributed. In that house to-day there are 32 persons. It is not a rent problem. The sum of 73s. a week is being charged as the rent for those eight rooms. [An HON. MEMBER: "Scandalous!"] I agree that it is scandalous, and I would like to sweep it away at once, but do not let us try and cramp the Minister in what he is attempting to do by putting in an impossible standard. He has done a great thing for housing and for the public conscience in that we are not going to tolerate more than two persons in one habitable room.

There is another point. Hon. Members speak about the living room and say that persons could not sleep in the living room. What are we going to do? Are we to set up a board of inspectors to go into all these houses and see how the people distribute themselves at night? No, we have to fight shy of that sort of thing. If we set up our standard we must, to use a very common expression, leave it to the people to sort themselves out. This Bill is a move forward. I agree with hon. Members of the Opposition every time that we should increase our standards as and when opportunity presents itself until we have cleared out this grave scandal of overcrowding, but at present I suggest that we have gone as far as we can reasonably go.

We have had so many interesting discussions on this housing standard that, although we may not agree with each other's case, I think that we have begun to appreciate it. I begin by directing the House to the point which was made by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), that this is the first Bill that in fact lays down a standard, and it is a very great gain. The object of the Amendment is simple. It seeks to lay down the rule that a particular room shall be treated in a particular way. A living room shall not be slept in. There are two ways of dealing with the housing standard, and they are fundamentally opposite. You can either lay down rules governing the occupation of a particular room, or you can choose the method in the Bill of fixing the maximum number of persons which can inhabit a particular house, having regard to the number or the size of rooms in the house. Those two methods are fundamentally different. I suggest to the House that the method which we have chosen is the right one. If you try and say that any particular room must be kept for a living room, it follows, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Battersea (Mr. Selley) pointed out, that a horde of inspectors would immediately be required by the housing authority. A question was asked whether, under the Bill, the Minister or I was going round at night to make sure that no living room had any bed in it, but we have chosen the far simpler way of fixing a maximum number in respect of a particular house of a particular size. How that number of people live in the house is no concern of ours; if they all like to sleep in the same bed, then good luck to them. All we say is that in relation to that particular house we will not allow that number to be exceeded, and we fix the number in relation to a minimum standard of tolerability. That is the first point.

The second point is that, having established a principle, we now fix a maximum number for the house of a particular size. Everybody knows the meaning of the Manchester housing standard. That standard, broadly speaking, is that you exclude one room as a living room, and allow 2½ persons per bedroom. If hon. Members will look at the First Schedule and take the houses of over two rooms they will find that we have aimed at achieving the Manchester standard. For instance, for a three-roomed house, we deduct one room assuming it to be a living room. That leaves two rooms, and twice 2½ is five, which is the permitted number, assuming that the rooms are all of the normal size. The same applies with regard to four rooms. You deduct one room, and three times 2½ is 7½. So that under our system we have achieved the Manchester standard with-out putting upon ourselves the duty of a meticulous inspection, which would break down the whole scheme. Hon. Members must realise the sheer impossibility of enforcing the principle of the Amendment, in all dwellings of under three rooms. In one or two-roomed houses it would be quite impossible to enforce the standard enjoined by the Amendment at all. According to the housing census there are at least 260,000 families of one or two persons in one family at present living in single rooms, so that they would have to seek accommodation elsewhere.

I want to emphasise this point. Several hon. Members have spoken as if the Minister of Health was insisting upon people sleeping in the living room. Of course, that is a travesty of the truth. Nobody is compelled to sleep in a living room if he does not want to do so. No doubt the habits which obtain in the North will remain; and the habit in the South, where in certain circumstances of housing a bed is put in the living room for a boy or girl, will go on. But surely the right hon. Gentleman is forgetting the main purpose of this Bill, which is to set a penal standard and not an ideal housing standard. We have never contemplated an ideal standard in this Bill. When we are dealing with the provision of new houses the housing standard we work on under this Bill is Section 37 of the 1930 Act, which was a standard generally accepted. Nothing in this penal standard affects that provision. Let hon. Members get that clear. In the provision of fresh accommodation the standard that obtains is the standard of Section 37 of the 1930 Act, which is a bedroom standard. But when you are dealing with a criminal offence in respect of over crowding it is obvious that you have to choose a standard that is reasonable and one that can be enforced. If you do any thing else, the whole conception of a standard and the enforcement of the standard breaks down.

The hon. Member for Oldham asked a question as to what was to be the position of the kitchen under what is now Clause 12. We realise that in many parts of the country the kitchen, being small, will not be counted as a room at all. That is the position in very many areas. There are other parts of the country where the kitchen is very large and is used as a living room. Under Clause 12 the local authority has the right to exclude a room—in considering how many rooms there are in the house—if it is not normally used either as a living room or as a sleeping room. But over and above that, whether used as a living room or not, the kitchen, if under 50 feet square, is excluded altogether. I do want to re-emphasise the heart of the problem. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that we were writing a new chapter in housing history. Do not let us start that by writing the last chapter. If we write the last chapter and fix an ideal housing standard, the whole basis of this Bill will break down.

The Parliamentary Secretary told us just now that in this Bill we were writing a new chapter in the history of housing. When I listened to the earlier part of his remarks, if I may say so without offence, I wondered whether he was supplying ideas for a new film for the next election, because he has not done justice to the Amendment as put forward by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). It is perfectly true that in this Bill we are making the house the unit for the standard of the definition of overcrowding. How is that going to work out in practice? Will it meet with some measure of success? The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have said that it would do so. In the definition laid down in this Clause and in subsequent chapters you take a four-roomed house and you permit seven and a half people to live in that four-roomed house; that is to say seven adults and one child between the age of one and 10 years.

What will that mean in practice? In dealing with overcrowding, particularly in the industrial districts of the North, you have to remember that you are dealing with property which has been in existence for 60 and in some cases 80 or 100 years. You have two rooms "up" and two rooms "down." Of the two rooms downstairs one is regarded as a living room and is often called the kitchen, while the other downstairs room is called "the room." What is called the kitchen in some parts of Yorkshire would be the ordinary room that the people live in, where in one corner you have the tap and the sink. What you call "the room" is the place where they have a suite of furniture, the room which other people might call the parlour. Under the definition laid down in this Bill you permit in a house of that size seven adults and one child between the age of one and 10 years. You might have the father and mother sleeping in one bedroom—and I hope nobody will suggest that some other person should sleep in that room—and in the other bedroom you might have five adults, three sons and two daughters; and yet that house would not be regarded as overcrowded under this Bill.

If the hon. Member is talking about houses in the North—the "one up and one down" type, or the "two up and two down" type—he will find that the permitted number of persons he mentions, seven for a four-roomed house, will often be reduced because the size of the rooms will come under Table II of the Annex to the First Schedule. If so the permitted number of seven will be reduced.

Under the First Schedule, it is stated that seven and a-half people can live in a four-roomed house. I think the hon. Gentleman had better answer "yea" or "nay" whether my interpretation of this Clause is correct. I submit that under this Schedule in an ordinary four-roomed house with two rooms up and two down seven adults and one child will be permitted to live without that house being described as overcrowded. The effect of having seven adults in a house with only two ordinary bedrooms is that if you have the father and mother in one bedroom you have two or three beds in the other room; or you compel the people to use one of the downstair rooms as a bedroom. I do not know how many Members have had experience of overcrowded housing conditions, but I had 17 years of lodgings, and I think I know just a little bit about how working-class people live. So far as we are concerned on these benches, I am bound to say that we—and particularly those Members representing the industrial North—cannot be a party to the definition of overcrowding which compels people to sleep in a room ordinarily used as a living room. I want Members of all parties to face up to this question, not in any party spirit but from the ordinary human and social standpoint. After all, people living in these overcrowded conditions do not live in such conditions from choice.

It used to be the practice when a pit was sunk in our locality to get houses up as quickly as possible without any regard to decent standards and overcrowding. That had to be put up with because there were not any other better houses in the district, and the wage earners could not afford to pay decent rents. I want hon. Members to reflect on what is the position in a house where you have people sleeping in the ordinary living room. Have not the children of these people as much right to have some room in which to do their homework and study as have the children of people in better economic circumstances? And what is the position where you have a young man or a young woman at work coming home to a place where there is a bed in the living room. The effect of that is to drive them out of the house as quickly as possible. You could not sit and read a book with a bed in the place; and young men and women have been compelled to go out and seek entertainment elsewhere because of these overcrowding conditions. We have a right to have it inserted in this definition that one room shall be regarded as a living room.

There is another angle to the problem. Do hon. Members realise what the position is when someone has to sleep in a living room? Take the case of such a house when there are two lads working on the afternoon shift at the pit. They have to go home and get rid of their pit dirt in the room where there is a bed, and the person who is going to sleep in that bed in the living room cannot go to sleep until the other people have cleared out. I submit to the House that we shall be laying down a standard which is far too low if we accept this definition, and I do earnestly hope that Members will help in supporting the Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary made some reference to the Manchester standard. I am pleased that he did so. When this matter was being discussed in Committee, we were told by the Minister of Health that this definition of overcrowding was arrived at after very careful and prolonged discussion with all the local authorities of the country and their medical officers. I submit that when the Parliamentary Secretary made reference to the Manchester standard he ought at least to have made reference to the circular sent out to the Members of the Committee by the medical officer of health for Manchester. If he had done that, it would have been found that in that circular letter, dated 14th February, there is the strongest possible opposition to this definition and the letter urges that there should be at least one room defined as a living room. There is also another aspect of this matter. In this country, unfortunately, we have not yet seen fit to establish in many localities a sufficient number of maternity homes; and because of that many confinements take place in the ordinary dwelling-houses. And in the circular letter sent by the medical officer of health for Manchester this fact is commented on, and I think the extract is worth reading because it justifies what we have in mind in putting forward this Amendment. The letter says:

"Ordinary decency and privacy are with difficulty obtainable if a living room is also used as a bedroom. As an illustration of this, I would refer to a report prepared by me on the conditions in which confinements occur in working-class houses in Manchester. This report is in my Annual Report for 1926, pages 244 to 248, where it is shown that privacy for confinement was not possible in 54 per cent. of the 1,000 confinements investigated."

I want hon. Members of all parties to reflect on what this definition means and to ask them whether they cannot agree to the exclusion of at least one room which shall be regarded as the living room. As far as the position in London is concerned, it may be that there are difficulties to face which other local authorities have not to face in the same way. But I do submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he would be doing a good turn to housing progress if he would be less rigid in his insistence on accepting this definition and would agree to the Amendment, which only says that a room ordinarily used as a living room shall be excluded from the definition of overcrowding. I hope sincerely that we shall carry our Amendment. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), in Committee, mentioned that he lived occasionally in a bed-sitting room.

I mentioned the case of a bed-sitting room, but I did not say that I was living in one.

The difference between a bed-sitting room and an ordinary dwelling-house is that the person who uses the bed-sitting room does not usually live there; he sleeps there and goes out early next morning. In those circumstances the bed-sitting room can be very convenient, but in the ordinary dwelling-house under the housing conditions in industrial districts the woman is almost a slave if the sitting room is used as a bedroom and she has to do all her washing, baking and the hundred and one things of the household there. We ought to see to it that the room used as a living room shall be excluded from the definition of overcrowding.

The speech of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) seemed to prove a great deal more than he intended. My difficulty about the Debate is that a case has been made out for the exclusion of one room in certain circumstances, but in the case of the two up and two down house dealt with by the hon. Member for Normanton, the effect of the Amendment would be that the house would be overcrowded if it contained a man, his wife, a daughter of 14 and a son of 11, because the daughter and the son could not sleep in the same bedroom. Presumably, one of them would have to sleep in the kitchen or the living room downstairs. That would be impossible under the Amendment. Its effect in the case that I have quoted would be that either the daughter or the son must sleep in the living room, because they could not sleep together in a room upstairs.

I am afraid that the Noble Lord's experience of housing has not been in working-class practice. There are occasions when the father has to sleep with the son in order to economise bedroom space.

I am talking about this Bill, and as I read it, plus the Amendment which the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has moved, it would make that house overcrowded with four people in it. I would ask for confirmation of that view, but so far as I can see that is the fact. Therefore, the Amendment clearly will not do. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is impossible, where local custom requires it, to withdraw one room as the living room in the house for the purpose of assessing the space.

The Government were right in refusing to accept the Amendment. We are setting up penal consequences under this Bill for the owner and the occupier, and, if the Amendment were inserted, the effect would be to alter the condition of the house as it was used by a particular tenant. That is to say, if the tenant brought in enough furniture for three living rooms, he might have only one bedroom in a four-roomed house. There is no definition in the Amendment how one constitutes a room other than a bedroom. The normal way in the ordinary course of life is by the different kind of furniture that is brought into the room. You can alter the condition of a house from having one living room, to having, say, two living rooms or possibly three living rooms by the kind of furniture that the tenant brings into the room. So far as I know there is no other way in which you can turn a room in a house from a living room into a bedroom. Therefore, it is clear that this Amendment is not such as should go into a Statute of this kind.

The second point is that, whatever anybody may say, the Amendment clearly prohibits any of the working classes from living in what is termed a bed-sitting room. That would make one law for the rich and one for the poor, because the rich man living in the west-end would be able to live in his bed-sitting room but if a person lived in a working class area he would be liable as an occupier to penalties under the Act, for living in a room which was used other than as a bedroom. If that is not too absurd for words, I do not know what is. It is clear that the Government are fully justified in refusing to accept the Amendment. I take the same view as the Parliamentary Secretary that when you are starting a new penal code—people are going to be brought into the courts, and I hope that they will be if they contravene the Statute—you must start lower than you may ultimately hope to get. I hope that eventually we shall be able to tighten up the Act by excluding certainly one sitting room in the house, but if you are starting this new penal code for owners and occupiers it is well to start on the low side rather than the high.

In the case quoted by the Noble Lord it is clear that those four people would not be allowed to live in that house unless the suggestion of the hon. Member for Normanton was carried out. In that four-roomed house there were two bedrooms and two living rooms, occupied by a husband and wife and a boy and girl over the ages when they could sleep in the same room. If the two downstairs rooms were living rooms in accordance with the Amendment, the only way in which that family of four could live in the house would be by the husband and son sleeping in one room and the wife and daughter in the other. I think—I do not know how many hon. Members will agree with me—that it is far better for the husband and wife to have one bedroom and the daughter perhaps an upstairs room and the son one of the living rooms downstairs.

Sleep downstairs in the living room?

The hon. Member talks as if it were impossible to live on the ground floor. He seems to disregard the fact that there are a very large number of bungalows in this country and that a very large number of people of all classes are happy and contented in living on the ground floor. It is better that the son should have to sleep in what might be the parlour rather than the husband and the son should have to sleep in one room and the wife and daughter in the other. If the Amendment were accepted they would have to sleep in the two rooms upstairs. Therefore, the Government have done right in asking the House to reject the Amendment.

We have just listened to one of those complacent speeches which cause me from time to time to be very sorry for the state of mind of hon. Members who apparently know nothing about the practical application of the thing that they put before the House. This is a question which should by no means be dealt with flippantly. If hon. Members desire to represent the working-class people in their constituencies they ought to attempt to find out what the lives and habits of working-class people are. It makes me feel most indignant when I hear hon. Members declare: "You can have a bed in the sitting room; you can have a bed in the parlour." How would the hon. and gallant Member like his daughter to come home with a friend and to go into the sitting room and find that there was a bed in the room? The purpose of the room is destroyed in that way. This sort of thing makes me feel from time to time that there is a feel- ing in this House that any sort of measure is good enough for working people to put up with.

I was hoping that this Bill was a real attempt to deal with the question of over crowding. I represent a midland constituency and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Williams) knows that constituency as well as I do. No one knows better than the hon. Member what would happen if he went into that constituency and said: "We have just passed a new and glorious chapter in our housing legislature, a Bill to prevent over crowding, and the result of it is that you are now to use your front rooms as bed rooms." What would the people of Wednesbury say to that? They would say: "Herbert, we do not think very much of you after that." The standard laid down in the Bill begins primarily with the conditions which exist in London. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was a step in the right direction that- a standard was being laid down. To impose the housing conditions of London upon the towns and cities of the provinces is altogether wrong. I have lived in a London borough for the last 20 years, not because I wanted to do so but because I was compelled to do so by economic circumstances. I know something about London life and housing. It is an astonishing fact that in the borough of Fulham, where I live, 50 per cent. of the deaths occur in public institutions. There is no room for them to die at home.

Hon. Members declare: "It is all right. Why should not people have a bed in the sitting room?" Why should they not have a bed in the kitchen, let them use all their rooms. The women in Stafford shire used to call that pigging together. There is no decency or comfort in it.

We are dealing with a Bill to prevent overcrowding. I spoke to the medical officer of health for Wednesbury with regard to it, and he declared that the standards in the Bill are considerably lower than those which at present obtain throughout the Black Country, and that it will be difficult to schedule thousands of houses as being overcrowded under its terms although they are overcrowded. I know the difficulties of housing in London, but to lay down a standard for London and apply it to the provinces is altogether wrong. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary make a most eloquent speech on housing. He swept me away with him. He declared that nothing would stand more to the credit of the Government than their attempt to deal with housing and overcrowding. If there is to be anything to the credit of the Government in this matter, it must be along lines which will bring decency and comfort inside working-class homes. It is all very well for the Noble Lord to talk about four-roomed houses. I was brought up in one, a little kitchen, a little parlour, the holy of holies, containing a round table, some books, with the Bible in the centre, and the childrens' hymn books. Does the Noble Lord mean that such a room, the treasure of the wife, should be turned into a bedroom?

I did not advocate turning it into a bedroom. My question was whether hon. Members opposite really meant what would be the effect of the Amendment, that four, father and mother, daughter and son, may not live in the house. That is the effect of the Amendment.

I see no reason why father and mother and daughter and son should not live in that house without it being overcrowded.

They could not under the Amendment.

The Noble Lord quoted the age of the son as 14 years and the daughter as 11 years. I have been in many houses of this kind. I have known a daughter and son in one bedroom divided by a curtain.

That is forbidden by the Bill. That is my point.

I was endeavouring to tell the Noble Lord what I have seen in my experience. I have known cases when father and son have had to sleep together and mother and daughter, but more than anything else I am more concerned whether the operation of the Bill will make the position of overcrowding better not worse. Some of the standards prevailing in provincial towns and cities are such that the Bill will be unworkable in many instances. I admit that it is better to start on a low standard, but I object to the bad conditions of the London area being taken as the standard and applied to the provinces. There may be objections as to how the Amendment would work, but it would be a bad thing if we went to these most respectable people, decent housewives, people who are proud of their homes although they are small, who treasure their front room and take a pride in their household gods, and told them it did not matter; they must use it as a bedroom. The argument about the amount of furniture brought in three rooms as sitting rooms and furniture only for one bedroom is a bad argument. That does not happen. There is difficulty enough in getting houses properly furnished and working people do not do silly things like that. They only buy the furniture they want, and to suggest that they would deliberately fill three rooms out of four with furniture for sit ting rooms and furnish one bedroom is absurd. I make an appeal to the Minister. We believe that he wants to do the best, he can for the working people and to make the Bill one which will be of some use and help and comfort to them. Is it not possible for him to raise the standards as far as areas outside London are concerned? Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that the normal housing conditions in the Midlands and the North and to the south of London are altogether different to those in the London area, and it should not be beyond the wit of the Minister to meet the objections which have been raised, supported as they are by the medical officers of health in the local areas.

Like other hon. Members, I fully recognise the claims of the working people of this country to the best housing accommodation that can be provided, but looking at the Amendment from a London point of view, and as a representative of one of the most densely populated areas, it is impossible to support it. The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss) when this question was before the Committee upstairs said that even on the standards in the Bill the London County Council would find it difficult to get rid of the overcrowded conditions in the London area. The problem in London is one of tremendous difficulty. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) has given us some of his experiences, and I must say that they are exceedingly mild. When I heard him referring to the conditions in his own constituency, I felt that if we could transfer some of the people of Finsbury to that area they would be very thankful to live under the conditions he has described.

There is one point which has not been mentioned so far. What will my constituents say to me if I support the Amendment, which means that they will have to use two or three more rooms as sleeping rooms. If I go to them and say that they are to be removed because of the new standards in the Bill, what are they going to say to me? They may say that they will not be able to provide four or five rooms as required under the new standards. How is the increased amount of rent, which they will have to pay, to be met? What is that going to mean to many of these families? One room in Finsbury costs 5s. or 6s., and what are two extra rooms going to mean to a working man and his wife and family? I remember going on one occasion to a new block of dwellings put up by the borough council and interviewing the wife of a railwayman who had moved into one of these flats. That had a large family, and she complained to me of the proportion of her husband's wages which had to go by way of rent. That is my difficulty to-day. If I support the Amendment I do not know what it will mean to many of these people. We have no idea what it will really mean to a man in the proportion of his wages which will have to be paid in rent. You may make the condition of that family worse if you divert so much of the man's inadequate wage, which I agree is inadequate in many instances, to rent, in order to get a better standard of housing. I think it is absolutely impossible to support the Amendment and agree entirely that we do want to provide the best housing conditions possible.