HC Deb 01 June 1934 vol 290 cc529-41

1.1 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, to leave out "250,000," and to insert "50,000."

There is some dispute as to the number of displaced Arabs who need resettling. I think the right hon. Gentleman said there were 800 and I said that there were about 500. I do not think that that is material; in both cases those reports are somewhat out-of-date. Since they were arrived at, there has been a considerable boom in Palestinian industries, and most of those displaced Arabs will have been found work. I cannot think that they would be particularly anxious to be put upon unreclaimed land for which they are to pay rent. This £250,000 among 800 Arabs works out at about £300 a piece. The right hon. Gentleman says that that is not the way to look at it. I think it is. You are merely finding compensation for displaced Arabs, and you strike the cash balance and it works out at £300 a piece. As the number will now be reduced to about 250, the balance will work out at £1,000 a piece.

Does anybody in his senses suppose that the Palestinian Government will resettle 250 Arabs at a cost of £250,000? It is possible that they will buy land, divide it up into new villages and put the Arabs on it. They are proposing to get from those Arabs rent for the land and probably also a sinking fund on the money advanced. Their great experience of Palestine will tell those officials that it is very unlikely that they will ever get any rent or instalment of capital returned. It is not a businesslike investment to take 250 Arabs, who within the last 10 or 15 years have been moved from a plot of land, from wherever they may be, to put them down on a new settlement, and to trust to Providence that they will make a success of it, pay interest on the money and restore the capital. I am particularly anxious, and the Minister must be anxious, that as much of this money as possible is put into reproductive works so that the interest comes in automatically, and does not become a charge upon the taxpayers of Palestine, or, still less, a charge upon the taxpayers of this country. I can imagine the President of the Board of Trade fulminating, if he were in my place, against the idea that you can cure unemploymemt by trying to settle people in jobs they do not want to do, in an uneconomic way that will never bring back interest.

That is in a country where there is un-employment, and I myself think that a little inflation in such a case is all to the good. But in Palestine there is no unemployment; the displaced Arabs could find work more suitable to them, and more advantageous to the country, than by working on bits of land purchased with this £250,000. The figure of £250,000 was arrived at three years ago, after the French report, and I think, though I am not quite certain about this, that it was arrived at after the cases had been examined and the very large number put in had been reduced to the reasonable number that is put forward to-day. I cannot believe that any official in Palestine really thinks, and probably the right hon. Gentleman himself does not really think, that £250,000 could be profitably spent in this way, and I think we are entitled to suggest that the sum should be reduced from £250,000 to £50,000, which would amply meet the case of those people who are really suffering through being removed from their land years ago.

I want to make it perfectly clear to the Committee that this class of landless Arabs which has been created by the Jewish immigration into Palestine has been used over and over again, ad nauseam, as an example of the iniquity of allowing the Jews to come into Palestine. When the Jews bought up the land in Emek, that land was unused and unusable land. The few Arab villages in that area were villages of nomad Arabs, who, with some sheep and goats and a very few head of cattle, wandered over a very large area. That land was brought from, and paid for to, the Arab landowners, largely absentees living elsewhere. The occupiers had no rights or titles, but lived from hand to mouth as tenants. If the purchaser had been anybody but the Jewish National Fund, those tenants would have had to go, and no question would have been asked; but the Jewish National Fund conceived it to be their duty, and I think they were right, not merely to act upon the letter of the law and take the land which they had bought at very high prices. Accordingly, in addition, they made compensation at the time to these displaced nomad Arabs, and provided them with the means of making a living elsewhere. That has all been forgotten, and has been left out of account in piling up this imaginary tale of the grievances of the Arab against the Jew. The final result is that the Palestinian Government, and we ourselves under this guarantee, are to find further large sums for those natives who lost their lands. Just across the Indian Ocean, in Kenya, you have 2,500,000 people who have been deprived of their lands, or a large part of their lands, who have been deprived of them without compensation, and who have seen their boundaries consistently and continuously shifted back and back; but no word is said by the right hon. Gentleman about the conditions under which the natives in Kenya——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

We are now dealing with Palestine, not with Kenya.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

The parallel is exact——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

If the right hon. Gentleman proposes to argue on land conditions in Kenya, that obviously does not arise on this Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I think, if I may say so, it does arise. Let me put it to you in this way. I am suggesting by my Amendment that the compensation paid to these displaced Arabs in Palestine should be limited. In view of the paucity of their numbers, and of the fact that in Kenya no such provision is made at all for compensating those who have been shifted from their lands within the last 25 years, I ask the House to consider whether this £250,000 is not really rather an advertisement of the grievance against the Jew, endorsed by the British Parliament, than an actual effort to do justice to people who, as has been the case all over the world, have been losing their land as civilisation advances.

1.10 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The allusion to the parallel of Kenya happens to be singularly unfortunate, because we have just finished a most exhaustive inquiry into every native claim, historical, equitable, legal, tribal or individual, and it is proposed that additions should be made to the reserves to satisfy those claims. We should be guilty of a breach of faith if we accepted this Amendment. I say "we" advisedly, because it includes hon. Members opposite as much as ourselves. It has been common ground between us for years past that genuine cases of displaced tenants have to be dealt with. The Labour Government committed itself to that, and we accepted the commitment. We have made the most exhaustive inquiries on the spot into individual cases, and the very large numbers which were put forward have been written down, as a result of this careful investigation, made in accordance with the tests What I explained to the House in a Debate a year ago, to an estimate of something like 889 families.

The estimate of £250,000 is not an old estimate; it is an up-to-date figure based on the estimated minimum cost of making the re-settlement. I do not in the least expect, as the right hon. Gentleman apparently does, that these Arab cultivators, when re-settled free of debt and with nothing to do with the moneylender, will not be in a position to pay a reasonable return. If any of the 889 do not wish to take advantage of the land made available for this purpose, of course we do not then propose to spend more, on those Arabs who propose to take advantage of the, scheme, than the minimum amount necessary to carry it out. The idea that, supposing only half take advantage of the proposal, the cost of re-settling each family will be doubled, is ridiculous; that is not at all what is proposed. We shall only spend whatever is actually necessary for the resettlement of each of these Arab families who have qualified after very careful tests, and I think we should be guilty of something very like a breach of faith, in respect of an undertaking to which we are all committed, by accepting this Amendment.

1.15 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I am very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that, if there should not be 890 claimants for this money, proportionately less money will be spent. I think it is very important that that should be made clear, so that there may not be unlimited expectations of getting additional compensation. May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman that a rent will be charged proportionate to the amount of money advanced? At what rate of interest will that charge be and will it include any sinking fund?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

It is hoped that, over a period of time, the amount that the Government expend on the settlement schemes will be repaid by those who benefit from them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

At 3½ per cent. interest?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

It would be very wrong to ask me to commit the Government of Palestine to a particular rate.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

It would be wrong to commit the Government of Palestine to anything, but will the rate be artificially low or will it be normal?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The intention is that there shall be a repayment of costs. One does not know what the agricultural conditions may be from year to year in particular holdings. I cannot say at this moment, when all the land has not been acquired, whether all the land is equally good and it would be very unfair to try to fetter the Government of Palestine in a resettlement scheme of this kind by saying "You are to charge such a rate of interest to every tenant."

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON

Is it the intention of the Government that these re-settled Arabs shall have the opportunity of acquiring the title to their holdings?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Yes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

That is a very important point. Last time the right hon. Gentleman said that they were not to get the title, but that they would be tenants of the State. Do they get the title without paying or before they have repaid any of the instalments? Is there anything to prevent them disposing of their land to someone else immediately they have the title?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Of course, under proper conditions, they will be able to dispose of their land. We must credit the Government of Palestine with a certain amount of common sense.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I am quite prepared to give them credit for common sense, but I want to know in which way they are going to direct their common sense. It is easy to say, "These people are going to be and to remain tenants of the State," and it is easy to say, "We are going to give them a title to their land subject to ground rent and a mortgage." I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman himself has any idea as to how you are to prevent a man who has been given the title deeds of his estate from mortgaging or selling the property.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

He will not acquire the title to his estate till he has repaid the money the State has advanced for him.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

He will be a tenant of the State until he has repaid all the money. That is exactly the same as being a tenant in perpetuity. The position, therefore, is that, so long as the tenants of these lands have not paid back the capital invested in their holdings and a reasonable rate of interest on that sum, they will not acquire the holdings at all. In those circumstances, it is extremely unlikely that any of them will become tenants of their own farms. It is extremely unlikely that many of them will jump at the opportunity of accepting this offer at all, and, so far from being pledged to £250,000 for this, apparently by the Labour Government, or pledged to any figure whatsoever after an examination of the numbers who are displaced, I cannot see why we should be called upon to find as much as £250,000, and I think it should be much less.

Amendment negatived.

1.22 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, after "Jerusalem," to insert "Tel Aviv, Jaffa."

The second expenditure of this money is to be on water supply and drainage schemes, and it is specifically stated that those drainage schemes are to be at Jerusalem and Haifa and the water supply at Hebron. There you have money being voted by us, but really of course by the Palestine Government, in certain selected places. All the towns in Palestine need water and drainage, and in course of time they will all get it, but here you are providing for certain selected fortunate municipalities the whole of the cost of water supply and drainage, leaving to all the other places in Palestine the necessity and the expense of finding their drainage and their water supply from their local rates. That seems to me to be an injustice to the places that are not helped and an extraordinarily bad precedent for our Colonies and Dominions generally. Jerusalem, of course, has had a great deal of public money spent on it already to provide a water supply. Unfortunately the thing did not work. Of course, to supply Jerusalem, which is 2,400 feet above sea level, with water is extraordinarily expensive. Perhaps a case might be made out for Government assistance towards that water supply, but I cannot see why there should be any necessity for Government assistance at Haifa. There is not even a Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Haifa. It is a prosperous and developing mercantile port.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert)

The Amendment does not deal with Haifa.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

It deals with it in this way, that the original proposal was that Government money should be spent on drainage and water supply for Haifa, leaving out the far greater claims of Tel Aviv and Jaffa. My Amendment is intended to direct attention to the fact that you ought to treat all these places alike. The argument for Jerusalem is that there you have an exceptionally expensive business and a site which has a great many associations, but at Haifa you have none of these things. Why, therefore, pick upon Haifa and say you will expend £30,000 on waterworks and drainage when you are not spending the same money on other places but are calling upon them to find the money for themselves? That seems to me to be an obvious injustice. Exactly the same applies to Hebron. If you are going to provide money for a water supply at Hebron, there is ten times as much reason for finding the money to supply with water other places which are drier even than Hebron. You have no right to spend public money on certain selected sites and leave other places to find the money locally. It is not justice, and the only result will be to stir up a spirit of disappointment and bitterness in the places that are not helped and to delay, instead of hastening, those very necessary alterations at Tel Aviv and Jaffa which are wanted to make them sanitary. Naturally, if the Government find money for some of the places, the others are not going to find money for themselves very quickly, though they may be forced to find it. My protest is against the Government picking and choosing their own friends for financial assistance and leaving out other places.

1.26 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

This is not a case of giving a grant to one town at the expense of another town, because the water supplies (not for Hebron, which is a poor place), but for Jerusalem and Haifa, when completed, will be "elf-supporting. It is impossible to carry out the whole water supply of all parts of Palestine out of this can. Cases of the most vital necessity have been selected. No one who goes there will deny the terrible necessity, as well as the much greater need, of supplying water in Jerusalem. Haifa is developing, and it is very reasonable that the Government should assist in the case of Haifa, as it is not just a town of Palestine, but a great port serving the whole of Palestine and a great Jewish community, with its orange groves, and a water supply would serve the port of Haifa as well as the town of Haifa, It is reasonable and businesslike that in the circumstances of Palestine as a whole the Haifa water supply should figure in this scheme. What it comes to is that the High Commissioner, with all the advice open to him on the spot, considers that certain works are most urgent and important in Palestine. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman takes a different view and says that he would put in works in certain other places, and I am going to ask the House to accept the considered judgment of the High Commissioner rather than that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

1.28 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Rubbish again. I did not suggest selecting other places, but that you should act justly. The right hon. Gentleman, as far as water supply is concerrned, has now pledged himself to make the money spent on water supply in Jerusalem and Haifa self-supporting, that is to say, that the locality will pay a price for the water necessary to make it a productive investment. That is all to the good. He has not said a word about drainage. I do not know whether the same view covers drainage, or whether they are not going to have money spent on drainage which should be spent out of the pockets of the locality. The claims of Tel Aviv and Jaffa are every bit as good, and it is not a question whether it is expedient.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The drainage will be covered, when it is completed, by the drainage rate.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that these supplies are to be paid for by the people.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN

The only other Amendment which I select is that in page 4, line 12, after "various," to insert "barracks and."

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, after "various," to insert "barracks and."

This is an Amendment, I think, the right hon. Gentleman might very well accept. The Schedule says: Public buildings, including Jerusalem Post Office and various educational buildings, and purposes incidental to or connected with any of the purposes mentioned.

I desire to include, before the word "educational," the words "barracks and" so that it will read "and Various barracks and educational buildings." I think that this is a point upon which I shall be in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. The one thing which is obviously deplorable from a purely English point of view in Palestine to-day is the shocking accommodation for the English troops in Palestine. The conditions of the police are bad enough, but the English troops, who have been there now for four or five years and are a permanent feature of the Palestine mandate, are shockingly housed, both men and officers. Service in Palestine is extremely unpopular among the rank and file, and in a climate where the heat is very considerable in summer the accommodation is not suitable. for English soldiers. They are housed in old Army huts, long wooden buildings utterly unsuitable for the climate of Palestine, and of an obviously temporary character. If we are to spend money on public buildings in Palestine, I do not think that there is any body which has a greater demand upon a loan guaranteed by the British Government than the British Army, which is there as a permanent force of occupation in that country. Their health and comfort have a claim upon us, and, if a British guarantee is to be given to a loan, it should extend to barracks and buildings for the proper accommodation of British soldiers.

1.32 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I am in agreement with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the need for spending money on barracks accommodation whether for the Army or the Police. The reason why nothing is taken in this loan for that purpose is that other arrangements are being made, and in the Estimates for Palestine this year £50,000 is being set aside for married quarters, and £20,000 for the Palestine Police to meet the case.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

The Palestine Police! Does it include the British?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Both.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."

1.34 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I am sorry that I have not been able to move my Amendment, in page 4, line 12, to leave out the word "educational," but perhaps I may be in order in dealing with the point on the Question, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill." Various educational buildings are to be erected out of this loan money, and it raises a very large question which the Committee should face. I suppose that these educational buildings are partly religious and partly educational buildings. We are more and more in Palestine supporting what I cannot help thinking is an erroneous form of education. The right hon. Gentleman himself happens to know that in Cyprus for 50 years we went on what I may call the Palestine lines. We supplied what little Government assistance was required for education entirely to the Church, and education in Cyprus was entirely under the control of the Church. It became the focus of all the anti-British spirit in Cyprus.

Mr. KNIGHT

When the right hon. and gallant Member refers to the Church, he does not mean the English Church?

Colonel WEDGWOOD

No, the Greek Church. That 50 years of anti-British clerical education which took place in Cyprus resulted in the Governor's palace being burned down and in the deportation of the troublesome people of Cyprus. In Palestine we are doing exactly the same thing. We are laying exactly the same ill-foundation for permanent peace of the pro-English population in that country. If we are going to start building schools for all the various religions in a place which is overstocked with religion as much as any country is, where you have proselytism dwarfed by the contentions for every square inch of every holy place, that is the worst country in which to endow religious education. Religious education and anti-British education run so much together. The various nationalities who have vested interests in the education of a fraction of the population are all active, and propaganda goes on from every direction; propaganda to exalt their particular church, propaganda to attack the British Government. I do not think that we ought with our eyes open to go in for preserving at all costs the religious grip upon education in Palestine. I include the Jews, the Christians and the Moslems in that statement.

All the education there is concentrated in religion. The education is built upon the principle which was well recognised here 70 years ago but which we have found disastrous in all the other Colonies and parts of the Empire, and which we have changed or eliminated elsewhere. All the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman is having over education in Malta to-day come from the same root; this desire to preserve, to cultivate and to exascerbate religious education and religious feelings, instead of attempting as we are now attempting successfully in Cyprus to shift the system over to a system of schools where you have touch with religion, where you have the teachers responsible to the State, appointed by the State, trained in State schools and teaching State ideals, instead of acting from the point of view of a particular religion. That is one of the things that we ought to consider when we are voting on this Schedule. I do not suppose that I shall have much satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman, because the subject is new to him, but in years to come we shall find that the religious difficulties in Palestine are difficulties that we have encouraged and which the administration there has encouraged in error.

1.40 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman on the question whether it is or it is not a wise policy to pay capitation grants to what, in the jargon of this House, I might call denominational schools. In Palestine capitation grants are paid both to schools maintained out of the funds of the Moslem Council and to Jewish schools maintained by the Jews. That policy is not unknown in this country. Our own Board of Education and our own education authorities give capitation grants to what we call non-provided schools.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

That is not building schools.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

No, and that question is not relevant, because it is not proposed that one farthing of this money should go to the building of what I might call non-provided schools. The only building that will be assisted will be the building of Government schools which, in the words of the right hon. and gallant Member, are manned by Government teachers, acting under a Government education department and inculcating the curriculum which the Government lays down. That is what the building grant is for, and not for non-provided schools.

Question, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment, to the House; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Forward to