THE GOVERNMENT'S CAMP POLICY.

HL Deb 22 February 1939 vol 111 cc884-916

VISCOUNT ASTOR rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the proposals for camps and to ask whether this question is being considered not only in relation to problems of evacuation in war time but also to the possibility of meeting the urgent needs of young men drawing unemployment allowances by providing work for them of a public character in building these camps, to the social benefits of school camps, to the need for holiday camps in view of the provisions of the Holidays with Pay Act and to the Fitness Campaign; and to move for Papers.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to call the attention of the Government to the matter which is set out in the Order Paper in my name, and to move for Papers. I put this Motion on the Paper some weeks ago, early in the year, and there has been a very great deal of discussion in the public Press, not necessarily because of my Motion, but because a large number of people became interested in the question associated with camps. As the result of that I changed the order of wording of the Motion. It did not in any way alter the substance of the point I had put on the Paper, but merely enabled me to alter the emphasis to some extent. The Government have announced that they propose to spend £1,000,000 and to build with it fifty camps, each of which is to accommodate something like 350. I naturally welcome this announcement, but I want to say at the very outset that I consider the provision made by the Government totally inadequate to meet the various needs that one can associate with the use of camps. Camps can be used for five separate purposes. They can be used for dealing with the refugee population which is evacuated from the danger zones in time of war. Alternatively they can be used as peace-time school camps, as part of the ordinary training of the children attending elementary schools; or they can be used as part of the machinery in the organisation of what, for short, I call the Fitness Campaign—a campaign which was launched by the Government some few years ago—or they can be used, not necessarily in whole but in part, for those millions or some of the millions of adults who are going to have an opportunity, which they have never had before, of holidays; or, lastly, the building of the camps can be done in such a way as to provide work and training for the unemployed.

The first three uses are more or less non-controversial. On the last two public opinion is still fluid. Take the question of evacuation first of all. I have no idea what the numbers are, and I do not suppose that the Government themselves would be prepared to give a final estimate of the number of people who would have to be evacuated in time of war. I understand that in September it was estimated that something like half a million children might have to be evacuated from London. Those were children attending elementary schools, and that is the figure for London alone. Very many more than fifty camps would be required to accommodate anything like that number. Take the country as a whole. I have no idea what the requirements may be. I read an article not very long ago in the Economist, a very responsible and reputable paper, that put the figure at something like 2,000,000 as a minimum. I have seen other estimates which range to a figure two or even three times that total.

I am not asking the Government to pin themselves down to any specific figure to-day. I have only quoted these estimates to indicate that if the object of these camps is to deal with refugees and with people who have to be evacuated from the danger zones, they do not begin to deal with the problem at all. Let us assume there are from 350 to 400 beds in each camp. That makes a total of 20,000. What is 20,000? Or what is the accommodation on the floor which might be used for temporary beds and that sort of thing? That cannot possibly be a substantial contribution towards the evacuation problem. I noticed that when the official announcement was made about this matter, these fifty camps were referred to as being a useful supplement. I do not know how the Government define the word "useful," but it does not seem to me that camps which provide beds for 20,000 only could be described as a useful contribution towards this vast problem associated with war, should the tragedy of war ever occur.

I wish to emphasize the value of camps if we ever do have to evacuate the civil population. Obviously billeting is to be the main policy of the Government. Time necessitates that, but billeting on a big scale, as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, would undoubtedly agree, is going to raise vast problems, such as the question of sanitation, the question of feeding the people who are billeted, and the question of supervision. Even if the Government intend to deal with the refugee problem mainly by billeting, it seems to me that they ought to make provision on a very much bigger scale than that which has so far been put forward. There is one point I would like to put to the noble Earl, who I understand is to reply. It is this: Do the Government contemplate utilising existing country houses either in connection with the camps or as part of the so-called camp policy? I do not know whether the noble Earl will be able to say anything on that.

Now I come to the second use to which these camps can be put—namely, their use in peace time for school-children. As I gathered from the statement which was made in another place, this is the main purpose and project which the Government have in mind. I shall not say very much on this part of the subject, but shall leave it to the noble Earl to indicate exactly what the Government have in mind. I hope he will tell us what is the sort of unit which they contemplate will be moved, whether it is to be by age groups, whether they are to move from schools and with their teachers, and what is to be the length of stay. Is it to be a fortnight? I understand that it is contemplated that each body of children would use these camps in peace time for about a fortnight. If that is so then fifty camps, I take it, with accommodation for 20,000, would mean in round figures that 40,000 elementary school children could use the camps every month, and if the camps are to be used for five months that means a total of 200,000. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to tell us whether it is contemplated that these camps should be used for a longer period than five months, and if so, I assume that arrangements would have to be made for heating. I myself do not see why they should not be used for a great deal longer than five months. I have no idea what the noble Earl is going to say about this, but in case he should make too much of the argument that 200,000 children or some such number using these camps for a fortnight each would be a substantial contribution, I would like to draw his attention to a report which I think was prepared by the Save the Children Fund and appeared in the Manchester Guardian some time ago, where reference was made to the fact that there were 600,000 children attending elementary schools who had no holiday away from home at all. I bring out these fundamental figures in order to indicate that the provision of camps with 20,000 places does not begin to deal with the social problem which we have to face.

The third use to which these camps can be put is as part of the administrative machinery for the Fitness Campaign. They are obviously of value for children, for adolescents and for adults. Their value has been proved in the Special Areas. The report of the Special Areas Commissioner for England for 1938 stated that an average gain in weight of 3 lbs. per child per two-weekly session has been maintained. Each child attending camp for a fortnight had increased in weight 3 lbs., showing that they derived very real benefit. In the report for Scotland it is stated that the provision of camps for unemployed men and their families is one of the most useful and satisfactory pieces of work which the Scottish Council has had the opportunity of tackling,

Now a word about the Fitness Campaign. This was launched round about 1936 with a great deal of publicity. The public was asked to support it, voluntary organisations were asked to support it and local authorities were asked to support and help. The Government, in the White Paper which they brought out in 1937—two years ago—stated the part which they were prepared to play. In a paragraph headed "Training of Teachers and Leaders," I find the following statement: The Government propose that a National College of Physical Training should be established. The responsibility for the provision and maintenance of the College will rest with the Government… They indicated that the college would be established for the training of teachers and also to influence physical education of all kinds throughout the country. Anybody interested in the Fitness Campaign realises that its success and its expansion depend very largely upon trained, skilled, experienced instructors. I understand that it takes from one to three years to train an instructor. That statement of policy announcing that the Government proposed to build a central college where these vital instructors were to be trained was made two years ago. As far as I can make out, not a brick of that central college has yet been laid. The noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong.

I do not know how long it is going to take to build that college, but two years have elapsed and the college is not built. I hope the noble Earl will be able to tell us when he contemplates that the college will be erected, because until it is erected instructors cannot be trained. I emphasize this, not because I want to digress on the Fitness Campaign, but to indicate the leisurely pace at which some of these problems are being tackled, and also to anticipate a reply which may be made on a subsequent point which I shall raise—namely, the question of urgency in building camps. I do venture to hope that in the tackling of these vital problems a little more speed will be shown. If democracy is to survive in the world as we now see it and know it, it will survive in spite of the slowness with which democracies operate.

I come to the fourth use to which camps can be put, and this, I gather, is considered to be more controversial—namely, their use by adults as holiday camps, under the provision recently made whereby a large section of the industrial working population has holidays with pay. I understand that Whitehall is threatened with a march of lodging-house keepers in protest. I hope that the Government will not be prevented by any such threat from making some experiments in connection with these camps. The hotel-keepers are well organised. I understand there are something like 8,000,000 people who are going to have holidays with pay, and if you add their families you have something like 14,000,000 people who are going to be looking around for a place to go to during the holidays. I do not believe the lodging-house keepers at seaside resorts, or the hotels, have anything whatever to fear, for two reasons. In the first place, they would not be able to take the whole of the people; and secondly, a very large number of these people earn so little that they cannot possibly afford to pay the charges which would be made in the hotels and lodging-houses.

There is another point. Nobody has any idea whether a camp, however attractive it may be, will appeal to the British industrial worker and his family. Camps have been tried with very great success in other countries, and I think that if the Government, or the authority that will build them, use a little imagination and care in the building of the camps, they will attract a certain number of people. As your Lordships know, there are already camps provided—private camps, camps run by philanthropic or semi-philanthropic organisations — and most of them have been extraordinarily successful. Obviously, nobody can suggest that the whole or even the majority of the camps should be earmarked for the use of the adult population in connection with the holidays with pay movement, but I do suggest that a few of them might be earmarked for the purpose. The public body that is to provide the camps should be allowed to have this use in mind, because a camp constructed for this purpose will obviously be a different sort of camp from a camp which is used only for children staying a fortnight in the country. I hope that the Government will allow and encourage the body set up to provide the camps to have a dash and make an experiment. This movement is a new movement and is experimental. I venture to suggest that this is the moment to use a little imagination and have a little courage. The public body set up should be allowed to make what I believe would be some very useful experiments.

Now I come to the fifth point which I want to bring before your Lordships' attention—that is, the possibility of constructing them in such a way as to help us to contribute towards the solution of the unemployment problem. I shall not, this afternoon, initiate a debate on un- employment in general, but I am convinced that the Government can do something to remove one of the most serious aspects, or a part of one of the most serious aspects, of the unemployment problem: that which affects the relatively young. I am only going to make one or two very brief quotations. I will first make a quotation from the Report of the Unemployment Assistance Board: There is a considerable number of men and women who have lost interest and are content to remain on unemployment allowances. There are those whose unemployment is due to wilful idleness, who avoid or refuse work when it is obtainable, or throw up jobs upon some flimsy pretext. The percentage of such cases to the total dealt with by the Board is small, but the number is sufficiently large to cause the Board much concern. I am very anxious not to let anyone believe that I am suggesting that the majority of the unemployed are not really and genuinely anxious to work. I am convinced that they are. But evidence is accumulating that the "dole" habit is spreading and that it is creating a real problem.

This afternoon I want to deal with this problem mainly in so far as it affects the young unemployed. In a recent debate the Minister of Labour stated that in July there were 81,000 unemployed between the ages of eighteen and twenty inclusive. In The Times recently I saw an article which stated that in the year 1937, which was a relatively good year as far as unemployment was concerned, there were under the Unemployment Assistance Board 21,000 young men of the ages from sixteen to thirty-four who had done no work for three years or more. In addition there were 52,000 of the same ages who had been out of work for more than one year. Recently I saw a statement in an article by Sir Ronald Davison, a member of the committee of the Unemployment Assistance Board which is investigating the question of the young unemployed, that there were 100,000 young persons under thirty-five out of work. Whatever figure we take—and I am not going to tie myself down to any of the estimates which I have just quoted—your Lordships will, I am sure, agree with me that the problem is a real and a serious one.

A large number of these young persons are victims of circumstances over which they have no control whatever. A large number of them are only too anxious, if they get the opportunity, to go back to work. In addition to that, however, there is a real risk, which is before the minds of those who are in contact with the problem, of a certain number of young persons growing up feeling that they can have money for nothing. There was a letter in The Times by Sir Malcolm Stewart in which he said: Many of these youths are brought up in homes where no member of the family has worked for many years.… It is difficult for the best instincts to survive in such an atmosphere; all sense of independence and enterprise is lost. An unhealthy outlook subtly grows at a period when character is most easily formed.… These youths must be saved from the dread consequences of idleness, quickly and at all costs. Bishop Hensley Henson, who has had a great opportunity of studying the problem at first hand, said in a letter: The boys fresh from school soon sink into listless youths who hang about the streets, and then become married men living on the 'dole' and accepting 'dole-fed' idleness as their predestined lot. It is not poverty which is the worst shadow on their lives, but the boredom and loss of self-respect. In dealing with a problem such as this, in dealing with the possible remedies under our system, there is a real risk lest people belonging to different Parties accuse each other of being Fascists, Communists or Bolshevists if they put forward any drastic, new, constructive or courageous policy. I have been called each one of these names. I have been called a Fascist, a Communist and a Socialist, and I am not a bit frightened; but I venture to suggest that in considering a problem of this seriousness we should not indulge in that kind of argument and criticism.

I have emphasized, and I have tried to remind your Lordships of, the magnitude and seriousness of this problem. I see a real opportunity for the Government to use the construction of these camps, or of a larger number of camps, which I believe they may later on be induced to erect, in order to help to ameliorate the lives of these young persons. I would suggest that the Government should try to use these young men in the building of the camps. Let the Government, if they like, enrol the men in a special brigade. I understand that this has been done in South Africa with very considerable success. Men are enrolled for a year, and then if they cannot get work they can sign on again for three or four months, and I believe there is a limit of something like four years. I hope the Government will consider that possibility. There are two sorts of work in connection with the erection of these camps. There is the rough work—levelling, preparing roads, digging for foundations—and there is the skilled work of erecting the actual huts, or putting up the buildings. I would suggest that they pass a certain number of these young unemployed through the industrial centres. Mind you, my Lords, many of these young men are going to require a great deal of tender care. They have to be fed, to have their strength built up; they have to be hardened by regular work. I therefore think it would be very useful if they could spend a training period of a month, six weeks or eight weeks in one of these industrial centres before going on to work at a camp. I would suggest that those who already have some aptitude or skill should go through the training centres and then go on and help actually to build the houses. I hope that the Government will see that these huts are not all built at some industrial centre and then sent in parts just to be fastened together on the spot with screws and bolts. I hope that a certain number of them will be built on the spot, so as to give actual work to these unemployed young men.

There are several very obvious objections to the course that I have indicated. The first is that it will involve delay. I agree; but if these camps here are not part of the Government programme for dealing with the refugees, if the main object of these camps is not a war problem, then the question of urgency does not really arise. If the Government were looking towards these camps as their main contribution for dealing with the refugees who have to be evacuated, then the time required for building them would be a matter of importance. If, however, as I have indicated by the figures, they are not a substantial contribution towards dealing with the work of refugees, then the problem of urgency does not arise.

The next point is that of expense. Again I agree that it would be more costly to build them as I have suggested. But, compare the extra cost with the cost of unemployment, with the £40,000,000 or whatever it is that we now spend on the unemployed. Compare the additional cost with the cost of subsidised idleness, with the loss of moral fibre which undoubtedly is creating a real social problem. By comparison with that the additional cost of erecting these camps by the special enrolment of these young unemployed would be infinitesimal, and well worth facing. We are told that we ought to use contractors. I understand—in fact I think it is quite easy to quote cases of contractors who are working on Government contracts, putting up buildings for the Government, importing labour from Ireland into districts where there are already a considerable number of local men unemployed. It may be cheaper, it may be easier, but if the Government are going to give work out to contract, and have it done as quickly and cheaply as possible, they are going to make no substantial contribution towards alleviating or diminishing the problem of unemployment. I know that some will suggest that it will be part of every contract that the contractor shall employ a definite percentage of young unemployed—ten or twenty per cent., or whatever the percentage may be. I understand that that has been tried, and that you cannot enforce it. A contractor may take on a definite number of young men, and keep them for several weeks, but somehow or other they tend to be unloaded. I do not think that that is the way to deal with the problem. I think it is much better to deal with it as an ad hoc problem. Appeal to the young, and I believe you would get a response. It might be necessary to get a number of leaders, and possibly a certain proportion of trained and skilled men, but I suggest to the Government that there is here a real opportunity awaiting them.

Before I sit down I would like to sum up. What is the main object of these camps? It is either for war or for peace. It is either a substantial contribution towards dealing with the refugee problem—those who have to be evacuated from the danger zones—or it is part of our general welfare programme, which I have indicated under general headings. I hope I have proved that it is not a substantial part of the machinery to deal with war risk. Twenty thousand beds is ridiculous, obviously, as such a contribution, and if it is not part of the machinery for dealing with possible war, it must be part of the Government's programme for dealing with welfare. If that is the case, this question of urgency does not arise so acutely, and on this question of social welfare there is no greater need than that of the young unemployed. Here is a Heaven-sent opportunity. I am perfectly certain that the noble Earl who represents the Government, and who is going to reply, is as anxious as anyone here to deal with this social problem. I hope he will convince his colleagues in the Cabinet that it is necessary to have both vision and courage, and that if they adopt slightly unorthodox ideas they will be able to make a real dent in a social problem which is serious and yet soluble. I beg to move for Papers.

LORD SNELL

My Lords, the Question which the noble Viscount has placed on the Order Paper of the House, and which he has explained with such lucidity, is one of very great importance, and my noble friends and myself would wish to give to this Question our general support. The subject with which it deals is one of great importance, and of growing concern to a vast number of our people. I propose not to follow the noble Viscount in detail, but only just to deal with two aspects of the problem as he has presented it. The Labour Party is anxious, of course, for a scheme of evacuation to be developed, and on that account alone it would support the Motion which the noble Viscount has made. Because it is in favour of evacuation, it is also in favour of a planned scheme—some far-seeing prevision—rather than to rest upon the emergencies of the moment. Personally, I fear a great deal the proposal for indiscriminate billeting of persons from towns in cottages in the country or elsewhere. This kind of official invasion of private homes is not, of course, in accordance with our traditions, but that does not matter. The point is that it would not give to us, I think, that which all of us want. War may last for months, and even for years, and this indiscriminate billeting would almost certainly result in pestilence developing, and probably in very considerable deterioration of moral character. Therefore we are in favour of the problem being dealt with in a scientific way. That is so far as the war aspect of it is concerned.

In regard to the proposed camps, the noble Viscount has explained not only how they could be made to serve the temporary emergency which might arise from war, but also how they could make a permanent contribution to the good of the community. I propose to comment only on the matter from the holiday point of view, not forgetting the importance which the camps might have as outdoor schools and as a contribution to the Fitness Campaign. We are now developing the principle of holidays with pay for workers, and these camps might really serve to help both the physical and mental renewal of workers who have no spare cash to go to boarding houses at the seaside and therefore cannot afford the usual expenditure. Organised provision could well be made for them on an economic but also on a non-profit basis. A great deal of useful experience is already available through different social welfare agencies, and also through people who develop this holiday activity, such as the Workers' Travel Association, the Co-operative Holidays Association, the Holiday Fellowship, and other bodies which which I am personally connected. The problem arises, How are these camps to be built? And therefore we look to the Government to tell us just what plans they have, on what scale it is proposed to operate, how these camps, if they are built, are to be run, and by whom. I hope they will not provide another opportunity for economic exploitation, but an opportunity for social service in a very important aspect of our lives. There are some dangers connected with this aspect of the matter that we shall watch with considerable interest.

But my real desire to say a word this afternoon is based upon the use that can be made in building these camps of the unemployed youth of the country. If it could be made possible to call these boys into creative activity it would be an enormously important and valuable contribution to our national life. The good would be incalculable, both to the individual and to the community. Those who have seen the miracles of renewal through the unemployed vocational centres and organisations of that kind know how very important such matters could be. Men go there with the spirit taken out of them, and then the mere joy of using their hands once more and of creating something seems to build them inside as well as out, and of them an old phrase might be used with some adaptation—"They were dead and are alive again."

I plead personally for these thwarted young lives on whom is already set the seal of despair, which may deepen into resentment or what is even worse, into acceptance of the condition in which they find themselves. The saddest sight of all in this world, in my mind, is youth deprived of its chance in life. Your Lordships cannot realise all that it means as vividly as those who personally have trod that dark valley of physical suffering and spiritual humiliation. I dare not trust myself to comment on it at length, but I ask you to believe that I know what I am trying to say to you. The greatest tragedy in these young lives is not physical privation, although the physical privation that youth suffers is not their but the nation's reproach: it is the spiritual tragedy that is so grievous. Boys with all the hope of life knocked out of them find themselves not wanted except to fight and die for a land that neglects them. In peace time they find themselves cast aside unwanted, unused; and it is that problem which is on all our minds. And if this opportunity of building camps could do something to help to give these young people renewed life, that of itself would be an enormous contribution to our national welfare. I shall listen to the Government's reply to the noble Viscount with very great interest, and I personally thank him for the Motion which he put upon the Paper.

LORD RUSHCLIFFE

My Lords, I propose to intervene in this debate for a very few minutes only. I do so for the purpose of expressing most sincerely my own hope that the Government will see their way to accept the Motion which has been moved by my noble friend and to answer in the affirmative the Question which is asked. May I remind your Lordships exactly what that Question is. The noble Viscount asks the Government: whether this question is being considered not only in relation to problems of evacuation in war time but also to the possibility of meeting the urgent needs of young men drawing unemployment allowances by providing work for them of a public character in building these camps.… In almost every industrial town in the country there is a large number of men, often unskilled, who have been unemployed for a long time, and, as has already been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, their position is tragic and their prospects of employment are remote. Let me just tell you about a sample inquiry—and I think the results of it may be taken as representative—which I caused to be made not long ago on this very matter. According to the results of this inquiry there are about 146,000 men under thirty-five whose unemployment has been so prolonged that they are no longer entitled to unemployment benefit but are drawing unemployment allowances. About 80,000 of them have had either no employment or less than six months' employment in the last three years. Could a situation be disclosed which is more tragic in relation to the unemployed than those figures reveal?

The Government, as we know, are proposing to make these camps, and I trust my noble friend who will reply will not be unduly intimidated by the lodging-house keepers, but that these camps will be made on a large scale. They are to be made, as we understand, for the purpose of accommodating refugees in time of war and for the purpose of amenities in time of peace. It is perfectly obvious that the making of these camps must need the labour of a large number of unskilled men, and what the noble Viscount asks in effect is that in supplying the labour to make these camps those who have been long unemployed should have the first preference. What request could be more natural, and what demand more reasonable than that these men who have been out of work so long should have the first chance? These are not the old relief works as we know them, but public works—works which are to be made for a public purpose, and are therefore quite distinct from those relief works which are merely for the purpose of giving employment to the unemployed.

I trust it will not be said that in relation to the whole the number of men who can be so employed must necessarily be very small. Having regard to the whole aggregate of unemployment the number of men who can be employed in making these camps is necessarily small, but if every proposal for the mitigation of this evil has to be turned down merely because it contributes little, then the position is hopeless. There is no sovereign remedy for this evil, but everything that can be done, whether it be little or whether it be great, should be utilised for the purpose of mitigating this admitted evil. Speaking for myself, I trust that the noble Earl who replies will represent to the De- partment for which to-day he is to speak that in the opinion of this House at least that Department will be expected to make its contribution, be that contribution great or small, to the elimination of an evil which is depressing to the last degree to those who, like myself, are brought daily in contact with it.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

My Lords, I want to support the appeal which has been made by the noble Lord out of his great experience in dealing with this matter, that the Government should use these new camps for the purpose of finding some employment at any rate for the young men who are out of work. I think the country as a whole has lately been deeply moved by the knowledge that there are over 80,000 young men between the ages of eighteen and twenty who are now out of work. Some of them have been out of work only for a few months. Others have been out of work for a long period. Some of them have never had any work, and some of them are without prospects of ever having work. The results of these periods of unemployment are deplorable. The young men suffer physically, many of them are underfed, later in life they will suffer in their health, and, as the noble Lord opposite said a short time ago, they are affected grievously in their character and in their outlook by the demoralising influences of periods out of work without any certain hope of being able to obtain work in the future. It is very easy for these young men who have only had intermittent periods of work, or no work, to drift into the way of regarding the workless condition as the natural, normal condition in which to live. It is easy for them to drift from the unemployed into the ranks of the unemployable.

I have, of course, never had the experience to which the noble Lord opposite referred so feelingly, but after a lapse of many years I have a vivid recollection of a number of young men in a club for which I was responsible being out of work for some months, and I could see them week by week deteriorating in physique and sometimes deteriorating in character. These young men out of work may very easily become centres of discontent and resentment. I believe that The Times was not exaggerating when, the other day, it stated that the unem- ployment of the younger citizens is one of the greatest dangers of our times. I am thinking not so much of the social effects of the unemployment of these boys—for many of them are only boys—I am thinking of the effect on their own lives. It means that very often their lives will be wasted and useless through no fault of their own. Their lives will be a burden to themselves, an anxiety to their relatives, and a problem to the State. I feel therefore that every kind of effort ought to be made to deal with, at any rate, this aspect of unemployment. I read with the greatest care the speech which was made by the Minister of Labour in another place, and I cannot say I felt that he dealt adequately with this special problem. He told us what had been done. There are instructional and training centres—sixteen training centres with 8,000 places, twenty-two instructional centres with 26,000 places; but even if all these places were used for the younger unemployed—and of course that is not the case—the provision thus made would be totally inadequate for the 80,000 young men under twenty who are now out of work.

I agree with the noble Viscount who has brought forward this subject in saying that these new camps afford a Heaven-sent opportunity of making some contribution towards dealing with the subject, and I would specially urge that these young men who are out of work should be sent in teams to help in the construction of these camps. I do not think it would be sufficient merely to ask a contractor to take a certain quota of them. It would be of much greater value if teams of these young men were sent under some experienced and sympathetic leader. Almost everything depends on getting the right kind of leader—the kind of leader who has sometimes been put in charge of some of the unemployed camps which are held year after year. He would be responsible not so much for seeing that these young men did the technical work—that might have to be left to others—as for seeing that they were properly housed and properly fed, and that suitable recreation was arranged for them. Possibly in many cases in the summer it would be feasible to house these young men under canvas. A camp takes only a short time to complete, and they might in this way move from one place to another.

I think it would appeal to them. There is a very striking remark in that very important report which came out last year called Men without Work, in which the writers say that so many of the schemes intended to deal with the younger unemployed have failed through lack of imagination. They have made no appeal to their imagination, and therefore they have been relatively unsuccessful. Then they say: One promising feature of the situation is a tendency of young men to combine in gangs. These are often exceedingly troublesome, but their existence shows that there is an inherent need for social organisation and a capacity for group loyalty which offer big opportunities. They point out how a gang was used most successfully in a social experiment in Lincoln, and they conclude by saying: It is doubtful if this achievement could have been brought about by compulsion, but a skilful appeal to the loyalty of the gang, and a skilful fitting of its existing social organisation into the framework of another scheme, was what brought about the result. It is quite possible, if these younger men in the distressed areas are appealed to to come forward as a team to help in this valuable construction work, there may be a remarkable response, and the experience would be most useful if there is placed at the head of such a team a man of real sympathy, insight, and capability. I quite realise, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, that there are all kinds of objections which may easily be raised to a proposal of this kind. It will cost more money, the work may be rather slower, it may not be so efficient, and, after all, an experiment of this kind would only deal with a very small proportion of the unemployed; but I should feel that the experiment had been a success if it only meant that a few hundreds of these younger men were reconditioned in body and given better hope for the future.

LORD ADDISON

My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the support which has been given to the noble Viscount's Motion and to refer to one or two other matters which are associated with it. I confess I was a good deal puzzled by the suggestion that a number of camps accommodating in all, say, 20,000, to use the noble Viscount's figure, should be regarded as a contribution to our evacuation problem should the necessity ever arise. It is not unfair to say that that is trifling with the subject, but it does provide a splendid opportunity for doing a piece of constructive social work which may be of enduring value. Apropos of the reference of the right reverend Prelate to the team spirit which is manifest among young people, I remember, as Chairman of the National Park Committee some years ago, being brought for several weeks in intimate association with various clubs and associations of trampers, hikers and others who are accustomed to set up their own organisations for health purposes, and it afforded me a very striking illustration of the vast undisclosed possibilities that there are of co-operation in matters of this sort.

I am quite sure that there is a double reason for the Government enlarging their horizon in this matter. The first reason is that it would form, if it were tackled properly, a valuable contribution to the evacuation problem. Supposing you were to multiply your project ten times, it might amount to a beginning. I am certain there would be a demand for the use of these camps for holidays vastly greater, I think, than many people suspect who have not made themselves acquainted with the character of the demand that would certainly arise. The noble Viscount referred to the spectre of the procession of landladies and all the rest of it conjured up by the Editor of a certain newspaper. I hope the Government will not lose any sleep on that account. The hundreds of thousands of people—I was going to say millions—who will have the chance of a holiday for the first time, and a holiday with pay, represent a tide of humanity seeking somewhere to go of which the Editor of the newspaper in question and seaside landladies have really no conception. I am sure there would be no reason for the landladies to worry if the Government made their camps ten times more numerous than is proposed. I hope the Government will not be deterred by this kind of silly threat. Particularly I would urge it because one knows that there is likely to be such an immense demand for holiday facilities of an organised form that I am quite sure these camps, in the happy event of their not being required for evacuation, would be a great and substantial contribution to our social amenities.

One other point. Perhaps one's experience on the Land Settlement Committee fortifies what the right reverend Prelate just said as to the need for getting the work done, if possible, by the younger unemployed. We found, on the land settlement scheme, that we were not allowed to pick men to come to the camps unless they had been out of work a long time; therefore the problem of the field of recruitment was the most difficult one of all. Our experience was that it is several months, certainly not less than six months, before the men are capable of doing a real day's work. That is because they have been for years out of work and lost the use of their hands and are physically out of condition. If this experiment should be used for saving a few thousands of young men from falling into that condition it would be an added reason for supporting it.

May I finally ask one or two questions about administration? I suppose we all have viewed with interest the various suggestions, increasing in number almost daily, which appear to have been showered upon Sir John Anderson, and we have been impressed—I have been anyhow—with the slowness to do anything about almost any of them. It is some months now since he was appointed. Before that the Home Secretary was for years Chairman of a Committee which, presumably, had to decide something or other about A.R.P., and we are left wondering what they have done. The only decision they appear to have arrived at was one about gas masks and sticking plaster to fill up cracks. But now we are having, so far as the provision of the training college referred to by the noble Viscount is concerned, another illustration of the sort of thing that has been going on.

I want to put in a plea to the noble Earl who is to reply that he will take care it does not apply to this matter. Is it not really time the Government appointed somebody, some man with authority, to do some of these things? I do not know who is going to "bell the cat," who is going to be authorised to say "Get on with the job," and who is going to decide what the Treasury grant will be and to make it available and put a little ginger into this proposal. Is it to be the Minister of Education, is it to be the Lord Privy Seal, is it to be the Minister of Labour, is it to be the Minister of Health or is it to be the First Commissioner of Works? Who is it to be? There is a galaxy of talent available, but nobody seems to be given the authority to say "Go." I am only asking who it is who will have authority in this matter. If it is the noble Earl who is now President of the Board of Education, knowing him so well I am quite satisfied. Provided the Treasury does not stand in his way too obstinately, I am quite sure he will get a move on. But I think it is very important that we should have a little more clarity on the administrative side of this matter. I believe that the delays which we have been witnessing with so much distress, have been due to the fact that the administrative problem has not been dealt with effectively so far. Anyhow, I hope the noble Earl will tell us in his reply who is going to be responsible for this business, and how the work is going to be done.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I rise in the first instance to support the plea of the noble Viscount for work to be given to the young unemployed in the construction of these camps. I should like to say that what has struck me as most remarkable about this debate up to the present time is not the unanimity of the support which the noble Viscount has received from all quarters of the House, and from members of very great weight and of very great experience. That unanimity is remarkable enough, but what to my mind is even more remarkable is that until the noble Lord who has just sat down got up there never had been a whisper of criticism of the fact that it is only now and in such a very small degree that this measure has been announced by the Government. That seems to me to be the most astonishing thing.

It is perfectly obvious that so far as evacuation is concerned this voluntary billeting scheme is going to break down. The difficulties do not seem to me yet to have been faced. After all, it is five months since the crisis. We are still in the stage of inquiry as to how many people will be able to be taken by a voluntary scheme of billeting. It is already perfectly obvious that, warned by the experience of last September, a very large number of people in the comparatively safe areas who have spare rooms are engaged in making their own arrangements, so that when the next crisis comes these spare rooms will be occupied by people with whom they are personally concerned. I have yet to be told authoritatively that that is an unpatriotic thing to do. I cannot quite see that it is. If one has a few rooms to spare, I do not think it is unpatriotic to make arrangements to take in one's own relatives or one's own friends who have need of some place other than in one of the great cities. Theoretically, of course, the fact that such people are there looked after perhaps does not affect the matter, because they would have to be looked after anyway, but I think it is perfectly clear that it will diminish pro tanto the amount of accommodation which would have been available in the last emergency for the school children and others who have got to be compulsorily evacuated.

Then there is the other set of difficulties on the domestic side. I do not think sufficient attention has yet been paid to the practical difficulties which will arise when these children and others are compulsorily evacuated into the areas which are to take them. There are, on the one hand, the instances one has had in one's own experience of elderly people with one or two spare rooms being pressed to take numbers of small children. That is one set of difficulties. Another set of difficulties arises in the case of people who have a staff of servants, no doubt adequate for their own requirements, but servants who, if a dozen children were added to the establishment, would at once pack up their traps and depart. All these difficulties I believe, when added together, will result in the discovery that the billeting scheme will provide only a small proportion of the accommodation which will be required. We are now told that this scheme, which I am thankful to see, is going to provide a useful supplement. Of course, as has been already proved, it is pitifully inadequate for any such purpose as that. But I do welcome it because, of all the vast expenditure that is being made on war preparations, here is at least one item which is going to give us something of social benefit in the future. That is a characteristic which distinguishes it from all the preparations in the way of aeroplanes and bombs and battleships, uneconomic expenditure on which has got to be paid for in ways which we do not yet perhaps fully realise.

Here is something which is going to give us a social gain. I hope that this is only the beginning. I should have thought it would have been obvious that this camp schema: ought to have been undertaken last October within a fortnight of the crisis. It was not, and here we are five months later beginning on a totally inadequate scale. That is the answer, I think, if the noble Earl who is going to reply for the Government says that he cannot use the unemployed in whom the noble Viscount is interested, because of the urgency of the matter. Nothing is more certain than that six months hence the Government will wake up to the fact that this camp scheme has got to be enormously enlarged. If the unemployed have not been used because the matter is urgent, the same argument will apply six months hence. It will still be urgent and therefore the unemployed still cannot be used.

I had in mind, when considering this matter, something of the aspect which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, emphasized in words which must have touched every one of your Lordships. After what he said and the way in which he put that matter to your Lordships, I will not attempt to try and put that aspect to you. I think it must be common ground. I should think there is not a single noble Lord on the Front Benches who, if he had the decision, would not say "Of course, this is a thing that must be done, and must be done at once." Unfortunately, an individual is impotent. He can only decide that he can do nothing, and when he forms himself into a committee, unfortunately, he so often decides that nothing can be done. I hope that will not be the result in this case. I think the case has been made and it will be disappointing if, with this opportunity of constructive work, the advice of noble Lords who know what they are talking about is not taken.

For a moment I should like to go wider. I would like to see this camp idea extended to meet a very much wider need than has been even touched upon this afternoon. We have heard a good deal in the last few weeks on the question whether or not we should have compulsory military service. That question is decided, and I think, perhaps, up to the present time, rightly decided, in the negative, but there is an aspect of service which I should like to see undertaken compulsorily by every citizen in this country when he reaches the age of eighteen or nineteen—that is, six months in some kind of labour camp on the analogy of experiments which are being carried out, not only in Germany with great success, but I believe also in America and elsewhere. One of the characteristics of a dictatorship is that in the country where there is a dictator there is only one point of view. In a democracy we can have any number of points of view. The essential thing is that those points of view should be ready to take note of one another, and be arrived at by the individual after some experience of life and some willingness to take account of opposing points of view. I should like to see, in these camps which I am proposing, a thorough mixture of all classes of the population. The young fellow from the public school, before he goes to a University, would be there. The working classes might have to interrupt their industrial career to have their six months. But the result of the rubbing of shoulders between all classes in this country would be one of the finest social stimulants which could possibly be devised. I may be going rather wide, but I would beg the Government not to think that this matter can be disposed of by setting up the number of camps which they are to-day proposing.

To sum up, I would ask for three things. I would ask, in the first place, that consideration be given to a much wider use of public money for this purpose. Secondly, I would ask that the corporation which is to set up and run these camps should either have in itself some power of compulsory purchase or else should be linked with some Government Department which has power of compulsory purchase, and that the Government should see to it that there is no profiteering and undue raising of land values. And finally, I would ask that this point should be given immediate and close attention: that these young unemployed, whose lot has been described to us in terms which none of your Lordships can afford to disregard, should be given the opportunity of doing some constructive work in the creation of these camps. The point about that which appeals to me was put by the noble Lord opposite: it is the spiritual result as well as the physical which we hope to gain. The mere fact of creating something by their own endeavours will do more for these boys than any amount of obtaining jobs, with difficulty, in the pay of a contractor and finally being turned off as inefficient after a few months. If those lads can be put into bands, companies, or whatever you like to call them, under competent instructors and given a constructive bit of work to do, I have no doubt that in an enormous proportion of cases the response will be surprising and the gain to the life of this country will be beyond all computation.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I only wish to add one or two sentences to what has been said. After the speeches which have been delivered this afternoon it would be merely a waste of your Lordships' time to add anything of substance, but there are one or two minor but not unimportant matters to which I should like briefly to refer before the noble Earl replies. It is quite plain from what has been said that, once the building of these camps begins, it is pot very easy to see where the purposes to which they could be put would end. I hope that from the very first great care will be taken over the form in which they are built; that they will not simply be standardised buildings, as the noble Viscount indicated, but that some care and imagination will be spent on them, and that experts will be consulted by the authority which is to control them, so that from the very first there will be something not barrack-like but really imaginative in the buildings themselves. In the second place I hope that great care will be taken from the very first in selecting the sites for these camps. Obviously they must not be too far from centres of animation and amusement, because I know very well that, although the love of the countryside is increasing among our workers, so far they have even a greater love of the cinema, the promenade and other sources of amusement. It would therefore be idle to make these camps too far removed from the centres of those attractions. They ought to be in the country, but if they are in the country, then I hope that some regard will be had to the amenities of the countryside so that they may not be a blot on any locality and that their sites may be selected with great care.

The third minor but perhaps not unimportant point is that I hope great care will be taken from the first about management. If the camps are used for refugees, that will be done. If they are used for children, the teachers will look after them. If, however, they are to be used for holiday camps, there exists a branch of social service which might be of great value. I am the last in the world to suggest that the British working man and his family want to be "improved" when on their holiday, and I should be the last to advocate any attempt to do so. Certainly, however, these holiday camps for holidays with pay would be enormously enhanced in value if the appropriate authorities tried to make them a part of that system of the help of public authority by voluntary assistance which is, I suggest, increasingly important. Many people are now trained in the methods that the noble Lord, Lord Addison, spoke about some short time ago, for the management and guidance of the holidays of the people, whereby there would be no intrusion, no fuss, but that discipline without which no common life is tolerable, and help would be given to make those who came to holiday camps not a mere congeries of individuals but a real community enjoying themselves together.

I hope I may be forgiven for raising these minor points. On the larger question, the use of the younger unemployed for these camps and especially for their building: the existence of this large class of apparently hopelessly unemployed young men is so grave that I had intended to raise the question in your Lordships' House at a later stage. Whether I shall do so now, after this discussion, I cannot say; much will depend upon the answer which the noble Earl will give. I am sure, however, that everyone present here agrees with the noble Viscount who has brought this matter forward that the employment of these 80,000 young men would be of the utmost possible value, and that the Government should undertake the problem with a real determination to find a solution. I hope that the noble Earl who replies will recognise that by consent to make the provision of these camps part of their policy, the Government are opening a door which will lead, it may be, to very important results for the public and social life of the country.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARR)

My Lords, I think we are all under a really deep debt of gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for promoting this debate. If anyone had had any doubt beforehand about the importance of the subject, I think the number of the speeches that have been made to-day and their contents must have convinced him how really vital a problem we are engaged in discussing. I can certainly say that this discussion is going to be immensely valuable to His Majesty's Government. Here we are dealing with a new problem containing an immense number of new possibilities, as the most reverend Primate has just said: we certainly want all the help and outside advice that we can have in order to ensure that we really make the best use of these possibilities. All these questions about who are going to build the camps, who are going to be responsible for their building, where they are going to be built and by what methods, who are going to run them, who are going to use them, and in what way they are going to be used, we have to consider very carefully. In fact, many of them we have already considered.

No single noble Lord has spoken against the scheme. Such small criticism as there has been has all been in the direction of asking why we are not doing more and at a quicker pace. I think it is fair to say that no idea during the last few months has really struck the public imagination more than the conception of the dual purpose to which these camps can be put. A point that was made particularly clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is that in all this great welter of expenditure that we are having to pour forth on the vital necessities of defence, here is one small item that stands out as having a real permanent and constructive use for peacetime social purposes.

Some criticisms have been passed on the question of numbers. I think noble Lords really agree that there is a great deal to be said, when you have a big new ideal such as this, for trying it out on a manageable basis first. I think they will admit that at any rate this is a good start, and I think they will welcome the implication of the construction being handed over to a permanent corporation, which certainly indicates that if we are successful in the first effort we do not mean to stop at these numbers. The figures that this first section can accommodate are 17,500, or, as the noble Viscount said, 20,000 in rough numbers, but for war purposes there is no doubt that this figure could be very greatly increased during an emergency period. It could be very nearly doubled for emergency purposes, but from the beginning I think it has been clear that the figures we are likely to be able to accommodate in camps in an emergency can only be regarded as negligible, in comparison with the accommodation which will be provided by billeting. Here, incidentally, I might interpose, although we have not got the final replies with regard to billeting completed, that there is no question but that the results are likely to be satisfactory. I think that one respect in which these camps will be particularly of use in regard to evacuation is that they can be used as collecting depots. Children can be sent there for a short time while there may be difficulty in accommodating them elsewhere, and that will give us a margin of time for placing the children in billets in difficult cases.

I think the real interest that has been expressed in this debate has been with regard to the social welfare or peace-time uses to which the camps can be put. Here I do welcome very much the opportunity of making one or two remarks, as I think that the Department for which I have the honour to be responsible is likely to be as much connected with this scheme as any other Department; because it has been made clear that whilst holiday camps are not in any way ruled out under the scheme, and certainly will not be in the legislation which will be necessary, the first purposes to which we intend to put these camps are for schools and kindred purposes, because I hope that they will also be used for adolescents, boys' and girls clubs and so on. When we look at them from this point of view the 17,500 does swell itself, as Lord Astor said, to at least ten times the total. He has asked me whether the camps will not be able to be used for more than five months. I think it may well be that that will be possible, but it is the sort of thing which one has to experiment with, and in making estimates I think it is better to make a conservative one rather than a more generous one and then be disappointed.

Then, how are they going to be run? As noble Lords know, we are setting up a public corporation to build the camps, let them, and be responsible for them. I should hope to see that corporation have an exceedingly free hand. I think it would be a tragedy to try and tie them down to not more than one definite scheme at the moment. They can be used as schools, and as playing part in the school life of the child, and for taking them out of the town, say, for a fortnight during term time. They can be used for school holidays. We can either take whole classes or whole schools away at a time. Sometimes the camps can be used rather for taking those children who are suffering from minor bad health, and who want building up, just as we are doing under our free feeding schemes at the present moment. Then, as I have already said, they can be let to boys' or girls' clubs, and I see no reason why they should not be let to industrial firms for their employees, or to trade unions. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, asked me for particulars as to how they would be built, and who would be responsible for them. As I have said, the corporation will build them and will manage them. They will let them out either to local education authorities or voluntary associations who may be prepared to take them.

As to finance, there will be no question of a Government grant, because they will be financed entirely by the Exchequer and the Exchequer will attempt to recover interest on 50 per cent. of the money that is invested in them. With regard to how they are run for the purpose of school camps, I am hoping to issue a circular—I have not yet decided what form it should take—containing suggestions to local education authorities, but I shall hope that they will use them only as suggestions. I am quite sure that the less the teachers when they are away for their fortnight's camp think of education in the terms of any possible Board of Education regulations, so much the better value they are going to get out of the camps. I think the camps have got to be something quite apart from the ordinary school life, if the children are going to get the best use out of them.

Perhaps I might say a word about the question that obviously has been most exercising your Lordships' minds, and that is the question of employing unemployed labour on their construction. I think there is no question that obviously the quickest and cheapest way of erecting these camps is to put them out to contract, but, as noble Lords have said, there are other considerations. Noble Lords have made it clear that the question which at the present moment is most exercising our minds, in terms of home politics, is this question of the appalling deterioration of some of our younger people who are unemployed, especially in certain areas. I think that if we could find it possible to do something to utilise the services of these young men in the construction of the camps we most certainly should do so, and I can give your Lordships a very definite assurance that that particular question is receiving serious consideration at the present moment. But I hope we shall not deceive ourselves into thinking that there is any point in doing it in regard to this comparatively small camp scheme unless it is going to be done in regard to a great number of other things. That would be playing with the problem, and there is no reason whatever for picking out camps—and I speak as rather an enthusiast for camps—to carry this burden of great expense and rather less efficient labour. I should be very sorry to find it thrown up against camps that they were too expensive to construct if this particular form of labour were utilised. Therefore I think we should realise that this is a general question which is being raised here, but one which has its particular reference to camps.

I hope your Lordships will agree that this idea of a public utility corporation is really the best way of dealing with the problem. I think you will agree that it is very much better than the Government carrying it out directly. Your Lordships probably also agree that it is better than just offering grants to induce various local authorities and voluntary associations to carry out the building themselves. I am sure that it is very much better to do it this way if there is any attempt to do it on a large scale. It must be cheaper and it must be very much better to have a planned development from the beginning. I think it would be most undesir- able to have all these different authorities and voluntary associations competing for the best sites and bidding each other up, and I think it is very much better from the point of view raised by the most reverend Primate—the question of so choosing these sites and so planning their development that we shall be quite sure that the camps will fit into the life of the countryside. I was very glad that the most reverend Primate raised that question, because I believe it is one of absolutely vital importance.

Your Lordships will have seen the report on this subject issued by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, a report which was, I think, immensely valuable, and I can assure your Lordships that we are keeping in touch with that body on this subject. We are also in touch with various architectural bodies, and I am glad to say we are likely to receive assistance from them in the planning of these camps, because it is absolutely vital if the camps are going to be successful that they should be put down in a form that is acceptable to the countryside. We do not want them imposed on the countryside as unwelcome excrescences, we want them to be welcome in order that the children when they go there will have an opportunity of really learning something of country life and finding that they receive a welcome from people who are already fortunate enough to live in the country. As a matter of fact it is quite surprising when you come down to what is needed in a camp for 350 children, how little space you are going to take up. They will be constructed on the dormitory principle, and therefore your Lordships will realise that it really does not mean very many huts to construct dormitories for 350 children. Then of course there are the central buildings.

One noble Lord I think Lord Astor, asked me whether we are going to try to buy any old country houses as centres for these camps. The answer is that so far as we can we will. To begin with that would mean less new building in the countryside; and moreover they would provide most useful centres, with a great number of necessaries, water, light, and washing and cooking facilities, which would be of very great assistance. I have endeavoured to answer all the questions that have been put to me. The general impression left on me by this debate is that your Lordships feel, as I feel, and my colleagues in the Government feel, that here we are starting a very great social experiment. We are doing so because it has been conceived out of a tragic need for war preparation, but that is no reason why we should not apply ourselves to seeing that we get the best value out of it for the permanent constructive purposes of peace.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, I hope your Lordships feel that this discussion has been worth while. I should like to thank the noble Earl who has just spoken on behalf of the Government for the sympathetic way in which he has received suggestions and various points of view, and for the sympathetic way in which he even welcomed criticism, because he realised that, so far as any of the speeches were critical, they were critical of the pace and not of the policy. I feel confident myself that in him we have a Minister who would welcome vigorous pushing from behind, so that he should be able to indicate to his colleagues that there was behind this proposal a very general desire expressed by noble Lords, speaking from different points of view, all of a very representative and authoritative character and displaying a singular unanimity in their willingness to support the Government in the policy which has been indicated.

The noble Earl defended the comparative smallness of the Government proposal on the ground that much of it was experimental. Now there are two sorts of use to which these camps could be put. Some of them have been proved, they are past the experimental stage, and we do not have to repeat experiments the value of which has already been proved. Therefore I hope that too much importance will not be given to that aspect. I agree entirely—in fact I indicated myself, I think, in my opening speech—that there are some uses to which these camps can be put which are entirely experimental, and I think the Government are absolutely justified in feeling their way. I gathered from what the noble Earl said, that the public body which is to be set up is going to be given a reasonably free hand. It is quite obvious that a camp that is to be used only for accommodating school children would probably be of a different character from a camp— I am using the word "camp," but I do not want to be tied down to the conception of a hutted camp—which would be used perhaps for adults in connection with holidays with pay. I welcome the support which has been given to that suggestion. After the discussion to-day those who have made a certain protest in public against the use of these camps in this way will, I think, realise that their livelihood is not in danger, and I hope very much that the public body which is to deal with this matter will be given a reasonably free hand in constructing a certain number of these camps so that they may be available for a real experiment for those adults who for the first time are going to have a holiday with pay.

I am sure the noble Earl will realise that it is important that a statement of policy should be made because I understand local authorities are empowered at the present time, under an earlier Act, to make provision for such an experiment. It would be a great pity if the local authorities were to compete against each other either in the acquisition of land or with the central body in catering for the needs of workers on holiday with pay. If this public body can acquire land, as I understand it is to have compulsory powers to do, it is worth considering if this land might not subsequently be administered by the local authorities.

The part of the noble Earl's speech to which I listened with greatest care and greatest satisfaction was that part in which he indicated that the Government were prepared to consider sympathetically the use of these camps—particularly their construction—in order to rehabilitate these unemployed who, very often through no fault of their own, have been out of work for a considerable time. The noble Earl indicated that the enrolment of the unemployed for the construction of these camps might be quoted as a precedent in other directions. That does not frighten me at all. There is a great deal of work of a public character which can be done, and I welcome the hint thrown out by the noble Earl that the Government visualise the possibility of utilising the unemployed for this special purpose. This debate was worth while in order to get that indication of policy if for nothing else. I am perfectly certain that the Government will find that they need not fear captious criticism. Let them show vision and courage, and they will get all the support that they require. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at six minutes before six o'clock.